Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Movies Television The Almighty Buck Entertainment

Movie Studios Are Blaming Rotten Tomatoes For Killing Movies No One Wants To See (qz.com) 316

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and Baywatch were never going to be critical darlings. Both movies led the domestic box office to its worst Memorial Day weekend showing in nearly 20 years. Quartz adds: In the fallout, are Hollywood producers blaming the writers? The actors? Themselves? (Of course not.) No, they are blaming Rotten Tomatoes. They say the movie-review site, which forces critics to assign either a rotten or fresh tomato to each title when submitting reviews, regardless of the nuances of their critiques, poisoned viewers against the films before they were released. "Insiders close to both films blame Rotten Tomatoes, with Pirates 5 and Baywatch respectively earning 32% and 19% Rotten. The critic aggregation site increasingly is slowing down the potential business of popcorn movies. Pirates 5 and Baywatch aren't built for critics but rather general audiences, and once upon a time these types of films -- a family adventure and a raunchy R-rated comedy -- were critic-proof. Many of those in the industry severely question how Rotten Tomatoes computes the its ratings, and the fact that these scores run on [the movie-ticket buying site] Fandango (which owns RT) is an even bigger problem," Deadline reported. [...] The site has a separate score that measures audience reception, which it displays next to the critic rating. And quite a few smell what The Rock is cooking -- 70% of Baywatch viewers on Rotten Tomatoes said they liked it. But the critic score is what many people look to when deciding whether to spend their hard-earned money at the cinema. Also read: Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Movie.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Movie Studios Are Blaming Rotten Tomatoes For Killing Movies No One Wants To See

Comments Filter:
  • Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:22PM (#54526747)
    Waaaah, we can't trick people into paying money to see these movies anymore by showing deceiving trailers with all the good parts. Waaaahhh.
    • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:08PM (#54527293)

      More or less. Prior to Rotten Tomatoes, our options for determining whether a film was worth seeing in theaters were all hit-and-miss. Most of us relied heavily on the tone and nature of the film's marketing to make those decisions, putting the control predominately in the hands of the studios. Every time they marketed a dud as a stud in order to profit from the gap between when a movie was released and when word of mouth spread about how bad it was, they made it clear that they valued our money more than our satisfaction.

      Rotten Tomatoes changed all of that by providing consistently credible scores from day one, which, for most of us, were a much better indicator for determining whether a movie was worth seeing in theaters. They're not perfect, but they're so much more reliable than what we had before that many of us have started checking Rotten Tomatoes before heading to the theaters for anything other than a sure thing. Naturally, the studios are displeased that they can't profit on that gap between the release date and when the public catches on to how bad the film actually is.

      Couple that with cheap rentals like Redbox or iTunes (as opposed to the expensive days of Blockbuster), subscription streaming like Netflix, and the dropping prices of big-screen TVs, and it's no surprise that people are skipping the theater experience when the film will be just as good/bad in a few months/years at home. When talking about upcoming films, my wife and I have even started saying, "That's a 'wait for Redbox' one" or "Maybe if it shows up on Netflix streaming someday".

      • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:32PM (#54527549)

        Yep, this is Hollywood complaining yet again that they don't control all the information. I still remember when "Gigli" came out and flopped, and Hollywood was pissed off that moviegoers were using their phones to text all their friends about how bad the movie was, saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that because it "disrupts our carefully crafted marketing".

      • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:41PM (#54527615) Journal

        Huh? I was watching Siskel & Ebert 30 years ago when looking for the good versus bad movies. Movie critics have been around almost as long as movie, and all Rotten Tomatoes did was bring a number of the better known or well-syndicated ones together to sort of give a statistical scoring.

        Also as old as movie critics is studios blaming movie critics for their shitty movies bombing. It's a tired complaint. Anyone who seriously thought a Baywatch reboot or yet another Johnny Depp pirate film were going to be smash hits ought to be forced into early retirement.

        • But S/E could only rate so many movies; I think the show was on about once a week if I remember right?

