Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-15-2019, 01:33 AM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474

dark Phoenix- seen = critics pile on job? A very watchable movie?


I see the reviews and keep watching this saying, ok at some point this is going to really start to suck I guess, but it never did suck, it was average to above IMO, nowhere near the class of Fantastic Four. No dull spots, IMO acting overall good, esp. Lawrence, McAvoy, Magneto. Solid opening scene, good death scene, sensible ending, standard superhero take over the world/destroy the world plot, no better no worse than Avengers plot. Phoenix interesting story, decent conflict, solid finale- what's to hate?
  #2  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:42 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,925
So, the best thing since Freddy Got Fingered?
  #3  
Old 06-15-2019, 09:27 AM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 42,572
Critics don't "pile on." They write their reviews independents when the see the movie, and never see anyone else's review until after theirs is complete.

If the critical consensus is that a movie sucks, then the movie sucks. You may be happy seeing a "standard superhero take over the world/destroy the world plot," but people who see a lot of movies want to see something more ambitious and, if you're going to use a cliched and well-worn story, you need to do something other than paint it by the numbers. If it's no better than the dozens of superhero movies using the exact same plot, why not just rewatch them?
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #4  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:01 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Critics don't "pile on." They write their reviews independents when the see the movie, and never see anyone else's review until after theirs is complete.

If the critical consensus is that a movie sucks, then the movie sucks. You may be happy seeing a "standard superhero take over the world/destroy the world plot," but people who see a lot of movies want to see something more ambitious and, if you're going to use a cliched and well-worn story, you need to do something other than paint it by the numbers. If it's no better than the dozens of superhero movies using the exact same plot, why not just rewatch them?

thanks, but was really looking for comments from people who saw it, you have not. Looks like no one has

My point is, this one is no better or worse than many others, including a few X-Men, hulk, Captain Marvel, Thor- etc.- not inferior to, as good as. So why the hate. And take it from someone from knows, actually knows not thinks he knows, just because RT doesn't post them doesnt mean critics dont know each other, talk. etc. and the last thing one of them, other than the contrarians want to do is publish is a glowing five star review and be the only one.
  #5  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:10 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
If you dont believe, here is simple proof- Toy Story 4's on RT have jumped in number from 36 to 74 to 90 in the last three days. If I am writing mine now, I have access to what at least 90 others think and wrote. Do you really think all reviewers get in room like the ACT and you have four hours to write it and turn it in? Do you understand the concert of 'critic screenings'? plus this one has one of the bigger gaps in disparity on RT critic v. fan- 23% to 64% currently- and most reviewers now are just average people who have seen a bunch of movies, agree- so basically fans right? So why one group of fans say 23% and another 64%? Why would pay matter, if it doesn't?

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-15-2019 at 02:14 PM.
  #6  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:21 PM
gdave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 202
I've seen it. It was a bad movie.

Characters just appear without even being identified, much less established as people the audience should care about. The same is true of plot elements, including the central point of the entire movie, the Phoenix Force (I don't think the movie ever actually explains how or why it merges with Jean Grey). Sophie Turner's performance is bland and listless - she seems to be just sleepwalking her way through the movie. Most of the other actors at least appear to be trying, but most of them don't have much to work with. It includes hackneyed cliches like a funeral in the pouring rain. The climax is a confused CGI mess with that provides no sense of scale, tension, or drama.

Of course, all of the above is merely my personal opinion. YMMV. But I think it's solidly in the bottom tier of modern superhero movies.

Last edited by gdave; 06-15-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #7  
Old 06-15-2019, 02:38 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdave View Post
I've seen it. It was a bad movie.

Of course, all of the above is merely my personal opinion. YMMV. But I think it's solidly in the bottom tier of modern superhero movies.
Thanks, this is what I was looking for, an unbiased review by someone who paid 12 bucks to see it, and not a reviewer with possible motive or agenda. Respect
  #8  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:09 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 19,564
Two things that clearly point to people, not critics, attitudes about this film.

1. In it's 2nd weekend it dropped 71%! That's a startling drop. Just wow. Critics don't cause large 2nd weekend drops. Word of mouth does.

