Guess the critic's rotten tomatoes meter for GL

[S.A.A.D.]

Yeah yeah,it's too early,we haven't seen any trailers yet. But I'm going to do it anyways.

The highest it'll be at is a 77% when it's all said and done. After starting off with somewhere around 90%.

 

[Spideyfan93]

I think it'll be in the high 80s.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

65%

These kind of movies are a hard sell.

 

[Karelia]

I'm gonna guess... 85%

I'm hoping this movie is as awesome as it's shaping up to be.

 

[BigSams50]

I say about 70-80 depending how good it is

 

[Juggernaut33]

I hate threads like this.
How are we suppose to guess????

 

[Aesop Rocks]

45% - if Rotten

85% - if Fresh

 

[Grommers]

I hate threads like this.
How are we suppose to guess????

by typing a number and putting a % sign beside it.

 

[thewhyteman]

by typing a number and putting a % sign beside it.

Hot coffee just went out my nose. Thats a first for me.

 

[thewhyteman]

Oh ya,

My guess is a 67% rating

 

[dnno1]

RottenTomatoes (RT) is unreliable. Just look at a film like the Expendables. It got a 39% rating while "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" got 81% over at RT, but yet the former film was top of the box office charts last weekend ("Scott Pilgrim was tenth - freaking "Nanny McPhee Returns" even did better). I don't know why we bother using them as an indicator.

 

[thewhyteman]

RottenTomatoes (RT) is unreliable. Just look at a film like the Expendables. It got a 39% rating while "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" got 81% over at RT, but yet the former film was top of the box office charts last weekend ("Scott Pilgrim was tenth - freaking "Nanny McPhee Returns" even did better). I don't know why we bother using them as an indicator.

I formulated my guess of the concept that Rotten Tomatoes always has jacked ratings. I will probably give the film a 80% or higher (based off of what I have seen so far...which has been totally sweet)
I never listen to any critic. Most of the time I like movies way more then the "criticizers" do. Or "haters" for you homeys out there.

 

[Juggernaut33]

by typing a number and putting a % sign beside it.

Yeah but what is the point? How do you want to calculate the percentage of good critics? It's like if I was making a topic like "How many times do you think the audience is gonna cheer up during the film?"

This is just stupid.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Okay,so you have communicated more than once that you don't like this thread,that's fine that you don't like this thread. But quit acting so silly by still posting in it,did you think that no one would catch on?

 

[dnno1]

I formulated my guess of the concept that Rotten Tomatoes always has jacked ratings. I will probably give the film a 80% or higher (based off of what I have seen so far...which has been totally sweet)
I never listen to any critic. Most of the time I like movies way more then the "criticizers" do. Or "haters" for you homeys out there.

Which is the right attitude to have.

 

[Paradoxal]

Yeah but what is the point? How do you want to calculate the percentage of good critics? It's like if I was making a topic like "How many times do you think the audience is gonna cheer up during the film?"

This is just stupid.

You don't have to participate .

 

[Paradoxal]

I formulated my guess of the concept that Rotten Tomatoes always has jacked ratings. I will probably give the film a 80% or higher (based off of what I have seen so far...which has been totally sweet)
I never listen to any critic. Most of the time I like movies way more then the "criticizers" do. Or "haters" for you homeys out there.

 

[Grommers]

Yeah but what is the point? How do you want to calculate the percentage of good critics? It's like if I was making a topic like "How many times do you think the audience is gonna cheer up during the film?"

This is just stupid.

I think the audience is going to cheer twice, once during opening credits and once during the end credits.
I want to take a guess what the critics are going to rate this movie it's small, fun, and harmless. I could say 3%, and it would open up for debate on why I think it would be so small, which would allow for an opening of other connections to be made which could result in a completely different topic that would spur a whole new thread, which would create even more discussion, which I love when it's all about super hero characters, hence why I am on the hype. It's always good seeing others peoples' takes on things, as long as they are positive or neutral.

E.g. some people think martin Campbell could be perfect for the job, others not so much, and would give there reasoning why.

And sometimes I wouldn't understand the reasoning why until after they explain there line of thinking, which might open up even more new ideas on my original thought, thereby creating a more indepth, creative, and thought-out idea.

 

[Steyin]

I'd say this pulls off a slightly lower score than IM1.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

If the movie is rotten,I will go with a 52%.

 

[CASTER]

I wanna know who's playing GUY GARDNER and it better not be FLASH GORDON boy! : P

 

[S.A.A.D.]

RottenTomatoes (RT) is unreliable. Just look at a film like the Expendables. It got a 39% rating while "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" got 81% over at RT, but yet the former film was top of the box office charts last weekend ("Scott Pilgrim was tenth - freaking "Nanny McPhee Returns" even did better). I don't know why we bother using them as an indicator.

I think it is for the most part.

 

[CASTER]

BRADLEY COOPER btw!

 

[Sam]

100%

 

[terry78]

Probably a 90, and I feel like I'm underestimating it. It might have that Iron Man appeal. It's fantastical and out there, but not so out there that it comes off as completely weird.