Ant-Man (2015): Rotten Tomatoes Watch/Predictions - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]500431[/split]

 

[MyDudeSpidey]

Ant-Man Rotten Tomatoes Watch & Predictions Thread!

 

[The Question]

Ok well fair enough, that sounds like your dislike of RT or similar is not about the actual reviews submitted by the various sites then, which is cool. I guess more the fact that people don't bother reading the reviews and just look at the main headline, whatever it may be.. 80%, or whatever. I think I understand ..

That's it in a nutshell. There's some other stuff to it that has to do with the nature of polling models and how RT isn't a very good one, but when it comes right down to it, th^t is the core of my ambivalence/dislike regarding RT.

 

[The Question]

JtheDreamer, you really haven't beed listening to what I've been saying, have you? I'm not attempting to marginalize the opinions of anyone who wrote a favorable review of Ant Man. I'm saying that Rotten Tomatoes and other similar websites use a very ineffective model for gauging public opinion about a film in a useful or meaningful way, regardless of how positive or negative the score is and regardless of what the film is, and that using websites like that to "prove" that a movie is good or bad and to judge the validity of someone's opinions about that film is inherently faulty and kind of missing the point.

 

[TheVision]

You dislike RT because Ant Man got a higher score than you expected. If it was lower you would be ok with it.

 

[The Question]

You dislike RT because Ant Man got a higher score than you expected. If it was lower you would be ok with it.

Incorrect. I dislike RT because it is a flawed polling model that guides discussion and critique of film in a bad direction.

 

[Vincanws]

Ant-Man Rotten Tomatoes Watch & Predictions Thread!

Still 80%!, weee

 

[JtheDreamer]

Still 80%!, weee

Math equations are "worthless" according to The Question. lol

 

[JtheDreamer]

JtheDreamer, you really haven't beed listening to what I've been saying, have you? I'm not attempting to marginalize the opinions of anyone who wrote a favorable review of Ant Man. I'm saying that Rotten Tomatoes and other similar websites use a very ineffective model for gauging public opinion about a film in a useful or meaningful way, regardless of how positive or negative the score is and regardless of what the film is, and that using websites like that to "prove" that a movie is good or bad and to judge the validity of someone's opinions about that film is inherently faulty and kind of missing the point.

It's certainly showing you're the minority and as evidenced by your relentlessness, the minority is always the loudest.

This whole conversation is so ironic though. You're sitting there telling everyone their majority opinion of the movie being fine is wrong, but you feel you're being picked on when people tell you your minority one holds no weight.

 

[The Question]

It's certainly showing you're the minority and as evidenced by you relentlessness, the minority is always the loudest.

I'm the minority what, exactly? I'm the minority in thinking that it's absurd to shout down anyone who dislikes a movie you like (or likes a movie you dislike) as a troll and then use a website like RT as "proof" of how they're wrong?

This whole conversation is so ironic though. You're sitting there telling everyone their majority opinion of the movie being fine is wrong, but you feel you're being picked on when people tell you your minority one holds no weight.

I never said that the opinion of the movie being fine is wrong.

I said that saying people's opinions of movies are either right or wrong is missing the point. I said that holding a negative opinion of any movie has no more or less weight than holding a positive opinion of any movie. I said that general favorability of unfavorability of a film with the public, wether real or perceived, does not lend weight or credibility to the notion that any given movie is good or bad.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I'm the minority what, exactly? I'm the minority in thinking that it's absurd to shout down anyone who dislikes a movie you like (or likes a movie you dislike) as a troll and then use a website like RT as "proof" of how they;re wrong?

You've been claiming up and down that this movie could have or should have been better and giving no proof other than generic, almost existential responses why. Furthermore you've been insinuating that the "majority" are only reading %'s instead of the reviews along with them.

You can dislike the movie all you want. It's the way you're going about proving your point.

I never said that the opinion of the movie being fine is wrong.

I said that saying people's opinions of movies are either right or wrong is missing the point. I said that holding a negative opinion of any movie has no more or less weight than holding a positive opinion of any movie. I said that general favorability of unfavorability of a film with the public, wether real or perceived, does not lend weight or credibility to the notion that any given movie is good or bad.

Things the minority say. We get it already.

 

[The Question]

You've been claiming up and down that this movie could have or should have been better and giving no proof other than generic, almost existential responses why.

No, I haven't. I have said several times that some people are of the opinion that the movie could have been better, and that it is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. I never said I was one of those people. I've never spoken about my opinions on the film itself, mainly because I do not have any yet.

Furthermore you've been insinuating that the "majority" are only reading %'s instead of the reviews along with them.

Again, I have not. That's not even relevant to my point. What the "majority" does when they read RT to get a feel for what a movie is like doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying.

You can dislike the movie all you want. It's the way you're going about proving your point.

I never said I disliked the movie. I haven't seen the movie yet. What I dislike is echo chambers where people go to validate their opinions and dismiss anyone with a differing opinion as a troll, instead of engaging in an actual discussion where people try to understand each other's points of view better and learn from it.

The problem seems to be that you think I'm trying to prove a point that I'm not.

Things the minority say. We get it already.

Why does holding a minority opinion make your opinion less valid? Why does holding a majority opinion give you the right to be dismissive of what others have to say and tell them that what they think doesn't matter? Especially in regards to art, which is an intensely and inherently personal experience?

Did you even read my thing about empathy? I thought that was pretty good.