2. It's CinemaScore is B-. Remember: Even junky horror films often get at least a B+. This measure is heavily skew towards B+/A/A+. Fans are fans.

This is the lowest CinemaScore of any X-Men movie.
This was the biggest 2nd week drop of any X-Men movie.
This was the lowest opening weekend of any X-Men movie.

To suggest that there is a critic pile-on going on is ridiculous. If anything they are being kinder than the above viewer data would suggest.
  #9  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:30 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,170
Everyone I know who has seen it said it was a dog. I haven't seen it myself because I trust their word on it and have other things to spend my time/money on.
  #10  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:32 PM
Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
If the critical consensus is that a movie sucks, then the movie sucks.
Which is how we know It's A Wonderful Life is a horrible sack of shit.

Ditto The Shining and Vertigo and The General and The Thing and Groundhog Day and The Thing and Groundhog Day and Touch of Evil and Predator and The Exorcist.

All utterly unwatchable and completely forgotten.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #11  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:24 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Two things that clearly point to people, not critics, attitudes about this film.

1. In it's 2nd weekend it dropped 71%! That's a startling drop. Just wow. Critics don't cause large 2nd weekend drops. Word of mouth does.

2. It's CinemaScore is B-. Remember: Even junky horror films often get at least a B+. This measure is heavily skew towards B+/A/A+. Fans are fans.

This is the lowest CinemaScore of any X-Men movie.
This was the biggest 2nd week drop of any X-Men movie.
This was the lowest opening weekend of any X-Men movie.

To suggest that there is a critic pile-on going on is ridiculous. If anything they are being kinder than the above viewer data would suggest.
Appreciate the response, but was looking for those who actually saw it and can think and critique independently- you have not seen correct? Anyone who saw and thinks it was a dog, independent of the reviews- absolutely fine.

Actually second week percent drop second worst ever, of any film, to one of the 50 shades films. But cite that critics could not have caused that? Critics, or word of mouth from those who have not seen it? Because the RT audience score is 64%, so the majority of people who actually paid to watch it, liked it. Compare that to the 18% approval from fans for the last Fantastic Four. No comparison, at all, between these two.

And you could not be more wrong about horror, which typically is a genre that has the most discriminate fans- bad horror usually gets C to F Cinemascore, with @10 of the 19 F's in history being horror. Universally praised "Us" has a B Cinemascore, as proof.

A "B-" indicates a good or slightly above average film, not a disaster. Which is my opinion- completely into it while it was on, glad I saw it, don't feel cheated out of 12 bucks but probably wont ever watch or think of it again.

A difference between reviewer and fan 23 to 64% is on the extremely high side- what would you, personally give as the reason that the average paying fan liked it, and the average reviewer thought it was a total disaster?

A large gulf between fan and critic, when the critic is high and fan is low, is common, indicating the film may have been mismarketed or too different or cerebral than what the average person wants- for proof, critically praised films like Solaris, Killing them Softly and Mother! all have cinemascore F's, would you say these are three of the worst films ever made? No.

A gulf in the opposite direction, like this, is rare- can you account for it?

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-18-2019 at 01:25 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:24 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
Thanks, this is what I was looking for, an unbiased review by someone who paid 12 bucks to see it, and not a reviewer with possible motive or agenda.
What makes you think gdave doesn't have a motive or an agenda?
  #13  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:33 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
What makes you think gdave doesn't have a motive or an agenda?
Well I take anyone on this board at their word without a reason not to. He or she is anonymous and only commented on the film when asked, and to another unknown poster on a little known message board, so I cant imagine what the agenda might be in this case?

As opposed to a reviewer whose comments will be read by millions, this has been read by a few hundred. So if gdave is one of the films' producers who got screwed out of a screen credit, there are better outlets for fake reviews- imdb comment section would have gotten 100x the reads than this.

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-18-2019 at 01:34 PM.
  #14  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:50 PM
planetcory is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 820
In these conversations, people always dismiss that they (or others) could possibly be influenced by cultural zeitgeist.

