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

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

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.

No, it's not irrelevant. The whole reason people want these films to have high RT scores is so that the GA who puts some stock into the scores will end up seeing the film. If that wasn't the case then why would anyone care about these scores? I'm a die-hard Marvel fanboy so when these movies get good scores it's icing on the cake for me but essentially meaningless in all other aspects. That seems to be the case with the majority of folks that are following along here in this thread. But I agree with theQuestion because he is right when he states that RT scores are a flawed methodology for determining if a film is good or not. Several films have low RT scores and are still big hits with the GA. It's that very reason Bayformers films are still going strong. But in a general sense RT scores serve a purpose by giving a rough approximation of the overall consensus of their "critics".

 

[JtheDreamer]

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.

Bingo. That's where some of these sites like RT have an effect. When it's borderline or when there is some kind of anomalous event nobody saw coming like Jurassic World.

 

[JtheDreamer]

No, it's not irrelevant. The whole reason people want these films to have high RT scores is so that the GA who puts some stock into the scores will end up seeing the film. If that wasn't the case then why would anyone care about these scores? I'm a die-hard Marvel fanboy so when these movies get good scores it's icing on the cake for me but essentially meaningless in all other aspects. That seems to be the case with the majority of folks that are following along here in this thread. But I agree with theQuestion because he is right when he states that RT scores are a flawed methodology for determining if a film is good or not. Several films have low RT scores and are still big hits with the GA. It's that very reason Bayformers films are still going strong. But in a general sense RT scores serve a purpose by giving a rough approximation of the overall consensus of their "critics".

They want them to have a high % on RT and scores on other sites not simply because they want people to see the movie. That's an oversimplification.

All that's been demonstrated is "in theory" where RT has flaws, not that the flaw(s) could significantly change the overall result of the sentiment for each individual film, which is displayed in %'s.

 

[JtheDreamer]

This conversation is almost pointless because the poster who was originally perpetrating the argument against RT and suggesting the movie could have been better hasn't even seen the movie. So now this thread has derailed into Rotten Tomatoes policies, which I'm willing to guess has happened many times over on SHH over various CBM threads.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

They want them to have a high % on RT and scores on other sites not simply because they want people to see the movie. That's an oversimplification.

All that's been demonstrated is "in theory" where RT has flaws, not that the flaw(s) could significantly change the overall result of the sentiment for each individual film, which is displayed in %'s.

That's not an oversimplification. That's the basis of why any of us fanboys wants a good score from RT or any other site. Not a single one of us Marvel fanboys would care if Civil War was panned by every critic and got less than 20% RT score, we would still be there on opening night. But there is a large majority of movie-goers that don't follow these films like we do that put a good amount of faith in RT scores and what critics say. The Average Joe American works hard for their money and taking the whole family out to see any film is pretty damn expensive when all is said and done. I can't blame somebody for checking out a film's RT score to help decide if it's worth their time. Not too many people that I know have a fave critic they tend to trust nor do they read very many reviews in general. Most of the GA goes by WOM which usually has a direct correlation with a high RT score. Of course, there are many other factors that determine good WOM and Marvel Studios as a brand has a very good reputation with the GA but as this film has demonstrated that doesn't always mean something will be a breakout success. I'm still a firm believer that this film will have great legs and turn a decent profit for MS but if RT score's alone determined how successful a film would be then this would have done much larger numbers on OW

 

[The Question]

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.

And my point when discussing the validity of Rotten Tomatoes is that that is an inherently flawed and not especially useful system. The sample size is usually very small, it only tallies the opinions of people who seek out the site, and even for a general sentiment, "did you like it, rate 1-5" is still an overly simple question, because there's no objective standard for what a 1-5 rating actually means.

You took my comment of weighing the good vs. the bad as something that had to do with RT.

No, I didn't. The conversation moved toward the direction of discussing the validity of Rotten Tomatoes, but I never assumed that that's what you were talking about when you said that.

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.

Because the notion that "any reasonable person" would have a positive view of the movie doesn't make any sense when you actually look at what art is and how it works, and is really just a way of shutting down anyone who disagrees with you, which is my whole problem here. It all comes back to this notion that "anyone who criticizes this movie is clearly a troll, here is proof!"

Yet somehow you were able to tell me that it's possible to know when a film needed to be "better".

