Joker "The Joker" in development with Todd Phillips and Martin Scorsese attached? - Part 2

[Hollis Mason]

But like i said before, imo, the best way to get an idea of what a film will be is reading the reviews instead of just watching the rating and score. You may like things the critic didn't like about a film, and you also may dislike things he/she liked.

 

[jmc]

I'd actually like to see a system in place that score the main aspects of the film - story, character, acting, score and cinematography, and give the film an overall average score based on that criteria. So lets say someone scores Joker as follows: Story - 8/10, Characters - 9/10, Acting - 10/10, Score - 8/10, Cinematography - 8/10. That would give the film an overall score of 36/50.

 

[Hollis Mason]

I'd actually like to see a system in place that score the main aspects of the film - story, character, acting, score and cinematography, and give the film an overall average score based on that criteria. So lets say someone scores Joker as follows: Story - 8/10, Characters - 9/10, Acting - 10/10, Score - 8/10, Cinematography - 8/10. That would give the film an overall score of 36/50.

I think there was a website like that but i can't remember. But i would like something like that, honestly. Sounds like a good idea.

 

[TMP98]

If the critic outright said that the Joker review wasn't rotten, shouldn't RT change it to fresh?

 

[Hollis Mason]

If the critic outright said that the Joker review wasn't rotten, shouldn't RT change it to fresh?

Yes. Totally.

 

[dhandler01]

No system is gonna be perfect sadly...

 

[TheScarecrow]

The system should be gotten rid of.

All these aggregators have done is give critics a ridiculous level of influence over the film industries.

Films are reduced to a score, rather than being interpreted and considered.

Just FYI everyone - IT Chapter 2 was sitting at a very similar spot at the same number of reviews and collapsed upon release...

 

[Micromind]

You know something's not right when Martin Scorsese (of all people) talks against Rotten Tomatoes culture.

The horrible idea they reinforce [is] that every picture, every image is there to be instantly judged and dismissed without giving audiences time to see it.
Time to see it, maybe ruminate and maybe make a decision for themselves. So the great 20th-century art form, the American art form, is reduced to content.

Martin Scorsese Has Taken Shots At Rotten Tomatoes Again

 

[Micromind]

I don't know who made this but this is amazing Joker fan-art.

 

[Micromind]

Preach.

RT average rating and Metacritic score >>>>> RT score

I always look at Average RT rating than Percentage RT score.

 

[thangaran]

I used to think the RT score for a movie was something very good and handy but really it means so little now a days. I’ve seen so many films with 90 or higher ratings and they were so boring and by the numbers. Barely any substance or backbone. The Ant Man sequel is one for example but there are so many with exceptional RT scores but are just so boring, bland, sterile and meh

But it is said critics have such influence over movies now a days in this regard. Room to critically analyze a movie and let audiences digest a film on their own are now all pissed out the window

 

[Hollis Mason]

I used to think the RT score for a movie was something very good and handy but really it means so little now a days. I’ve seen so many films with 90 or higher ratings and they were so boring and by the numbers. Barely any substance or backbone. The Ant Man sequel is one for example but there are so many with exceptional RT scores but are just so boring, bland, sterile and meh

But it is said critics have such influence over movies now a days in this regard. Room to critically analyze a movie and let audiences digest a film on their own are now all pissed out the window

Nah they don't have that much influence. Just a few people read reviews. The vast majority doesn't care and just go to see a movie they are interesed. Most people don't even know what Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are.

 

[Rocanrol]

I'd actually like to see a system in place that score the main aspects of the film - story, character, acting, score and cinematography, and give the film an overall average score based on that criteria. So lets say someone scores Joker as follows: Story - 8/10, Characters - 9/10, Acting - 10/10, Score - 8/10, Cinematography - 8/10. That would give the film an overall score of 36/50.

It bothers more than it should that those numbers don’t add 36.

Even more than I would like to admit...