'It sucks because it sucks' and not because we're just not really into X-Men movies right now.
  #15  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:54 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
As opposed to a reviewer whose comments will be read by millions
That's not a motivation either, it's merely a soapbox. Reviewers are paid to give their opinion of movies - what additional motivations or agendas do they need to pan movies that they don't like?
  #16  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:01 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,170
I could care less what reviewers say about any given movie - but when you see a "97% fresh" rating oh one that comes in with tons of negative - it does give you an idea for how one will be recieved and how it will fare.

That being said - we saw it - and its just like every other x-men franchise movie out there - its simply nothing special. It is, literally, paint by numbers for the x-men franchise.

the reason for the drop in attendence from week 1 to week 2? This is the kind of movie that everyone that is generally interested in seeing it at the theatre will do it in the first weekend - and there were plenty of open seats for it. If it were truly special, word of mouth would have maybe helped it a second weekend.

And you know a movie's really not doing well when you have to start a thread here @ the SDMB asking "did anyone else actaully go see this thing?"
  #17  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:08 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
That's not a motivation either, it's merely a soapbox. Reviewers are paid to give their opinion of movies - what additional motivations or agendas do they need to pan movies that they don't like?
I don't know the current status, but there was a time when exactly one reviewer gave a negative to "Get Out", and I saw and read multiple interviews with him, strictly because of this. So for someone who wants the attention, a reason to be a contrarian. For an introvert, all the more reason to go with the flow.

Plus, "it was an average movie" does not get hits to your review site, and that is what often puts money in the reviewers pocket. The biggest piece of shit, ever! is more likely to be read (and quoted, and get you attention and $$$)than "decent flick".

Plus- gone are the days of there being ten movie reviewers total, all similar age and background- Ebert, Siskel, Reed, Shalit, Kael. etc.

A big movie now might have 300+ reviews, and looking at many of the photos beside the review, you see a large number of regular average people, young and old, all races- just like the average paying fan.

So if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% disparity? That is a HUGE gap for a film.
  #18  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:15 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
If you dont believe, here is simple proof- Toy Story 4's on RT have jumped in number from 36 to 74 to 90 in the last three days. If I am writing mine now, I have access to what at least 90 others think and wrote.
Yes, but most of the reviews which showed up on RT over the past three days likely weren't *written* during those three days; they were probably written days (if not weeks) ago, after the reviewers saw the film in preview screenings. They show up on RT when the reviews are *released*, which may well be days, if not weeks, after the reviewers saw the film and wrote their reviews.

This, and your thread on Ebert, suggest that you really do believe that reviewers conspire with each other to move the market. Just call me very skeptical on this.

Regarding Dark Phoenix: no, I haven't seen it, and no, I don't plan to. That said, I haven't read a single review of it, though I've noted that, generally, it's gotten bad reviews. I've been a fan of the X-Men franchise since I discovered the comic books 35 years ago, and Jean Grey is one of my favorite characters. And, I really really liked several of the X-Men films (the first two of the original series, and the first two of the "reboot" series).

I'm basing my choice to not see this film on several other factors:
- A good friend of mine, who's a lifelong comic book fan, and a screenwriter in his own right, saw it, and told me that he found it to be a hot mess.
- Of my superhero-loving friends who've seen it, not one of them has had anything positive to say about it.
- I saw the last X-Men film ("X-Men: Apocalypse"), and I felt that it was the second-weakest of any of the films in the franchise (behind only "The Last Stand"). More importantly, that film was Sophie Turner's first time playing Jean Grey, and I really didn't like her in the role -- I found her performance to be flat, and other than the red hair, she didn't look or feel like Jean Grey, IMO.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 06-18-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:24 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
kenobi 65, thanks for the comments. Conspire may be too strong a word, but I do think if the first ten published reviews for Dark Phoenix had been moderate, the current state of them in totality would be a bit different. Herd mentality if you will. Not glowing, but not in Fantastic Four category either, which this definitely is not- 64% fan score vs 18% FF.