          In the meantime if you wanted to see any other movie, you were mostly in the dark or relied on one or two reviews.

          But the best aspect of RT is I can see divergence (if any) between movie critics and the people actually seeing the movie. That has been really valuable a number of times as sometimes my own feelings about a movie diverge from the RT critics average scores...

          • by Calydor ( 739835 )

            Sometimes you just want 110 minutes of braindead popcorn munching rather than French film noir. A rating for "Good to watch once" is what I look for.

            • by nasch ( 598556 )

              The idea that film critics only like artsy or foreign films is outdated if it ever had any validity at all. For example, here's Siskel & Ebert's very favorable review of Terminator 2: https://youtu.be/-Gy1rEs-r3g?t... [youtu.be]

              • Re: Translation: (Score:5, Informative)

                by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @04:18PM (#54528657) Journal

                For chrissakes, a quick review of Ebert's Top Films shows while he clearly loved Werner Herzog, he was also a big Spielberg fan. There's nothing artsy about Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark or Jaws, and yet both these films were among Ebert's favorite films ever made. For goodness sake, he even put Planes, Trains and Automobiles on that list (and justifiably so, it is an incredibly good film).

        • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

          I would also challenge the specific criticism critics are being unfair to raunchy comedies, fun family films, etc. over more complex films--and that's why these movies scored so poorly.

          A good critic takes into account what a movie is trying to be and who it is aimed at when writing their review and figuring their score. No critic in their right mind is going to hold a movie like There's Something About Mary to the same standard as The Godfather. So I'm sure most critics were comparing Baywatch to other simi

      • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DuckDodgers ( 541817 ) <keeper_of_the_wolf&yahoo,com> on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:36PM (#54528203)
        You're overthinking this. The real reason I'm not watching Baywatch or Pirates of the Caribbean 5 is that I spent a lot of money to watch Guardians of the Galaxy 2 and I'm about to spend money to watch Wonder Woman this weekend and The Mummy next weekend.

        If either of those films or even the King Arthur disaster had come out in January or February, the only popcorn junky cheesefest competition was XXX: The Return of Xander Cage. They would probably have done twice as well then versus what they'll get now. As it is, April to September is neck deep in silly adventure and action movies. I'm going to skip plenty of films I might otherwise watch just because I don't have the time and money to catch them all.

        I don't even look at Rotten Tomatoes.
    • a movie has to be perfect or it gets buried. Lots of folks will turn off their brain when they watch a movie. I used to do it when I was a kid. When the crummy parts came up I ignored them and only paid attention to the good stuff. There's tons of movies I grew up with that I loved as a kid for just that reason. Sometimes it wasn't just crummy parts. As an 8 year old boy I didn't care about romantic sub-plots :).

      There's bound to be some stuff in a movie that isn't for everyone (which is a nicer way of s
  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:23PM (#54526761)

    Never mind that all they're able to do is either come up with sequels or prequels, or movies with brain-dead characters and insipid stories filled with impossible computer-generated action scenes.

    • by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:40PM (#54526963) Homepage
      Let's not forget about impossible physics as part of the plot.

      It's not only sequels and prequels, but poorly conceived remakes of ancient TV shows that were made in some earlier millennium. Or horrible remakes of classic sci fi (The Day The Earth Stood Still). Moves based on books that have no resemblance to the book the movie is supposedly based on.

      Action movies with adolescent dialog.

      New prequels of decades old movies, where the prequel isn't consistent with what it is a prequel to. Or changes the characters in the original movie -- or makes liars out of the heroes.

      Movies stretched into categories they don't belong in, as a form of false advertising. Clue: if it has vampires, warewolves, or magic, it probably isn't Sci Fi.

      The problem is that new movies rarely have anything new. There are a few good ones. But very few.

      I wouldn't mind a really good remake of a classic movie. (Forbidden Planet anyone?) Or a good prequel.
      • Let's not forget about impossible physics as part of the plot.

        ...

        I wouldn't mind a really good remake of a classic movie. (Forbidden Planet anyone?)

