The New Ghostbusters - Part 9

[DarthSkywalker]

Looking like this will wind up at 60. Now especially see filmmakers being told the team that marketed Ghostbusters will do their film, the filmmaker falling on his knees and screaming to the heavens "nooooooooooooo!" like in Superman, lol. This is. SONY has got to be pissed.

Its over 70 still. And they are probably thinking right now, "what now haters".

 

[Broseph44]

I think he's talking about how much some people use RT as some sort of gospel on a movie's quality, sometimes to the point of not thinking for themselves and forming their own opinion. The amount of attention RT gets is frankly absurd imo.

Ah yes probably his point. Totally agree with you on this one. It's definitely absurd

 

[Abudefduf]

The trailers for this movie weren't good, but they weren't as bad as some people were making them out to be. Turns out the movie is as average as the trailers, and not as bad as some people were expecting it to be.

Color me shocked.

 

[Kyle]

Its over 70 still. And they are probably thinking right now, "what now haters".

Meant when all reviews come in and the gap is bridged. You yourself said 60, I see that being accurate.

The marketing team created the haters by creating a campaign that many hated and placed onto the product. As said, it feels like a smear campaign with how the marketing laid everything out. SONY lost a lot.of.money.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think he's talking about how much some people use RT as some sort of gospel on a movie's quality, sometimes to the point of not thinking for themselves and forming their own opinion. The amount of attention RT gets is frankly absurd imo.

It is a very good indicator of the public's view as a whole. That of course has nothing to do with anyone's personal view of course, but it is great at capturing how the public feels about a film.

I don't see why people get upset with the attention RT gets. It brings together a large group of critics, which is a fantastic tool. I actually find the backlash against it absurd. It is like people think it is a good idea that we just go see all movies based off deceptive marketing.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I don't think it will help the box office even if it hits 70s% I think Sony spent abit to much time on damage control acting Like children with the fan boys with all the drama that the damage has been done and they pretty much alienated a fair amount of money, it might not flop but it's gonna struggle abit.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think he's talking about how much some people use RT as some sort of gospel on a movie's quality, sometimes to the point of not thinking for themselves and forming their own opinion. The amount of attention RT gets is frankly absurd imo.

I just think the analyzing of the rotten/fresh scores is kind of the antithesis to the whole point of film criticism, defining a films worth as a percentage. I always saw it as a place where I could go to one place to read several reviews, but most people don't give a crap about actual film criticism, they just want that fresh or rotten/up or down vote.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Meant when all reviews come in and the gap is bridged. You yourself said 60, I see that being accurate.

The marketing team created the haters by creating a campaign that many hated and placed onto the product. As said, it feels like a smear campaign with how the marketing laid everything out.

I said that is were I think it will end up, but I am not sure yet. It could very well stay in the 70s, especially as the Top Critic part is moving in the right direction.

You are lying to yourself if you think the marketing team created the hate for this film. Go back and read this thread before a single piece of the film was shown. You clearly haven't been keeping up with this film, because this goes back to the, "this movie won't even count when the Tatum one comes out".

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I just think the analyzing of the rotten/fresh scores is kind of the antithesis to the whole point of film criticism, defining a films worth as a percentage. I always saw it as a place where I could go to one place to read several reviews, but most people don't give a crap about actual film criticism, they just want that fresh or rotten/up or down vote.

Well the RT percentage is a literal recommendation. The percentage of critics who would recommend seeing it.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

If only people knew what the rt score actually measured

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

A lot of the reviews are questionable. Reviews read as if the movie should be a 3 or 4 out of the 10, but yet it ends up getting a really higher score than that

 

[Lighthouse]

Well the RT percentage is a literal recommendation. The percentage of critics who would recommend seeing it.

But it's always misinterpreted as higher freshness/better movie. People lose their crap when a classic has a lower freshness score than a more mediocre film. A 90% freshness score could be all half-hearted recommendations, where a movie with something to say could be 60% with raving recommendations, but people don't see that. Truth is most great films will not have universal acclaim.