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-18-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:45 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
kenobi 65, thanks for the comments. Conspire may be too strong a word, but I do think if the first ten published reviews for Dark Phoenix had been moderate, the current state of them in totality would be a bit different. Herd mentality if you will.
Again, you're proceeding from the assumption that the later reviewers ("later" being defined as "the date when their review gets posted to Rotten Tomatoes") are reading the earlier reviews before writing their own reviews, and allowing those to influence their evaluations (consciously or not). At least for professional reviewers (i.e., those working for media properties like newspapers, TV networks, etc.), I'm really skeptical about that idea. Maybe a few are, but I would suspect that would be the exception to the rule. As I understand the process, they go to a screening well ahead of the publication date of their reviews, likely write their reviews soon after seeing the preview, and then that review sits there, waiting to be published, until closer to the film's release date (i.e., when it becomes more newsworthy).

That said, in the social media era, when anyone with a webcam and a a pulse can make themselves into a self-styled reviewer, yeah, maybe some of those folks are reading other reviews first.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 06-18-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #21  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:01 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
kenobi 65, thanks for the comments. Conspire may be too strong a word, but I do think if the first ten published reviews for Dark Phoenix had been moderate, the current state of them in totality would be a bit different.
If it had been a better film, the first ten reviews probably would have reflected that.
  #22  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:12 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
If it had been a better film, the first ten reviews probably would have reflected that.
But if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% Rotten Tomatoes disparity?

The new Shaft has an even larger disparity, but that is a genre film. I haven't seen so cannot comment sensibly on its merits. But note that genre films like Shaft, Jackass type films, religious or political films, Tyler Perry's work. etc. are made largely for a target audience, and with the interests of that target audience in mind- and the average reviewer may not be in that target.

Superhero and similar big budget action are one the few type films that cross all boundaries- all ages, sexes, and colors go to these films. So why the disparity?

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-18-2019 at 03:13 PM.
  #23  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:14 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,851
I wouldn't call it bad, but it wasn't spectacular either. Certainly no Infinity War or Black Panther for sure.

But it wasn't an unmitigated turd either. It was not bad. It wasn't good either. It was ok. Better than staying home that particular Friday night, but I doubt I'll rewatch it when it's out on cable.
  #24  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:21 PM
Nauplius's Avatar
Nauplius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 268
I agree with bump. Not bad but not good either. It was a time filler, that didn't make me regret the money spent.
  #25  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:23 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
Superhero and similar big budget action are one the few type films that cross all boundaries- all ages, sexes, and colors go to these films. So why the disparity?
IMO, superhero movies are *totally* genre films, as are sci-fi, fantasy, etc. A small number of them may actually be pretty darned good filmmaking, as well (e.g., Wonder Woman), but they're generally made to appeal primarily to fans of the genre, rather than a broader audience.

Professional reviewers have to review genre films as well as "general audience" films, and some of them may not necessarily enjoy (or really understand) the genre that they're being asked to review (and that may come across in their reviews). Meanwhile, most theatergoers who go to see genre films are doing so fully knowing what to expect out of the film.

That's why, I think, many genre films (particularly for established franchises) are pretty much review-proof -- their fans are, usually, going to go see those films, even if they get panned by the critics. That said, a truly bad film is going to tank, even if it's a genre film for a beloved franchise (e.g., the last Fantastic Four film), just as a truly well-done (and critically acclaimed) genre film will attract viewers who might not otherwise go to see a film in that genre.
  #26  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:26 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nauplius View Post
I agree with bump. Not bad but not good either. It was a time filler, that didn't make me regret the money spent.
I agree, so four people here have actually seen- one didn't care for it, the other three didn't love it but found it to be an average, watchable film.
  #27  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:33 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Which is how we know It's A Wonderful Life is a horrible sack of shit.

Ditto The Shining and Vertigo and The General and The Thing and Groundhog Day and The Thing and Groundhog Day and Touch of Evil and Predator and The Exorcist.

All utterly unwatchable and completely forgotten.
I see what you did there.
  #28  
Old 06-18-2019, 08:35 PM
Darth Sensitive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A
Posts: 2,552
Reviewers see lots of stuff. Good and bad.