        A movie which depends on impossible physics as part of the plot....

        • All the sci-fi movies back then had completely impossible physics, except perhaps "Destination: Moon" (1950). I highly recommend that one; it's a rather boring movie really plot-wise, but the physics are really interesting considering it was made in 1950, well before the Apollo missions or even the Mercury missions. They got a lot of things right: zero-g, spacewalks, the transit time, the Moon's low gravity, etc. Watching it was like watching a movie about aviation made before the Wright Brothers.

      • I wouldn't mind a really good remake of a classic movie. (Forbidden Planet anyone?) Or a good prequel.

        Don't give them ideas... That was an awesome movie.

        If theres one impression I get out of modern Hollywood movies; its that they are specifically forbidden from making good movies, especially good remakes. Its as if there is some unwritten Hollywood law "Thou shalt not make good movies."

      • if it has vampires, warewolves, or magic, it probably isn't Sci Fi.

        I got your vampire Sci Fi right here [rottentomatoes.com] buddy!

        Naked vampires from space. Excuse me for a moment...

      • Moves based on books that have no resemblance to the book the movie is supposedly based on.

        The rest of your post is spot-on but I have to object to this one. There's nothing wrong with making a movie that's inspired by some book, but veers off in a very different direction. In fact, movies which attempt to be extremely faithful to the book usually end up being terrible; it just isn't that easy to shift a story between two such totally different media and still make it come out good.

        For evidence, I cite

        • King copywrites mostly airport novels, not many of his works are masterpieces (actually can't think of any). They don't adapt well to films because the story lines are cheesy, predictable, boring crap.

        • I sometimes wonder what it would have been like if Peter Jackson had had the budget and approval to make two 3-hour movies for each LotR novel (6 3-hour movies total).

          Seriously? After the mess of the Hobbit movies, you wonder what he'd have done?

          Think love triangle between Gandalf and Galadrial, with Saruman has a spurned lover, and imagine a 30-minute long CGI rendered single combat between Legolas and Sauron.

      • Or horrible remakes of classic sci fi (The Day The Earth Stood Still).

        They didn't set out to make a horrible remake. You could just say "bad movie" intead.

        Moves based on books that have no resemblance to the book the movie is supposedly based on.

        That doesn't automatically make a movie bad, either. A slavishly accurate adaptation of a book to film is probably going to be worse than any adaptation.

    • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:53PM (#54527127)

      Never mind that all they're able to do is either come up with sequels or prequels, or movies with brain-dead characters and insipid stories filled with impossible computer-generated action scenes.

      None of that even prevents a movie from being great. There are plenty of great movies based on previous IP, and even great movies with little to no story.

      I strongly disagree with the submitter's comment: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and Baywatch were never going to be critical darlings." That is bullshit. The first Pirate of the Caribbean movie had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 79%, so obviously a good movie can be made with this subject matter. And 21 Jump Street had a score of 85%, so obviously a movie adaption of an 80's/90's TV show can be a great movie.

      Either of these movies could have been great with a 70+ Rotten Tomato score. But they would have had to be good.

      • I think most people going to see Baywatch are not concerned with RottenTomatoes scores. They are there to see the shirtless guys or the bouncing girls.
      • The first Pirate of the Caribbean movie had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 79%

        Yes but it was the first one and showed a little creativity and risk taking. By sequel 5 or whatever they are up to they are just milking the same idea for profit. I suppose it's possible for it to actually be good but it's not likely. They deserve to be spanked

        Baywatch? How many times can you make a beach movie? You don't make a movie like this to compete with "My dinner with Andre"...

    • by pr0fessor ( 1940368 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:02PM (#54527217)

      I didn't even look at the rotten tomatoes rating and still wasn't interested in either of those movies because they have already been done to death.

  • by parallel_prankster ( 1455313 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:26PM (#54526793)

    While I agree there are some good movies that have poor Rotten Tomatoes ratings which makes me wonder if I missed a movie because of RT reviews, I would still consider them to be a pretty good indicator of movie quality. The studios are just mad that RT tells me what I need to know about crappy movies before I spend my money on them!

    • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:34PM (#54526891)

      While I agree there are some good movies that have poor Rotten Tomatoes ratings which makes me wonder if I missed a movie because of RT reviews, I would still consider them to be a pretty good indicator of movie quality. The studios are just mad that RT tells me what I need to know about crappy movies before I spend my money on them!

      I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...

      • While I agree there are some good movies that have poor Rotten Tomatoes ratings which makes me wonder if I missed a movie because of RT reviews, I would still consider them to be a pretty good indicator of movie quality. The studios are just mad that RT tells me what I need to know about crappy movies before I spend my money on them!

        I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...

        That's what I used to use IMDB for. The audience ratings are broken down by gender and by age ranges. While I don't strictly go by these ratings, I do factor them into whether I see a movie in the theater, wait for the Blu-ray, or wait until it's on HBO/Netflix. That is, until IMDB killed the movie forums. Now I use RT.

      • I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...

        I look at both. The problem with critic ratings is that critics look for somewhat different things in a movie than I do. The problem with audience ratings is they are doubly self-selected, as well as vulnerable to astroturfing. I find that looking at both gives me a really good idea of whether I'm going to like it: if both critic and audience ratings are high, I know I'm good. If either one is really low, I can be pretty sure the movie sucks. In other cases, I have to look closer, which means actually readi

        • I never look at critic's scores, just whether the audience liked it. Critics have a tendency to be windbags...

          I look at both. The problem with critic ratings is that critics look for somewhat different things in a movie than I do. The problem with audience ratings is they are doubly self-selected, as well as vulnerable to astroturfing. I find that looking at both gives me a really good idea of whether I'm going to like it: if both critic and audience ratings are high, I know I'm good. If either one is really low, I can be pretty sure the movie sucks. In other cases, I have to look closer, which means actually reading a sampling of both critic and viewer reviews. I do weight critic ratings/reviews a little more heavily.

          In the case of these movies, a 32% RT score is a strong negative indicator, but if the audience ratings are high, I might see it. I probably will see Pirates 5. Any RT score below 20% is a clear loser. I'll stay home if there's no better option.

          I have a seen a number of movies that critics decided were rubbish but that audiences loved. They keep analysing the quality of the acting, the depth of the characters, blah, blah, blah, and that is certainly important in some movies but sometimes it does not matter how a movie stands up to a Woody Allen classic masterpiece, you just want to see the Hulk bash the crap out of aliens ... or something ... even if the acting compares badly with the masterpieces.

    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      No, the gripe is a legitimate one. The way RT's scoring works, a mediocre movie that everyone agrees is mediocre will get a very low score, while a really bad movie which appeals to a small number of people will get a better score. A controversial movie will get a score in the middle, and the top end has the same problem as the bottom - scoring is more about agreement between critics than it is about how much the critics like or dislike the film.

      It's not a great system. Does anyone know why Rotten Tomato
      • Thats actually a good point now that I think about it. Generally, I dont go by the overall score at all. I read what most of the critics are saying. That usually tells me almost everything I need to know to either prepare myself for watching the movie or to not go at all.

      • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        It's utter rubbish and ignores the audience ratings. Bad movies have always gotten rubbish ratings from "critics". This is nothing new. I remember how the critics trashed ever original Star Wars movie.

        It's the audience ratings that are more likely to kill a picture.

        This is a good thing. Companies shouldn't be able to make money off of garbage that the customers don't even like.

  • translated: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:29PM (#54526835)

    we cant make sub par unfunny comedies and lame predictable dramas any more because people tell other people they suck! Give writers more creative freedom and things may turn around.

    • Re:translated: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:44PM (#54527007) Homepage
      They can't give writers more creative freedom. Nor directors.

      The problem is they are locked into a formula. If they're going to spend $500 Million to make a movie, then they have got to guarantee it will be a success and recoup the investment.