 

[Shikamaru]

Math equations are "worthless" according to The Question. lol

You write posts like this yet supposedly you're the uncondescending one.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The problem with RT scores is 2 reviewers can give the same film a 2.5/5 review and one is a negative while the other is a positive. Yes, it's up to the reviewer to make that choice but that is a flawed system. Also, as best I can tell it doesn't take much to become a basic reviewer for RT so some guy in his basement with no education on filmmaking has the some weight as critic who has been in the industry for years and actually knows what the hell they're talking about. Yes, they do distinguish between the more trusted "professional" reviews but as we have seen time and time again there are people out there who have a hate hard-on for Marvel films in general and do nothing but bash the films. I'm sure when DC/WB cranks up their films after awhile they will have their fair share of haters as well. The RT system is def flawed and sadly some of the GA will put weight into the RT score with little regard to any actual reviews.

 

[JtheDreamer]

You write posts like this yet supposedly you're the uncondescending one.

That's a fact. He more or less stated they're worthless when it comes to reviews of films.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I consider RT pretty worthless* myself though it can be entertaining to follow during a film's release. It's always fun to root for something and watch events unfold. However I value the opinions of other moviegoers more than binary yea/nay critic summaries, some of which don't even reflect the actual written review accurately.

*meaning the Tomatometer itself, not the reviews

 

[The Question]

That's a fact. He more or less stated they're worthless when it comes to reviews of films.

They are. You shouldn't be using basic math of adding up the "good" parts of a movie and subtracting by the "bad" parts to discuss the quality and worth of a film and the experience you had watching it. It's an inherently too nuanced and personal experience for that sort of approach.

 

[Leenie]

In terms of an actual grading system, RT is definitely flawed, and I can totally see how it aggravates a lot of people (especially people who critique for a living).

However, in a broad sense, I see how RT is helpful to regular, general movie-goers. If you merely rate a film based on "Do you like it or not? Yes or no?," then RT is a site for you.

When it comes to RT, I see both its merits and problems. In my opinion, it all comes down to how you personally rate a movie.

 

[JtheDreamer]

The RT system is def flawed and sadly some of the GA will put weight into the RT score with little regard to any actual reviews.

What do we care how much weight the GA puts RT scores?

This very thread is filled with people who read the reviews and follow the progress.

 

[JtheDreamer]

They are. You shouldn't be using basic math of adding up the "good" parts of a movie and subtracting by the "bad" parts to discuss the quality and worth of a film and the experience you had watching it. It's an inherently too nuanced and personal experience for that sort of approach.

It's to give an overall "sentiment" of the film, not something describing it in whole. This is what you completely fail to understand.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

What do we care how much weight the GA puts RT scores?

This very thread is filled with people who read the reviews and follow the progress.

Well, I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the GA are the ones that buy tix and make movies profitable. Therefore, if a film we like gets a crappy RT score and it turns off a good chunk of the GA then the chances for a sequel are less likely. I'm glad Ant-Man has such a good score but I am just pointing out the RT score system is flawed by it's very nature. I don't personally give a crap about RT but it's fun to follow the Marvel movies and see how they end up

 

[JtheDreamer]

Well, I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the GA are the ones that buy tix and make movies profitable. Therefore, if a film we like gets a crappy RT score and it turns off a good chunk of the GA then the chances for a sequel are less likely. I'm glad Ant-Man has such a good score but I am just pointing out the RT score system is flawed by it's very nature. I don't personally give a crap about RT but it's fun to follow the Marvel movies and see how they end up

You're not understanding what I meant. This thread is following the scores and the reviews that are accounted for, not the ones that may or may not have happened. The people who have been tracking it in this thread do a lot more than stare at %'s. What the GA does in it's own time is irrelevant to that discussion.

 

[The Question]

It's to give an overall "sentiment" of the film, not something describing it in whole. This is what you completely fail to understand.

I do completely fail to understand it, because I'm really not sure what you're saying here. You're saying that a way of giving a general sentiment of a film, and not describing it in whole, is to tally up every "good" thing about it and every "bad" thing about it and from that decide if the movie is good or bad? How is that not describing the movie "in whole?"

Earlier, what largely sparked this whole thing is that I disagreed with your statement about how any reasonable person who tallied up the good and the bad about this film would walk away with a positive opinion. Is that the stance you are taking?

 

[Frodo]

I don't personally give a crap about RT but it's fun to follow the Marvel movies and see how they end up

That's pretty much where i'm at as well. If I wanna see a film bad enough, I'll see it regardless of the score. However, I may use RT as one of many factors when I feel a film looks like its borderline , i.e. it could be either okay or bad.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I do completely fail to understand it, because I'm really not sure what you're saying here. You're saying that a way of giving a general sentiment of a film, and not describing it in whole, is to tally up every "good" thing about it and every "bad" thing about it and from that decide if the movie is good or bad? How is that not describing the movie "in whole?"

Earlier, what largely sparked this whole thing is that I disagreed with your statement about how any reasonable person who tallied up the good and the bad about this film would walk away with a positive opinion. Is that the stance you are taking?

The reviews themselves are for describing IN WHOLE. The %'s which you're fixating on is a sentiment. RT determines the ranking of that sentiment based on a threshold.

You took my comment of weighing the good vs. the bad as something that had to do with RT. I said nothing of the sort. I was talking about all things Ant-Man i.e. the reviews, the sentiment, the history of the production, the box office take, how the overall product turned out in the eyes of audiences/critics alike. Yet you managed to splinter off what I said and spin it into this existential everything is everything, nothing is nothing art is nuanced there is no way to know if a film is good or not. Yet somehow you were able to tell me that it's possible to know when a film needed to be "better".