Thor 2: Rotten Tomato Watch

[ctsketch]

You can believe that the quality of art is 100% subjective if you want. I reject that belief as being ill-informed cultural nihilism. There is such a thing as good art and bad art even if a component of subjectivity adds uncertainty.

McDonalds vs a Michelin restaurant? It is not 100% subjective.

Art, like beauty, will ALWAYS be subjective.

 

[Oscorp]

Several people say this and it always makes me laugh. So the movie deserves to be thought of as good by 60-70% of the critics? If you like a movie, why would you specifically want others to dislike it, or vice versa? The RT score isn't a measure of how good or bad someone thought it to be, it's basically a rating of binary mainstream appeal with critics.

It has more to do with the ranking list, if you compare the film to other CBMs. It's not that I want people to dislike it per se, it's that the film shouldn't be up there with the likes of Iron Man, Batman Begins, Avengers etc. IMO.

 

[Oscorp]

1) RT correlates decently with film quality.
2) Audiences are swayed by reviews in deciding what to see. Therefore, if good movies end up with better reviews, then audiences will see better movies.

There is always staristical noise, but in the long run it is for the best if better movies get higher ratings, at least on average.

IMO, Thor 2 deserves ~50%. It is not as good as blade and mos. For now, at least it is lower than Thor 1.

...and this too!

EDIT: Though I definitely it's subjective, it's just that I mean the level of popularity would match what I personally think it deserves: as in, I think films that I personally think is of higher quality should be more praised in quantity than films that I find to be of lower quality, in my opinion. More people should like the better films than the bad ones. So, when I think Thor 1 is better than Thor 2, I also think Thor 1 would deserve to be praised by more people than Thor 2. As much as some of you people think it deserves to be liked by more people. It's not that I get a kick out of people not liking a film or anything like that. Hope I made myself clear enough.

 

[Mjölnir]

It has more to do with the ranking list, if you compare the film to other CBMs. It's not that I want people to dislike it per se, it's that the film shouldn't be up there with the likes of Iron Man, Batman Begins, Avengers etc. IMO.

Who ranks CMB's based on RT? Or why am I asking when I don't care about that?

...and this too!

EDIT: Though I definitely it's subjective, it's just that I mean the level of popularity would match what I personally think it deserves: as in, I think films that I personally think is of higher quality should be more praised in quantity than films that I find to be of lower quality, in my opinion. More people should like the better films than the bad ones. So, when I think Thor 1 is better than Thor 2, I also think Thor 1 would deserve to be praised by more people than Thor 2. As much as some of you people think it deserves to be liked by more people. It's not that I get a kick out of people not liking a film or anything like that. Hope I made myself clear enough.

Popularity with the people is better judged with how much money it brings in. Transformers 2 is hugely popular with "the people" but not exactly with the critics. Personally I don't think a critics consensus, nor economic success, mean much.

And what are "we people"? I'm certainly not saying that it deserves either or. It deserves to be liked by many if it is liked by many, there's nothing more to that and I don't need my own opinions validated by anyone else (at least not when it comes to taste).

 

[Oscorp]

I'm not trying to validate your opinion God damn it, when will you ever understand that? Stop being so hostile. I already said that what I think the movie deserves when it comes to popularity obviously is what matches my opinion of the movie. If Transformers 2, which I think is a crap film, is praised by more of the audience, including the critics, than say The Dark Knight, then I'd think the film is getting undeserved praise since I think that film is stupid.

 

[Mjölnir]

I'm not trying to validate your opinion God damn it, when will you ever understand that? Stop being so hostile. I already said that what I think the movie deserves when it comes to popularity obviously is what matches my opinion of the movie. If Transformers 2, which I think is a crap film, is praised by more of the audience, including the critics, than say The Dark Knight, then I'd think the film is getting undeserved praise since I think that film is stupid.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to why it doesn't affect me how well a movie does with the critics, or at the box office. For example, I disliked MoS and it didn't do too well with the critics. My only comments about that were to encourage those that did like it not to be disappointed as it shouldn't mean anything for their enjoyment.