      So they can't take risks. Can't be innovative. A movie must follow one of Hollywood's formulas for success. And this is the very thing making movies bad.

      Here's another idea: How about a movie that doesn't cost $500 Million to make? Don't get a-list actors. Could there possibly be very good but unknown actors? Don't make the movie effects heavy. Do have a good story -- oh but that would require giving more creative freedom, which brings us back to the start.
      • The problem is also that they can't pay-off an aggregator and buy a good review.
      • Relevant movie to your post :
        https://www.rottentomatoes.com... [rottentomatoes.com]

        98% Tomatometer, so you cannot go wrong. ;)

      • there's gonna be tons of changes to any modern blockbuster to mesh with the Chinese market. Some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time...
      • Or, they could still hire a few A-list actors and just not go nuts on effects and executive producers. There is no excuse for it costing $500m now when it cost under $100m very recently.

        They should save the expensive effects for the movies that need it, like superhero movies that in the past had to be animation. And you don't need more than a couple A-list actors to make a good superhero movie. They're so caught up in fighting for the top selling movie that they forget to aim for a high profit margin on mul

  • Sobs (Score:5, Funny)

    by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:29PM (#54526837) Journal

    Boo hoo, I can't compete in the market place with a terrible product by taking advantage of the customers inferior access to information about it.

    Damn internet. Its so unfair

    • Re:Sobs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:46PM (#54527035) Homepage
      Dang Netflix! They can make a short one season TV series for 1/20 to 1/40 the cost of a major motion picture, yet it is more engaging than the movie. Each episode leaves you wanting to watch the next. It's just so unfair!
  • by Quirkz ( 1206400 ) <ross@quir k z . com> on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:32PM (#54526869) Homepage

    I looked up movie times on Google. It had a sidebar with a metacritic score that seemed low. I followed that and saw actual reviews, which were also (in the aggregate) pretty bad. Are all of those equally at fault?

    This is for Pirates 5, by the way. Part of the reason I looked is because Pirates 4 was already really disappointing compared to the first three, and Depp has been in a death spiral for years. That and the appearance of yet more dead/undead pirates (how many different ways is that even possible) in the previews had me seriously worried. If all of that hadn't already been hanging over the movie, I wouldn't have bothered to second-guess my impulse to just go down and watch it.

    I'll still see it, by the way, just put it off until it's on Redbox.

    • I actually had the chance to go watch a movie this weekend, which I rarely get due to having kids that don't do well with baby sitters.

      When I looked at what was available the two movies mentioned at the top were the two I considered. I ultimately decided to just stay home and watch some Netflix. I missed the fourth pirates movie because it hasn't hit Netflix yet, and so going to see the fifth one seemed silly, plus the wife would probably want to watch it as well. Baywatch looked funny as hell if possibly a

  • by RotateLeftByte ( 797477 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:33PM (#54526875)

    and the problem will go away.

    Simple really but Hollywood would rather make endless sequels and prequels.
    Is it little wonder that I gave up on going to watch them years ago, there really was very little worth watching that wasn't full of bangs, explosions and car chases OR a stupid plotless romcom.
    Where are films like "North by Northwest" these days?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:33PM (#54526879)

    Metareview sites such as Rotten Tomatoes have become so successful and influential because they've proven to be a reliable means for many people to avoid seeing shitty movies. Their methodology is of course imperfect and many movies fall through the cracks, but nonetheless I think Rotten Tomatoes wouldn't be successful if there wasn't a demand for it, and the reason that demand exists is that consumers are tired of the blatant abuses of movie producers phoning it in for easy cash outs and audiences carrying the burden.

    • I'll rent a shitty movie, or worse, wait to see it on TV, which makes it shittier by slicing and dicing to fit with the commercials and the 3 hour time slot. And most of the time, it is not worth it even then.

      Great movies don't always stand the test of time, good movies usually do, and rarely do bad movies last forever. Most movies are forgettable. And people have figured that out. It isn't worth $50 date night for a bad movie, bad popcorn and flat soda.