I rarely see movies that I expect to be bad. Maybe movies my wife cares about more than me. If I bothered to rate on RT, the vast majority of my scores would be fresh, because I'm unlikely to see things I expect to be rotten. Movies cost time and money, so I'd expect the vast majority of audience members to in expecting fresh. I'd expect audience scores to be high (with the exception of things being review bombed).

I see no issue with critics scoring it lower than the audience. FWIW, I don't expect I would enjoy Dark Phoenix from the trailers and previous XMen movies, so I'm not burning time and money on it. If someone else bought my snacks and I was free, if go see it, but my potential review (which is likely though not guaranteed to be negative) won't ever show up anywhere.
  #29  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:44 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,309
"My name. Ummm… wow. Okay… It's…Phoenix… Phoenix Dark… Dirk… Phoenix… Dark Dirk. I was christened Dirk Steel and then I changed it to Phoenix…"
  #30  
Old 06-19-2019, 03:10 PM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,331
It wasn't great or even good but it wasn't even the worst X Men movie let alone the worst movie ever. It was fine.

And critics (and the Internet in general) definitely do pile on to movies. Some movies step out of the gate and the group think is that they suck. That may or may not have happened here but it happens. John Carter is an example or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
  #31  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:43 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 19,564
There is no group think among critics. They avoid reading each other's reviews, talking to each other about movies before they write their reviews, etc.

Many times the other critics' reviews just are not even available when it's time to write yours!

I remember an episode of Siskel and Ebert where they showed a behind the scenes thing where they went to a screening at the same time. Afterwards they were waiting for an elevator with a giant awkward pause. They pointed out that they don't talk about the movie they just saw. They didn't even know what the other was going to say ahead of filming their show.

And remember how many times they disagreed? E.g., the infamous Blue Velvet debate.

Critic pile-on is just nonsense. It is nowhere close to reality.
  #32  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:56 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
There is no group think among critics. They avoid reading each other's reviews, talking to each other about movies before they write their reviews, etc.

Many times the other critics' reviews just are not even available when it's time to write yours!

I remember an episode of Siskel and Ebert where they showed a behind the scenes thing where they went to a screening at the same time. Afterwards they were waiting for an elevator with a giant awkward pause. They pointed out that they don't talk about the movie they just saw. They didn't even know what the other was going to say ahead of filming their show.

And remember how many times they disagreed? E.g., the infamous Blue Velvet debate.

Critic pile-on is just nonsense. It is nowhere close to reality.
Cite that pile-ons both are not done, and not possible, in 2019 not 1989 when that show aired? Also it makes sense S&E wouldn't talk about something beforehand that they were going to talk about on a TV show- better on air that way perhaps?

Why on earth would an internet reviewer in 2019 purposefully avoid other reviews before writing theirs? What is there to gain by writing in a vacuum?

And this isn't the ACT, every critic on RT doesn't gather in a room, watch a film simultaneously, then get shuttled directly into another room to write the review and turn it in- 'no talking allowed or your review will be thrown out'

And it isn't, but even if your cite is "I'm a movie reviewer!", what you do isn't automatically what everyone else does.

Again, if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% Rotten Tomatoes disparity?

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-19-2019 at 05:00 PM.
  #33  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:14 PM
garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 11,373
If there's any groupthink going on It's the moviegoers who are looking past a terrible movie to justify buying a ticket or are rabid fans of one or more of the actors that can do no wrong.

I've also had coworkers with horrifyingly bad taste in movies that wouldn't be able to differentiate between Mac & Me and E.T.
__________________
o
  #34  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:22 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygnu View Post
If there's any groupthink going on It's the moviegoers who are looking past a terrible movie to justify buying a ticket or are rabid fans of one or more of the actors that can do no wrong.

I've also had coworkers with horrifyingly bad taste in movies that wouldn't be able to differentiate between Mac & Me and E.T.
Well wrong in at least my case- I had no intention on ever seeing this, not big on superhero film in general, but was invited and dreaded going after reading the reviews. Seen exactly one of the previous X-Men films, barely know any of the characters. Kept sitting there, thinking ok, this is going to start sucking at some point (the critics said so!), but it never did.