I never told you that. I told you that thinking a movie could have been better and regretting that it wasn't and thinking that the choice to go down the path that was taken was a mistake is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. Just as thinking the movie was fine the way it was and likely better than the alternative is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. My issue is when one person who holds to one stance decides that anyone who holds the other stance is just a troll who's opinion has no value.

and suggesting the movie could have been better hasn't even seen the movie.

Never said that. Not once. You've consistently perceived everything I've said here as an attack against the film, when I've never even given an opinion on the film of any kind because I don't have one yet. This proves my point about this trend around here of people perceiving any criticism of the things they like (or even any support for critics of the things they like) as a threat. I never said the movie was bad or could have been better, but you kept assuming that was my "agenda."

 

[JtheDreamer]

That's not an oversimplification. That's the basis of why any of us fanboys wants a good score from RT or any other site. Not a single one of us Marvel fanboys would care if Civil War was panned by every critic and got less than 20% RT score, we would still be there on opening night. But there is a large majority of movie-goers that don't follow these films like we do that put a good amount of faith in RT scores and what critics say. The Average Joe American works hard for their money and taking the whole family out to see any film is pretty damn expensive when all is said and done. I can't blame somebody for checking out a film's RT score to help decide if it's worth their time. Not too many people that I know have a fave critic they tend to trust nor do they read very many reviews in general. Most of the GA goes by WOM which usually has a direct correlation with a high RT score. Of course, there are many other factors that determine good WOM and Marvel Studios as a brand has a very good reputation with the GA but as this film has demonstrated that doesn't always mean something will be a breakout success. I'm still a firm believer that this film will have great legs and turn a decent profit for MS but if RT score's alone determined how successful a film would be then this would have done much larger numbers on OW

Wait, you previously told me that our contingent on SHH follows the RT score because they know it effects the GA. You said the WOM has a direct correlation to RT as well. Then finished your latest comment contradicting that by offering that if the RT score alone determined the success of the film, then the BO #'s would be larger. The GA influences the BO total.

So the "fanboys" as you stated it follow this thread because why now?

 

[JtheDreamer]

Never said that. Not once. You've consistently perceived everything I've said here as an attack against the film, when I've never even given an opinion on the film of any kind because I don't have one yet. This proves my point about this trend around here of people perceiving any criticism of the things they like (or even any support for critics of the things they like) as a threat. I never said the movie was bad or could have been better, but you kept assuming that was my "agenda."

The only thing you've proven is your tendencies to the contrarian argument. That's about it.

You've taken time out of your day to come tell us all to HOLD THE PHONE, rotten tomatoes and other rating systems are flawed and that this movie could possibly have been better (what movie can't you say that about). I'm sorry, but I scoff at that especially in the context that you haven't even seen the movie to weigh it against all that's being discussed.

That wreaks of motive. You may not like to hear that, but it does, whether that means you're simply a contrarian looking to argue or you have something against this film.

 

[The Question]

The only thing you've proven is your tendencies to the contrarian argument. That's about it.

You've taken time out of your day to come tell us all to HOLD THE PHONE, rotten tomatoes and other rating systems are flawed and that this movie could possibly have been better (what movie can't you say that about). I'm sorry, but I scoff at that especially in the context that you haven't even seen the movie to weigh it against all that's being discussed.

That wreaks of motive. You may not like to hear that, but it does, whether that means you're simply a contrarian looking to argue or you have something against this film.

You're completely disregarding everything I've said, haven't you?

I never said that the movie could have been better. I never commented on the quality of the film. Hell, I was never even in this to rag on Rotten Tomatoes, the conversation just kind of morphed in that direction.

I said that the people who don't like the film or think that it could have been better and wish that it were are completely justified in thinking that and are completely reasonable in thinking that and that using the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score to "prove" that they are objective wrong and/or have some sort of ulterior motive is ludicrous.

I do have a motive, you're right, but it's not that I am simply a contrarian looking to argue, nor do I have something against this or any other film. My motive is that I hate that public spaces for discussing the things I love so often turn into echo chambers where everyone either has to love or hate the thing, and anyone who thinks differently must be a contrarian looking or argue or must have some kind of agenda beyond simply feeling the way they feel.

 

[JtheDreamer]

You're completely disregarding everything I've said, haven't you?

I never said that the movie could have been better. I never commented on the quality of the film. Hell, I was never even in this to rag on Rotten Tomatoes, the conversation just kind of morphed in that direction.