  • Distributers should stop distributing crap movies. God, stop focusing on special effects and tits and focus on story. It's not hard. Here's a shitty story but hilarious movie: Dumb and Dumber No one thinks it is an Oscar contender but you know what, it's 66% on rotten tomatoes. And you know what. If it were not funny it would probably be 10%. What movie at my local theater has me most excited? They play classic movies on weekends and I might go see The Holy Grail. Why? it's funny. Stop giving us S
  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:37PM (#54526931)

    Wonder Woman has a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. What studio is going to complain about that?

    http://www.thewrap.com/wonder-woman-has-a-higher-rotten-tomatoes-score-than-any-other-dc-or-marvel-movie-so-far/ [thewrap.com]

  • by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:39PM (#54526959)
    Review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are incredibly useful... yet also promote groupthink and over simplify the value of a film. I've really enjoyed some films that most critics panned, and I've really disliked films that most critics adored. By distilling the value of a film down to a fresh/rotten percentage (much like Siskel and Ebert's thumbs up or down system of yore) it encourages people to stop there and not read the reviews to find out what does or doesn't appeal to the reviewers.

    Now, applying this logic to the apparent failure of yet another 'Pirates' movie seems like a major stretch. As for Baywatch, I don't know.
    • Indeed. I think scores like Rotten Tomatoes provides are useful; however, it's not the whole story. I wouldn't see/not see a film based purely upon it's ratings. I've like films Rotten Tomatoes called rotten, and hated films it loved.

      We're all individuals and none of us will always like what the mainstream always like.

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Which is exactly the point. Not everyone is, or wants to be, a movie buff. A lot of people just go "what's in the theater today?", knock out anything they've already seen and look for a quick ranking of the stuff that's left. They don't want to spend 3 hours scanning through every pissant's comment (or even real critic comments) to decide whether or not they should watch a 90 minute movie.

  • by evolutionary ( 933064 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:40PM (#54526961)
    They gotta blame somebody. Not that I always agree with rotten tomatoes, but 80% of the time I do. and if not Rotten Tomatoes, I look in local magazines ("Now" magazine is a popular free website/publication). Also Rotten Tomatoes is a metasite compiling results of other reviews so, the movie producers can blame movie reviewers in general. Of course that is the review's JOB. It feels little like Trump blaming the media for making him look bad with "fake news". (A lot of is is actually true..)
  • One small problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:41PM (#54526981)
    I'm entirely unsympathetic to movie studios' distress over the idea that consumers are using the tools available to make informed choices. However if Rotten Tomatoes is able to sink movies with bad reviews why are Michael Bay's Transformers movies still a thing that exists?
  • by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:43PM (#54526997) Homepage

    and if you don't change with them then maybe you're the one wrong. This has Skinner meme written all over it.

  • Here's what you can do Hollywood. Start treating your high budgets for what they are when done correctly. Start making moving pictures .... ART! You know what, people will appreciate a well shot film with a good story whether it be a comedy, horror or drama movie. When you focus on the business risks and all that other crap you forget that you are artists. What you have become are dollar whores. I have very little respect for Hollywood in general and mostly respect movies that are shot with Art in min
  • Fixed that for you (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Movie goers Are Blaming Rotten Studios For Making Movies No One Wants To See

  • I can imagine a scenario where Hollywood starts making lots of really good quality films, and half the reviews on rotten tomatoes are still bad because of higher expectations caused by all the great new films and relative grading (i.e. on a curve).

    I can also imagine in this situation that people will be willing to go see more movies, because they find that they thoroughly enjoy even the movies that got mediocre scores on rotten tomatoes.

