And I said before, why shouldn’t they? Pixar’s films are almost all universally praised, which logically would remove them from your “fucking CGI pieces of shit” label, and thus voiding half your argument. Several of Dreamwork’s films fare no worse than average review, with several scoring quite high, as mentioned prior (though they have had some failures as well).
This seems like a weak argument, and one that appears contradictory to what you stated prior:
Ok my bad we were talking about Shrek so I meant to imply any movie released by Pixar and then that started me thinking about DreamWorks but I meant any CGI movies released by those studios, but I forgot to say that. Yes I know about the positive reviews I think though that when people are sitting in the movies watching previews as soon as Pixar or Dreamworks they are ready to see the movie before they even know whats its about. I don’t think there is any way all their movies can possibly be that good. I don’t watch them all but I’ve watched some.
To elaborate upon my previous points, here is a consolidation of the Rotten Tomato scores for all the CGI releases of both Pixar and Dreamworks studios.
Pixar:
Toy Story: 100% (Fresh)
Toy Story 2: 100% (Fresh)
Finding Nemo: 98% (Fresh)
The Incredibles: 97%
Monsters Inc: 94% (Fresh)
A Bug’s Life: 91% (Fresh)
Cars: 76% (Fresh)
7/7 movies that a majority of critics agreed were good. In fact, with the exception of Cars, 9/10 critics rated every one of Pixar’s movies favorably.
Dreamworks:
Shrek: 89% (Fresh)
Shrek 2: 88% (Fresh)
Flushed Away: 74% (Fresh)
Over the hedge: 73%(Fresh)
Madagascar: 55% (Rotten)
Shrek 3: 41% (Rotten)
Shark Tale: 34% (Rotten)
4/7 movies movies that a vast majority of critics agreed were good. Only two of the seven were looked down upon by fewer than 50%.
So what this amounts to are three movies, out of 14, that could objectively be considered “shit.” Hardly a bullet-point in favor of your argument.
*I chose Rotten Tomatoes as the source because I believe it to be the most objective method of determining whether a movie truley is “shit” or not, according to the mass of critics.
And I ask again: how is this different from any other genre?
As mentioned above, only 3 of the 14 movies released by both of the studios you cited could be considered “shit,” at least according to an averaging of critics’ opinions.
And who’s to say those who did see those three movies did not enjoy them? As I mentioned earlier, I really enjoyed Shrek 3, even if it is considered “rotten” by Rotten Tomatoes.
But that is my point even the movies that suck make a fucking assload of money, Madagascar was rated rotten but made a lot of money and they are planning a sequel, hmmm I wonder if the sequel to a movie that was rated rotten will make a lot of money too?
As I mentioned in my edit to the post above (which I can’t fault you for missing; I added it just before you made this post evidently), who’s to say those who did see those three movies did not enjoy them? As I mentioned earlier, I really enjoyed Shrek 3, even if it is considered “rotten” by Rotten Tomatoes.
In other words, why shouldn’t people see, and perhaps even enjoy, a movie even if it is rated poorly by critics. God knows I’ve enjoyed several films otherwise panned by the majority, and I’d be surprised if the case weren’t the same for you.
Ok but I thought you were using Rotten Tomatoes to place a value on whether the movies were “good” or not.
I was for the purpose of applying some objective opinion of the majority who thought a film was good or “shitty.” What definition were you using? You even conceded you hadn’t seen many of the films you lambasted as “fucking CGI pieces of shit kid movies,” so I could only guess you were basing it off critics reviews, as there’s no other reasonably objective criteria I can think of.
I have no problem using Rotten Tomatoes for our purposes here to define which movies are good I was just making sure that was what measure of good and bad we were using. But anyway my contention is that no matter what the CGI movies these two studios release, in the vast majority of cases they are by and large successful even when they are bad movies if we are using Rotten Tomatoes as the tool by which to judge them. I think moviegoers see these movies as the hip, trendy thing to go see and don’t really care whay they’re about. But you know that is my opinion, I can’t prove it to you.
And you base this entirely off of the three movies, of 14, that RT considers “rotten”? And may I remind you, only two of which scored less than 50%.
Despite this, the fact remains that I believe your argument is absurd. As you seem to acknowledge (and correct me if I’m wrong), people are entirely capable of enjoying movies, regardless of any (or all) critic’s review. So why does it bother you so much that people are seeing movies of which you consider to be “shit,” despite having not seen many of them yourself?
The fact that you seem to so blindly follow the critic horde bothers me more than your point of contention, though admittedly, I use the term “bother” very liberally in this case.
And I ask again, how is this different from any other genre of movie? I don’t think there’s a distinction between “CGI Kid films” and any other film, as you seem to believe there is. Particularly, as referenced earlier, a very small percentage of the movie pool you’ve referenced were rated poorly by critics.
Ok but we must use something to measure which movies are bad and which are good right? What other seemingly objective measure can we use. No I haven’t seen them all but I’ve seen more than just 3 or 4. Have you seen all of them? If you haven’t either then I don’t see any other choice than to use the critics from RT.
What I’m saying is your argument is inherently flawed. I’m not contesting RT’s use of being a quasi-objective medium; but even if it were to list all 14 of the films as “Rotten,” why would it matter if people went to see it or not?
But I digress, the fact remains that only three movies were rated “rotten,” and only two were rated poorly by more than 50% of critics. This doesn’t seem to jive with your original “every time one of these fucking CGI pieces of shit kid movies,” unless you meant “in all three instances,” which isn’t a very large sample to base any kind of argument on, imo. And assuming the movies were capable of being considered “shitty” (or rotten) by everybody, who can fault them for trying when the other 14 movies scored so highly?
My daughter wanted to see it so we went yesterday. I had heard it wasn’t very good, so with low expectations I enjoyed. I laughed out loud several times, thought Snow White’s superpowers were a hoot (they could have done better with Cinderella and Beauty) and enjoyed it. Wouldn’t have gone without kids (this was actually the only Shrek we’ve seen in a theatre).
The material is getting a little tired and they are to the point of milking the franchise. But it isn’t like there aren’t a ton of reviews that say “the material is tired and they are milking the franchise.”