And yes IMDB user ratings are not perfect, but the rabid fan theory is not valid with this one- over 50% give it a 5, 6 or 7- meaning the average viewer found it to be an average or slightly above average film. With fan pile-ons, you see tons of tens or ones- not the case here.

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-19-2019 at 05:23 PM.
  #35  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:42 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
But if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% Rotten Tomatoes disparity?
In my experience, average moviegoers tend to grade on a curve. They paid money, they're hoping for a nice time, they wanted to like the film to justify their time and interest, they don't want to feel like they were scammed by a good preview (and terrible film), etc. I've often spent the day after seeing a bad movie thinking "Well.. it was okay" before realizing, in retrospect, that it was actually pretty awful.

Reviewers don't approach their films with the same mindset and are freer to see the film for what it is rather than a $12 investment of time, money and interest.
  #36  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:15 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
wrong thread

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-19-2019 at 07:16 PM.
  #37  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:41 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
Again, if the average reviewer nowadays is no different than the average paying moviegoer, why the 23% to 64% Rotten Tomatoes disparity?
Again: Fans are fans.

This is why CinemaScores are so high. This is why brand new mediocre "big" movies get instantly voted onto IMDb's All Time lists.

The True Fans love to vote high scores for the things they are fans of.

Note that this applies to franchise/genre stuff. If you see a good audience score at RT or IMDb for a small time film, it is much more reliable.

As to critic pile ons: Again, how are these critics managing to see a lot of other critics' reviews before they write their own? Causality does not work that way. Cite.

Are you claiming that the ethics and work procedures of critics are different now than from the 80s? And you're making this claim because ... ?
  #38  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:31 AM
planetcory is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 820
Critics are a part of a community. They're friends. They talk. They may not share their reviews in advance, but they certainly share their feelings as they walk out the latest screening. They shake their heads about the latest disappointing blockbuster while they're out for drinks. They're not sectioned off into separate panic rooms until release.

They're also writers and, in some ways, commercial artists. There's no heat in letting a mediocre movie be mediocre. 'Meh' doesn't get clicks and shares. They're absolutely going to amp up the negativity towards a movie they weren't impressed by. Because it sells.

Last edited by planetcory; 06-20-2019 at 08:33 AM.
  #39  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:48 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by planetcory View Post
There's no heat in letting a mediocre movie be mediocre. 'Meh' doesn't get clicks and shares. They're absolutely going to amp up the negativity towards a movie they weren't impressed by.
On the other hand, people aren't going to care about a critic who is consistently wrong (in their opinion) because each review is over the top with complaints that don't hold up to an actual viewing.
  #40  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:57 AM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Again: Fans are fans.

This is why CinemaScores are so high. This is why brand new mediocre "big" movies get instantly voted onto IMDb's All Time lists.

The True Fans love to vote high scores for the things they are fans of.

Note that this applies to franchise/genre stuff. If you see a good audience score at RT or IMDb for a small time film, it is much more reliable.

As to critic pile ons: Again, how are these critics managing to see a lot of other critics' reviews before they write their own? Causality does not work that way. Cite.

Are you claiming that the ethics and work procedures of critics are different now than from the 80s? And you're making this claim because ... ?
But we are speaking of this particular film, which doesn't have a large number of tens on IMDB (5-7 predominates) and doesn't have a great Cinemascore- in this case, all available fan data points to an average to slightly above average film, which is what 5 of the 6 people who posted here, who saw it, also say. This is not the type of film that has masses of people running to post tens or ones- check the imdb scores by percent for proof.

Also, psychology and statistical analysis says there are at least a few people who have read this post who think it was a *great* movie, but didn't post that out of concern for the possible insults and scorn that could result.

How could reviewers see other reviews before they post theirs- the internet?