    How about that Hollywood? Make better movies. I get that the public d

  • Same as last one (Score:5, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:54PM (#54527135) Homepage Journal

    32% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

    The previous Pirates movie also got 32% and grossed over a billion dollars.

    http://screenrant.com/worst-re... [screenrant.com]

  • by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @01:57PM (#54527171)
    Ever since I wasted a couple hours of my life watching Manchester By The Sea. That movie was terrible and I was hoping the whole time that the ending would redeem it and make it worthwhile based on the super high rating that it had on Rotten Tomatoes. Instead it had the weakest ending I think I've ever seen.
  • I never really though of the Pirates franchise as "raunchy R-rated comedy", but surely a movie based on a prime-time TV show wouldn't fit that definition either, right? (And that couldn't possibly have anything to do with poor box office.)
  • Remakes/Reboots are getting old. There are volumes of great tomes from acclaimed authors ripe for the big screen. Yet studios think some raunchy 90's tv remake into a movie is somehow worthy of movie goers? And maybe, just maybe Disney just found out how far it can take the whole pirate movie franchise.

    Sounds like RT tells it like it is and is the litmus test of what general audiences think.
  • Yup, definitely time for Hollywood (or Bollywood or wherever they are making their trash nowadays) to do a remake of Tequila Sunrise (just joking). . . .
  • I don't see (in that article) any evidence for the case that reviews are actually a part of the problem here.

    I don't need to read a single review to know whether I want to see more PoC (seen too much, over it) or Baywatch (over it 20 years ago).

    Using existing IP to churn out film after film is not a safe bet. At some point, audience interest saturation will be reached. Very little could convince me to go and see most of the retreads out there these days. I've already seen most of them half a dozen times ove

  • Who in their right mind listens to to Rotten Tomato ratings? Every year is is like dozen black and white french films that get 100% along with a few Hollywood films that are equally as horrible. What gets high rating on Rotten Tomatoes appears to about .1% of the moving going audience. Anyone who pays attention to reviews knows that a Rotten Tomato is in no way indicative of your viewing pleasure.

  • So I don't put much stock into rotten tomatoes. I've looked up movies that I love and many have crap ratings even though I was entertained. To me if it receives a low rating I just consider it more niche and with less wide appeal. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad movie.

    I've also hated plenty of movies with high ratings.

    If rotten tomatoes does have an effect maybe they should blame this on something more fundamental such as lack of critical thinking and independent thinking.

  • 28% rotten Batman v Superman had horrible critical response and netted $330 US boxoffice $873 million worldwide.

    25% rotten Suicide Squad earned $325 million in the US and $725 million worldwide.

    The truth is that audiences will go see your movie if they want to regardless of the critics. Pirates has been on a steady decline since the first movie and no one really cares any longer and a raunchy adult comedy spin on Baywatch completely ignores why it was so popular in the first place.
  • "They say the movie-review site, which forces critics to assign either a rotten or fresh tomato to each title when submitting reviews, regardless of the nuances of their critiques, poisoned viewers against the films before they were released."

    I agree with Hollywood. This new way of forcing reviewers to choose good or bad gets two thumbs down from me.
  • An ideal rating system would have a flat histogram across all movies and across all critics, but Rotten Tomatoes' is not flat [tumblr.com] (see the second graph on that page) and so it's just downright clumsy. It's amazing that it works at all!

    And when a critic likes or dislikes two similar movies, I want to see which one he or she likes more, but the fresh/rotten criteria prevents that. Even a 5-star rating system doesn't have enough precision much of the time.

    This is why movies should be rated not in isolation but aga

  • Should we blame the Internet?
    Or blame society?
    Or should we blame competition from TV?

  • For me, it's all of the inflated reviews that are killing the movies for me. There was a time when you could trust the RT reviews (within reason). But some of the worst movies I've seen, in recent years, were all in the high 90s on RT. All the hype, marketing and junkets had led me to wait a year or so before finally watching a movie. By then, things have settled down, and you can get a true idea for how you'll like a movie, from user comments (and rarely ever, professional reviews).

  • Baywatch lost me as a potential viewer when the ad for it includes a scene of The Rock taking a dick-pic of a corpse...

    Make better movies Hollywood.