I said that the people who don't like the film or think that it could have been better and wish that it were are completely justified in thinking that and are completely reasonable in thinking that and that using the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score to "prove" that they are objective wrong and/or have some sort of ulterior motive is ludicrous.

I do have a motive, you're right, but it's not that I am simply a contrarian looking to argue, nor do I have something against this or any other film. My motive is that I hate that public spaces for discussing the things I love so often turn into echo chambers where everyone either has to love or hate the thing, and anyone who thinks differently must be a contrarian looking or argue or must have some kind of agenda beyond simply feeling the way they feel.

This thread hasn't turned into an echo-chamber. You're merely accusing it of it.

Enough's enough though. Let's stop monopolizing the thread. I for one can't believe I allowed myself to get sucked into this nonsense for the last 2-3 hours. This conversation isn't going to go anywhere as neither one of us is going to see eye-to-eye on any of it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Wait, you previously told me that our contingent on SHH follows the RT score because they know it effects the GA. You said the WOM has a direct correlation to RT as well. Then finished your latest comment contradicting that by offering that if the RT score alone determined the success of the film, then the BO #'s would be larger. The GA influences the BO total.

So the "fanboys" as you stated it follow this thread because why now?

Apparently hooked on phonics didn't work all that well for you since you obviously didn't read a damn thing I wrote and are trying to put words in my mouth. You aren't starting your Hype career by making a lot of friends and I would advise that maybe you A) read what people write and B) try not to be so damn confrontational when you post. It's rather annoying.

As to what I actually said I'll break it down for you again and maybe you can turn on the reading comprehension portion of your brain this time. First and foremost I am a Marvel fanboy, it's the whole reason I joined this site and have been following these films so closely over the years. There is a large portion of the GA that gives RT scores weight as to whether they will watch said film. WOM tends to be the biggest determining factor for most of the GA as to if they check a film out that they were not initially interested in. Now good WOM tend to directly correlate to high RT scores (which means movies that are getting very good buzz from critics are usually getting very good responses from the GA) that is not saying that WOM has a direct effect on RT scores, rather, with these types of big summer films they usually go hand in hand (but not always). Now if RT scores had a huge influence on the GA this film would be doing better than it is but that's not the case right now but could def influence how good this films legs end up being. So again, the reason most of us fanobys want the RT score to be high is so that the chunk of GA that puts stock into the scores will see the film if they did not intend on seeing it already. This isn't all that hard to grasp

 

[The Question]

This thread hasn't turned into an echo-chamber. You're merely accusing it of it.

Says the person who said that anyone who's reasonable would have a positive opinion of the film. On the forum where anyone who expressed concern about the production of Ant Man or dissatisfaction with its outcome was accused of being an Edgar Wright fanboy with an agenda, where anyone who thinks a run of comics or a new movie that is despised by the majority wasn't that bad is accused of being a troll and not a real fan, and where anyone who so much as says "I really liked it, but there was this one part…" about big hit MCU films, or suggest that Marvel Studios has made a misstep of any kind, are accused of being haters.

Yeah, no echo chamber here.

Enough's enough though. Let's stop monopolizing the thread. I for one can't believe I allowed myself to get sucked into this nonsense for the last 2-3 hours.

Okay.

 

[Shikamaru]

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

I can't speak for The Question, but that's not the impression I'm getting. I haven't seen him make such statement.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Says the person who said that anyone who's reasonable would have a positive opinion of the film. On the forum where anyone who expressed concern about the production of Ant Man or dissatisfaction with its outcome was accused of being an Edgar Wright fanboy with an agenda, where anyone who things a run of comics or a new movie that is despised by the majority wasn't that bad is accused of being a troll and not a real fan, and where anyone who so much as says "I really liked it, but there was this one part…" about big hit MCU films, or suggest that Marvel Studios has made a misstep of any kind, are accused of being haters.

Yeah, no echo chamber here.

Since you're taking a parting shot, you're misquoting me. My exact words were: "When you stack the +'s vs. the -'s with the OUTCOME of this film, any rational person would find it as a positive."

Outcome. As in Outcome for Marvel. As in outcome for the MCU. As in outcome for the overall film itself given the rainstorm of negativity before it was released. I've already previously discussed those "outcomes" i.e. GA reception, critics reception, box office, WOM, etc. etc.

 

[The Question]

Since you're taking a parting shot, you're misquoting me. My exact words were: "When you stack the +'s vs. the -'s with the OUTCOME of this film, any rational person would find it as a positive."