Other than plagiarism, I am not aware of any set of rules for internet movie reviews, so not sure its a matter of ethics, or ever was. And I don't know what reviewers did then, and don't know what they do now. Many others here have claimed inside knowledge of the process of the movie reviewer, I do not. The claim I made is that unless you write and post yours first, you have ample opportunity via the internet to get to see what others have written, and there and no laws or rules against it.

In the 80's with like ten reviewers, very different in that a reviewer like Ebert had much more power- if he liked it and no one else did, everyone else must be wrong then! So he would be less likely to care what others thought, especially if he thought his opinion to be superior. Ebert would love to tell you why that shitty movie he liked (Speed 2!) was actually great, and why everyone else is stupid.

But now, you have at least 500 reviewers, none of which have a fraction of Ebert's audience. Zero national review shows on TV, and I doubt the average person could name one current reviewer. Many must know each other, and they love film obviously, and film lovers like talking about film with other film lovers, why would the fact they are reviewers keep them from doing so?

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 06-20-2019 at 09:01 AM.
  #41  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:25 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 19,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
How could reviewers see other reviews before they post theirs- the internet?
Um, huh? I mean, seriously, huh????

You a proposing that there is a vast conspiracy of reviewers who secretly share their views on movies for the express purpose of piling on movies.

And not all movies. Just certain ones.

There's a lot of movies out there that have RT ratings in the 40-60% range. A lot. So those are clearly not examples of piling on. And which of the movies with 80%+ ratings are pile ons and which are just good movies????

Note that there are 40 top critics who reviewed Dark Phoenix listed at RT. 7 of them gave it a positive review. Why don't these 7 "out" the other 33 as being in collusion? Were their reviews "plants" to throw people off? Note that if you check reviews for similar movies it's not the same 7 each time on the minority side. So there's no super secret anti-cabal either.

How does this super-secret cabal decide all this? Random lottery? How?

Were they psychic and picked this film because they knew you would be unhappy with their reviews?

This is really getting absurd.

Note there's a spiral in conspiracy theories. Someone points out an objection. Come up with a new explanation. How about this other objection? Then there's another new explanation. And on and on. If you keep having to keep coming up with explanations, you're doomed.

Sometimes things are just what they are. No additional explanations needed.

There will always be differences between critics and viewers in bulk. Esp. the noisy viewers who make themselves heard online.

Get ... used ... to ... it.
  #42  
Old 07-01-2019, 09:59 AM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 474
For those not in the know who so passionately argued it is NOT POSSIBLE for reviewers to know other reviews in advance, and even if they did, movie reviewing is such an honorable job, no one would ever let another review affect theirs!

For proof that theory is false, evidence A below from Rotten Tomatoes!

Men in Black International isn't the abomination that many critics are making it out to be... The problem with the film is that it's very lazy.
Jun 26, 2019 | Full Review…

Liam De Brn
Film Ireland Magazine

It seems reveiwer Liam here was aware of others when he wrote this! How?
Anyone care to step up and explain away that?
  #43  
Old 07-01-2019, 10:09 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
Men in Black International isn't the abomination that many critics are making it out to be... The problem with the film is that it's very lazy.
Jun 26, 2019 | Full Review

Liam De Brn
Film Ireland Magazine

It seems reveiwer Liam here was aware of others when he wrote this! How?
Anyone care to step up and explain away that?
Men In Black International was released on Jun 14. By the time De Brn's review was written all other reviews were public. Not all reviewers get to pre-screen movies, and not all reviewers see a movie just as it's released. There's nothing to explain here.
  #44  
Old 07-01-2019, 10:11 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,932
I'll just point out that that review was posted on June 26th, nearly two full weeks after Men in Black International premiered in most of the world. I don't know when it was released in Ireland, but it does seem like that reviewer did write his review well after the film had come out.

You are *so* looking for affirmation on your conspiracy theory. "Doesn't EVER happen" is not the same as "Doesn't regularly happen."

  #45  
Old 07-01-2019, 10:16 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,170
My comics geek and huge Jean Grey fan of a wife saw Dark Phoenix this weekend and said it was the worst movie she's seen since Jupiter Ascending.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017