As for deserve, I think that's something outside one person's opinion. At least I'm not the one to decide what a film deserves. If many people like it then I think it's obviously deserving of that, unless these people somehow fooled themselves into thinking something they don't. If I didn't like it my conclusion isn't that it got something it didn't deserve, it's just that my opinions differed from the masses that time.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

I think the best comic book movies strike a perfect balance between humour and drama. Too much humour and the movie has no emotional weight, too much drama and the movie is too sombre and joyless and takes itself
too seriously.

Humour----------------------(middle)----------------------------Drama
IM3/SM3/Blade3--------------TDK/SM2/IM-----------------------MoS/BB

For me TDW is here;
Humour----------------------(middle)----------------------------Drama
[-------------TDW---------------------------------------------------]

I would add The Amazing Spider-man to the middle column somewhere and BB is nowhere near as heavy on the drama as MoS IMO. You have Bruce, Fox, Alfred all delivering a proper dosage of levity.

TDK trilogy has humor, it just uses it better IMO. For instance in BB when Bruce meets Rachel outside the hotel he just bought and she asks why he's wet and Bruce says "Oh, just swimming"

The fact that that is his answer to the reason why he is walking out of a hotel soaked delivers a natural kind of humor that doesn't feel forced but is still hilarious.

That to me is better than constantly switching to Darcy & friends and their shenanigans. Especially when the universe is about to go dark for all eternity.

It's just not funny.

I think mine would look like this.

Humour----------------------(middle)---------------***-------------Drama
IM3/SM3/Blade3--------------TDK/SM2/IM-------TASM/BB---------MoS

 

[Mysteryman]

I've been reading that the action and CGI are better, the acting is about even or better, but TDW lacks the pure emotion/heart and concise storyline of the first. People are now judging CBMs harder now and we have to accept that. These reviews aren't really dampening my excitement for the movie, but it does make me worry they'll take away the potential multiple viewers previous MCU films had.

It depends on what the people who see TDW are looking for.
If they are looking for action,
They will probably come back repeatedly.

 

[spider-neil]

Humour----------------------(middle)---------------***-------------Drama
IM3/SM3/Blade3--------------TDK/SM2/IM-------TASM/BB---------MoS

That's fair.

 

[Tymminator]

Up to 74%

 

[DyeLorean]

75%!

 

[kedrell]

Looks like it's leveling off in the mid-70's which should be a surprise to no one.

 

[spider-neil]

Looks like it's leveling off in the mid-70's which should be a surprise to no one.

Both Marvel Studio movies in the mid 70s. Fingers crossed the two non Marvel Studio movies next year are in the mid 80's.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

IM3 was actually high 70's (79%)

 

[DA_Champion]

Art, like beauty, will ALWAYS be subjective.

That is what people used to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which gas been refuted by science. Several aspects tgat were never mentioned in Shakespeare, like facial symmetry or facial averageness, turned out to be universally appreciated across cultures, and other studies showed the trends extrapolated into the animal kingdom.

If you want to buy into the cultural nihilism of mjolnr, do so, but realize that it is incorrect.

 

[ctsketch]

That is what people used to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which gas been refuted by science. Several aspects tgat were never mentioned in Shakespeare, like facial symmetry or facial averageness, turned out to be universally appreciated across cultures, and other studies showed the trends extrapolated into the animal kingdom.

If you want to buy into the cultural nihilism of mjolnr, do so, but realize that it is incorrect.

that doesn't change the fact that people have different standards though. There are objective ways to identify what people find beautiful statistically yes. But there are outliers...otherwise we would never reproduce (or no one would ever see a movie unless it was 100% perfect to all audiences)

A movie that is found 50% fresh and 50% rotten still means half does not agree with the other.

