Stephen King's "IT" remake has found a writer - Part 3

[Kane52630]

All those popular nerd critics really do nothing for me except for Double Toasted. Their review is coming tonight, can't wait for that.

 

[Lily Adler]

Kane needed to be on top again.

But what are the chances of Cary Fukunaga coming back?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

But what are the chances of Cary Fukunaga coming back?

If the reports of him leaving the first part on bad terms is true then I don't think he'll come back.

 

[Dyson]

But what are the chances of Cary Fukunaga coming back?

Zero.

 

[BatSpider]

Kane needed to be on top again.

But what are the chances of Cary Fukunaga coming back?

Um, why?

 

[BH/HHH]

Shouldn't we wait to see the movie ourselves before pointing fingers at critics who have seen it.

I don't know if that was aimed at me specifically but I did not point fingers at the critic for giving the film a rotten score. I merely pointed out that a score of 3 out of 5 should not be deemed rotten. Because it's better than the middle ground which would be 2.5. If he wanted to mark the film rotten then he should have given it a 2 or lower. That's why I was saying that a film been certified rotten or fresh should be automated based on the score given. A 3 should not be rotten. I was having a go at the RT system. It just proves to me how pointless RT is.

Yep. One of the worst aspects of the RT culture is that whenever a movie is hyped like this, fans tend to make a public enemy out of the critics don't like it and mess up the score...even though they still haven't seen the film yet for themselves.

It's one of the reasons why RT took down their comments section, after some idiots decided to send rape threats to a critic who had the nerve to dislike TDKR.

Overall, It's getting some pretty great reviews so far. Nobody should get mad when it gets a few rotten ones. No movie is perfect and not everyone is going to like it. Since most of us haven't seen it yet, it's not for us to judge who's wrong or right.

Scott Mendelson isn't an Armond White. He's just a tough critic. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. But he's fair, even if I don't agree.

No film is for everyone and as we know with any genre. Some people don't even like these kinds of films. If somebody doesn't like it then that's there pereogative. I just think with the way RT works it's daft that you can score a film 3 out of 5 and then certify it rotten. Just proves to me that the RT system doesn't work. You have rotten for bad and fresh for good. What about the middle ground?

 

[TheCardPlayer]

Technically it's the critic that decides if their review is Rotten or Fresh. There is no system.

 

[nite-owl]

Um, why?

Yeah, I have no idea Libidoloca is freaking out over the sequel.

 

[squeekness]

For anyone who cares, Spike TV is going to replay the original IT movie a couple of times over the next few days.

 

[danoyse]

For anyone who cares, Spike TV is going to replay the original IT movie a couple of times over the next few days.

I watched it on Amazon last week. It really just reminded me how much I still miss John Ritter.

 

[BH/HHH]

Technically it's the critic that decides if their review is Rotten or Fresh. There is no system.

But I'm saying there should be. How can you rate something a 3 and then give it rotten when you have reflected in your score by giving it 3/5 that it's better than average? That's my point here.

I don't care the guy gave it rotten but by doing so he should have rated it lower.

 

[Lily Adler]

Yeah, I have no idea Libidoloca is freaking out over the sequel.

Cause I don't trust studios with sequels, especially horror ones.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Cause I don't trust studios with sequels, especially horror ones.

You must repose your faith on WB. If any studio can, it's them. They have shown that with The Conjuring 2 and Annabelle 2.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Great to see the good reviews so far, liked the look of this from the trailer and loved the TV version as a kid.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

We have a consensus on RT:

Well-acted and fiendishly frightening with an emotionally affecting story at its core, It amplifies the horror in Stephen King's classic story without losing touch with its heart.

 

[Finarfiniel]

Booked my tickets to go see this on Sunday, I can't frickin' wait. t:

 

[Darepool]

But I'm saying there should be. How can you rate something a 3 and then give it rotten when you have reflected in your score by giving it 3/5 that it's better than average? That's my point here.

I don't care the guy gave it rotten but by doing so he should have rated it lower.

So if I rate a film 6/10 I should recommend it to my friends? C'mon, just because I think something is passable doesn't mean I should recommend it to people, especially those paying for tickets. That's entirely subjective. The rotten/fresh % is based on recommendation, not AVG score.

 

[BH/HHH]

So if I rate a film 6/10 I should recommend it to my friends? C'mon, just because I think something is passable doesn't mean I should recommend it to people, especially those paying for tickets. That's entirely subjective. The rotten/fresh % is based on recommendation, not AVG score.

Where did I say you should recommend it if you give it a 6 or in the reviewers case a 3?

I'm pointing out that the way RT works is highly flawed. There needs to be 3 stages, rotten, middling (not sure what you'd call it) and fresh. If you give something a 3 out of 5 that does not make it rotten. That means it was better than average, even average isn't rotten. It's a heavily flawed system that's quite misleading.

 

[Hurm...]

It's not misleading. The reviewer recommends the film or does not (represented through a 'fresh' or 'rotten' label) -- simple. If you want nuance to his or her argument for choosing rotten over fresh (or vice versa), then just read the damn review instead of looking solely at the label/score. It really is not complicated or that big of a deal.

 

[BH/HHH]

It's not misleading. The reviewer recommends the film or he does not -- simple. If you want nuance to his or her argument, then just read the damn review instead of looking solely at the score.

For your information I did read the DAMN review, even reading the review he gives it a 3 which does not reflect his words, 3/5 is a better than average score therefore it cannot make be rotten. Hence Rotten Tomatoes been a flawed system. End of the day it's ok to disagree with me but I'm entitled to my own opinion on the subject of RT and it's a flawed system.

My problem is with the way RT works not a film getting a bad review from a guy I've never even heard of.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Calm down guys. The RT system is not something to get worked up about. Chillax

 

[Kane52630]

 

[BH/HHH]

 

[Fallen Angel]

Sitting on 90% after 78 reviews on RT.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_2017/

Critics Consensus: Well-acted and fiendishly frightening with an emotionally affecting story at its core, It amplifies the horror in Stephen King's classic story without losing touch with its heart.

80 on Meta Critic too.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Dunno if anyone posted this, but the kids have such chemistry off set that I can't wait to see them on screen.

[YT]zYjr6ns48oQ[/YT]