 

[Zero_Effect]

Failed at box office. Critic consensus 39-51% RT. I loved that film, but to the masses it wasn't average to good otherwise reviews and box office would have matched it.

To the masses it was average to good. On RT 3.5/5 User Ratings: 113,746. On IMDB: 6.6/10 from 211,137 users. Debuted at #1 in Blu-ray sales. The marketing let down that movie big time. From the trailers to the name chance it was a mess from day one.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A lot of the reviews are questionable. Reviews read as if the movie should be a 3 or 4 out of the 10, but yet it ends up getting a really higher score than that

Uh, you do realize the reviewers decide whether their review is fresh or rotten right?

 

[Kyle]

I said that is were I think it will end up, but I am not sure yet. It could very well stay in the 70s, especially as the Top Critic part is moving in the right direction.

You are lying to yourself if you think the marketing team created the hate for this film. Go back and read this thread before a single piece of the film was shown. You clearly haven't been keeping up with this film, because this goes back to the, "this movie won't even count when the Tatum one comes out".

When the Tatum one comes out? Ugh.

I'm not saying it was 100% marketing. I'm saying marketing had a big role to play because it doesn't feel like they target tested this stuff. Are you saying SONY is happy with the marketing department?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But it's always misinterpreted as higher freshness/better movie. People lose their crap when a classic has a lower freshness score than a more mediocre film. A 90% freshness score could be all half-hearted recommendations, where a movie with something to say could be 60% with raving recommendations, but people don't see that. Truth is most great films will not have universal acclaim.

I am 10000% with you on people not knowing how RT works. It isn't even hard to understand, which is what makes it baffling. But as a question on whether a critics recommend a movie or not, the RT percentage score serves the purpose it is suppose to. If a film has 60%, that means only 60% of the critics recommend. Now those 40% could be super enthusiastic about the movie, but that isn't the question.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Uh, you do realize the reviewers decide whether their review is fresh or rotten right?

I wasn't even referring to RT

Just other reviews I've come across online

 

[DarthSkywalker]

When the Tatum one comes out? Ugh.

I'm not saying it was 100% marketing. I'm saying marketing had a big role to play because it doesn't feel like they target tested this stuff. Are you saying SONY is happy with the marketing department?

I think the marketing department did not do a good job, but they were not helped with an every evolving movie (they have a ton of cuts apparently), which they were probably told to promote in a certain way.

 

[The Infernal]

Spy was...amazing. Dare i say underrated still.

I genuinely liked Spy. I think it's the only film of Fieg's I saw that I know of. It was part of why I was willing to give this film a chancre until I saw the first trailer and the resulting marketing campaign to villify critics. The film could be great at this point and I wouldn't watch it in the cinema due to their campaign of dividing the audience. Maybe they would have had a higher b.o. projection had they cut better trailers and played up it being more like the cartoon angle more rather than running with an attack campaign.

 

[Zero_Effect]

Uh, you do realize the reviewers decide whether their review is fresh or rotten right?

Which can be a problem. Because for some movies a 3/5 is a rotten film. While it seems for this one the 3/5 are giving it a fresh rating so far.

 

[regwec]

Let's be frank: any movie with a purportedly "progressive" agenda would have to be abysmal not to attract positive reviews from much of the media.

 

[marty mcfly]

I am sure this movie will be fine. But for me, that's the problem. These studios make hundreds of millions of dollars to do mediocre work. And with a beloved property (not just GB but any major franchise), why is it wrong to expect something better than just fine?

Instead of rushing something, spend an extra year making sure the script is air tight, making sure it does enough fan service but doesn't make you wish you were watching the original, make sure it does something fresh and new and doesn't alienate an entire demographic. THEN make the film.

 

[jmc]

Colour me surprised it's being as well received as it is, the marketing for this film has been nothing short of horrendous. Doesn't change anything for me personally, still against the idea of a remake in the first place.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which can be a problem. Because for some movies a 3/5 is a rotten film. While it seems for this one the 3/5 are giving it a fresh rating so far.

How exactly is that a problem?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Let's be frank: any movie with a purportedly "progressive" agenda would have to be abysmal not to attract positive reviews from much of the media.