Outcome. As in Outcome for Marvel. As in outcome for the MCU. As in outcome for the overall film itself given the rainstorm of negativity before it was released.

I'm not sure I see the difference between the two. Especially since that original quote was in response to a statement about people who disliked the film or, tab the very least, thought that it would have been better under Wright's helm and wished it were so.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I'm not sure I see the difference between the two. Especially since that original quote was in response to a statement about people who disliked the film or, tab the very least, thought that it would have been better under Wright's helm and wished it were so.

Then that's you being dense. I think you arguing the the merits of reviews and this movie possibly earning them ring hollow since you've yet to even see it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Jt, bruh, calm the f*** down. You're not going to get very far on this site if you put words in people's mouths and get hyper defensive about everything. You seem to be making arguments that are not even relevant to what others are posting.

 

[The Question]

Then that's you being dense.

Yes, of course. It couldn't possible be that the difference isn't as distinct as JtheDreamer thinks it is, or even something as simple as a miscommunication between the phrasing JtheDreamer chose and how I read it.

No, of course, it must be because I am being dense.

I think you arguing the the merits of reviews and this movie possibly earning them ring hollow since you've yet to even see it.

Yeah, absolutely. I agree, that would ring hollow.

It's a good thing I never made those arguments.

Seriously, do people even read what's posted on the Hype, or do they just look at a post that isn't overwhelmingly positive or negative and just start making assumptions?

 

[JtheDreamer]

Jt, bruh, calm the f*** down. You're not going to get very far on this site if you put words in people's mouths and get hyper defensive about everything. You seem to be making arguments that are not even relevant to what others are posting.

I think you've confused me for someone else. Appreciate the insight though.

Moving on.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I think you've confused me for someone else. Appreciate the insight though.

Moving on.

No, I'm basing that on the interactions I've had with you in this thread.

 

[JtheDreamer]

No, I'm basing that on the interactions I've had with you in this thread.

So, about that Ant-Man. Anyone who's seen it wanna discuss it? Have at it.

 

[SuperSanchez]

Great Banter!

 

[Raiden]

I thought this thread is about the discussion of the RT score, not the merit of the whole RT system. The late Roger Ebert's thumbs up/down system wasn't perfect either, but it gives GA the quick info that they need to decide whether to see a movie or not, and RT score serves the same functionality.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Seriously, do people even read what's posted on the Hype, or do they just look at a post that isn't overwhelmingly positive or negative and just start making assumptions?

Do you ever NOT find yourself in giant multi-page arguments? Because I'm telling you right now that's what people associate you with. Posts like this are part of the reason why. The same thing happened when you rolled into the Fantastic Four forum and started telling everyone their business.

You're obviously a smart guy, but you're either intentionally obtuse and long-winded, or utterly clueless or uncaring about how much your posting style makes peoples teeth itch. And this is coming from someone who readily admits to having an aggressive and belligerent online persona.

 

[The Question]

Do you ever NOT find yourself in giant multi-page arguments? Because I'm telling you right now that's what people associate you with. Posts like this are part of the reason why. The same thing happened when you rolled into the Fantastic Four forum and started telling everyone their business.

I rolled into the Fantastic Four forum to talk about the Fantastic Four. When I said that I didn't think Ultimate Fantastic Four was that bad and that Miles Teller was an okay choice, people jumped on me for not being a "real fan."

I get into these multi-page arguments because I sometimes have opinions that are different from the majority and I like to articulate what I think fully, and a lot of the time folks around here are extremely hostile towards minority opinions, so it escalates quickly. I'll admit, sometimes I get frustrated and that adds fuel to the fire, but it really sucks when I come to these public spaces to share my thoughts about things I'm enthusiastic about, and when I think differently from the overwhelming majority people dismiss what I have to say, telling me that I'm not a real fan or that I don't mean what I say and that I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

As for "posts like this," I'm sorry, but I think that was legitimate. People routinely misrepresent my point of view, to the point where it's very clear that they're not actually reading what I've written.

You're obviously a smart guy, but you're either intentionally obtuse and long-winded, or utterly clueless or uncaring about how much your posting style makes peoples teeth itch. And this is coming from someone who readily admits to having an aggressive and belligerent online persona.

It's not about my posting style. It's about the content. No one ever seems to have a problem with my long winded posts when they agree with them.

I write big because I have a lot of ideas. That's not going to change.