  • I get tired of movies (and TV shows) with silly improbable plots. All of the technobabble that doesn't even make sense to non-technical people. Plots that NOBODY would do. The good guy with an AK-47 disabling a computer system by inserting a USB stick in some hole in a completely improbable place instead of just putting a round or two in the main CPU. The hero runs all over the place trying to fix something they should just ignore, or the bad guy is coming and they get OUT of their car and hide! The go

  • They have a point, the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer critic score is "31%" for Pirates of the Carribean with an average critic score of 4.7/10, while the audience score (percentage of users that rated it 3.5 or higher) is 71% with an average rating of 3.8/5 (equivalent to 7.6/10)

    Since most people aren't critics, it seems that they'd be better served by the Audience Score rather than the more critical Tomatometer which is the score that's more heavily promoted on the site.

  • For many years, studios would pour fortunes into promoting movies via newspaper and TV ads. Today, young people, who are the primary moviegoers, are less likely to read newspapers or watch TV shows at their scheduled times, if at all. So now, studio marketing increasingly focuses on the Web, with trailers, coupons, interviews, and more. I can find movies that interest me, and check the RT score for movies when they come out. The studios, of course, want you to buy tix in advance so that you won't be influen
  • Movie tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:53PM (#54527719) Homepage Journal

    We should all pay a special movie tax to the government, even if we don't see any films. Then redistribute that money to Hollywood, even if they make bad films. Because we as a society should bend over backwards to support failing business models that cannot adapt to change.

    Cons: we pay an unnecessary tax.
    Pros: we don't have to actually waste our time watching the bad films.

  • To be fair, RT often slaps poor ratings on comedies that the fans of the genre still find to be entertaining and worth of watching.

  • Waaaa, we can't come up with anything new so we keep regurgitating the same crap over and over again, or spit out remake after remake! What do you expect to happen Hollywood? Eventually consumers are going to get tired of watching Pirates of the Caribbean XVI, or the latest remake of some classic movie! Oh, and don't get me started on Transformers XXXI or whatever number this next stupid Michael Bay flop is. Of the last three movies I watched, two were from Marvel Studio, and the third was a Quentin Tarant
  • DMCA 2.0 will ban bad reviews!

  • So, there isn't the slightest possibility that (a) the movie really was crap, (b) the cost of making it was overblown, (c) prices to see it in-theater are outrageously high, and (d) more and more often, one's home system, which isn't being managed by bored, narcissistic teens, provides a better experience?

    Or are they saying that they know that all the above is true, and their business model depends on people not knowing going in that they're about to have an expensive, lousy experience? Because that's what

  • by Notabadguy ( 961343 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:06PM (#54527863)

    I've been an avid user of RottenTomatoes since its inception - and I'd like to think that I've saved a lot of money over the years as my wife and I are both avid movie-goers - we use it to dodge some real turds.

    But over the last couple of years, I'm increasingly starting to feel like RottenTomatoes is losing its relevance. It used to be that audience reviews were within a few percentage points of critic reviews. Now...its like critics go out of their way to dislike anything that isn't an indie-film documentary, and don't write reviews that align with anything the movie-going public might think.

    Baywatch is a prime example. 17% critic review, 70% audience review. What kind of bullshit is that? What value is a critic, or an aggregate site like RottenTomatoes if the work they are doing doesn't reflect what a movie-goer might think of the film?

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:26PM (#54528085) Homepage

    They are not the same thing.

    Movie Critics as a whole tend to ignore/poorly rate certain types of movies (comedies, action) while excessively praising certain other types. (Documentaries, drama). This is a separate issue than Rotten Tomatoes. I would agree that the movie critics need to fix how they grade movies. Among other things, they should be forced to bell curve, WITHIN categories. That is they should rate action movies only in comparison to other action movies, and give the best one of the year a 5 star rating, even if they did not like it as much as the documentary about how horrible murder is.

    Rotten Tomatoes is another, separate issue. It is a great informational site, and they are complaining about it being GOOD at it's job, rather than bad it's job. They are in no way to blame for the scores the critics give and should not be blamed if movies do poorly because no one wants to see a piece of crap.

The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding

Working...