 

[Holy Slapper]

Seems like its more RT bias against DC films again.

Soooo...you're basically saying math is biased against DC films?

 

[Holy Slapper]

I don't know why they don't fix it.

Just a thought, perhaps they're like Janice from accounting and don't give a ****? I mean we're talking about a bloody review score on a movie site while complaining about the huge amount of attention the site gets yet it's people (and general public) like you who keep giving the site all it's attention. If I was working at RT and people emailed about a review score being labeled incorrectly, I'd just send it straight to the trash bin and get back to complaining online.

 

[Guts]

Soooo...you're basically saying math is biased against DC films?

Stuff like this is a little suspicious.

 

[daddydivine]

Stuff like this is a little suspicious.

Edit.
Wasted some good debate skills on a mistake by RT.

P.S. could have just said that his Rotten score was a mistake.

 

[TMP98]

Seems legit... they gave all three movies the same score. All things being the same I guess FFH offered silly light hearted action that made the film enjoyable. Ad Astra was mediocre but also offered great action. SOOOOOO we can see that BBC.com will give a mediocre movie the benefit of the doubt if it has some good action scenes... Does Joker have that redeeming quality that the BBC.com people seem to push toward fresh? Your example proves that they are pretty consistent.

If you read the review he's still more positive than negative, and he even said he didn't know it was marked as a rotten until someone on twitter pointed it out

 

[Hollis Mason]

Just a thought, perhaps they're like Janice from accounting and don't give a ****? I mean we're talking about a bloody review score on a movie site while complaining about the huge amount of attention the site gets yet it's people (and general public) like you who keep giving the site all it's attention. If I was working at RT and people emailed about a review score being labeled incorrectly, I'd just send it straight to the trash bin and get back to complaining online.

Just said i don't know why they don't fix it when it's an obvious problem. Why are you putting me in the same bag with everyone else when i'm the one that trashed RT less? I didn't even say anything that bad about the website except that people should read the reviews and not just watch the score and that i prefered Filmaffinity. And that i don't agree with the system and i think it would work better with some better scores. You're talking to the wrong guy here.

 

[daddydivine]

I always look at Average RT rating than Percentage RT score.

I just glance to see if the score is really high or really low. Anything in the low 20s is usually hot garbage. Anything in the 90's is usually pretty good. Everything in between is a crapshoot and it's based on if i'm invested in a movie in some way or I catch it on netflix.

 

[daddydivine]

If you read the review he's still more positive than negative, and he even said he didn't know it was marked as a rotten until someone on twitter pointed it out

Oh. Well that sucks.

 

[Micromind]

 

[Yowza]

I'd actually like to see a system in place that score the main aspects of the film - story, character, acting, score and cinematography, and give the film an overall average score based on that criteria. So lets say someone scores Joker as follows: Story - 8/10, Characters - 9/10, Acting - 10/10, Score - 8/10, Cinematography - 8/10. That would give the film an overall score of 36/50.

"Characters" I would just leave out as some aspects fall under "Acting" while other aspects under "Story". Instead, "Editing" I'd put in.

A lot of films are hacked (or should I say edited) together last minute. Does the film feel fluid? Also, an assessment of re-shoots and the film feeling intact and cohesive throughout. This does not include "pacing" as I hate it when reviewers complain about a films pace if it meanders or explores at times.

I think a separate category for "Pacing" that doesn't subtract or add to score could also be added to skew this complaint out of a film's editing as films are always going to try and limit runtime anyway to get maximum replays at each theatre anyway.

 

[Yowza]

Thank you for that! It really makes me despise that review aggregate site all the more and wish that site would be phased out into a social media based aggregate system or something for critics and audience that is proofed over and maybe even has some bias analytics that people can look up to see how a film trends.

 

[jemoen]

but apparently some review on twitter said the RT decided for him.

If he considers that it's not Rotten and cares, then he just should write to RT to fix it. Simple as that