</Logic'd>
</Engineer'd>

 

[Mjölnir]

That is what people used to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which gas been refuted by science. Several aspects tgat were never mentioned in Shakespeare, like facial symmetry or facial averageness, turned out to be universally appreciated across cultures, and other studies showed the trends extrapolated into the animal kingdom.

If you want to buy into the cultural nihilism of mjolnr, do so, but realize that it is incorrect.

So what are the universal rules for quality in movies then? With sources please. Don't compare it to facial symmetry unless you have similar research to back it up because a function to control what we are attracted to for procreation isn't the same as the function of art.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

75%!

I think Rottentomatoes likes to troll the fans sometimes lol. With these kind of movies they like to release negative reviews in clusters and then a batch of positives and then another round of negatives. Keep the fans on a rollercoaster ride of emotions

 

[ctsketch]

So what are the universal rules for quality in movies then? With sources please. Don't compare it to facial symmetry unless you have similar research to back it up because a function to control what we are attracted to for procreation isn't the same as the function of art.

He decides what is good art, obviously

 

[DA_Champion]

So what are the universal rules for quality in movies then? With sources please. Don't compare it to facial symmetry unless you have similar research to back it up because a function to control what we are attracted to for procreation isn't the same as the function of art.

There is tremendous research on aesthetics which you can look up easily. I am not going to explain to you something everyone is explained in elementary school, assuming they attend a decent one. There is good art and bad art.

If you really believed art was 100% subjective, you would not even be discussing it on an online forum. By being on these forums, you acknowledge tgat there is something worth discussing and as such it is not all subjectuve whims.

At the end of the day, your failure to acknowledge the failures in this movie (Erik Selvig, Hemsworth's fake voice, etc) are not distinct from the irrational defensiveness I saw in man of steel discussions.

 

[DA_Champion]

According to some here, american reviewers have distinct attitudes, I do not know if this is true, but assuming it is ...

The movie had 87% with 47 reviews before, I think. Now it has 74% with 78 reviews. That means an average of 54% in the recent batch. If that keeps up through to 250 reviews total, the final score will be ~60%. But, that buys into the narrative I saw promoted by some here that early reviews tend to be higher. I do not know if that is correct.

 

[Mjölnir]

There is tremendous research on aesthetics which you can look up easily. I am not going to explain to you something everyone is explained in elementary school, assuming they attend a decent one. There is good art and bad art.

If you really believed art was 100% subjective, you would not even be discussing it on an online forum. By being on these forums, you acknowledge tgat there is something worth discussing and as such it is not all subjectuve whims.

At the end of the day, your failure to acknowledge the failures in this movie (Erik Selvig, Hemsworth's fake voice, etc) are not distinct from the irrational defensiveness I saw in man of steel discussions.

Now you're jumping into the standard responses you get from people on the Internet that don't really have anything more to say. It gets especially sad that you manage to get more than one Straw Man in there. It's only you who are arguing as if your opinions were facts (which ironically enough is something you'd learn not to do early in elementary school). I've even stated outright that I understand several negative opinions that differ from mine so calling that irrational is just incredibly desperate.

But to try to get this away from this very childish turn in the discussion, why don't you tell me if Transformers 2 is a quality movie or not?

The critics hated it, but the audience seemed to like it quite a bit given the box office earnings. On that cursory glance it doesn't look like there's a consensus to be had, and if we compare to the facial symmetry the critics are the ones that exhibit the anomaly opinion and should therefor be the ones that fall outside the norm. The point of facial symmetry is that everyone reacts to it, not just a small few "educated" people, so your comparison to that should mean that the movies that the big masses like are the ones that are objectively good.

 

[DA_Champion]

Transformers 2 is a "good movie" in a similar way that Thor 2 is a good movie. They can both appeal to males aged 8-20, where the age range is approximate. As I have said before, there is merit in being able to nail a demographic group. Obviously at age 29 I found Erik Selvig to be execrable, but I wont deny that if I were 10 years old I would have giggled.

That said, the critics are not 8-20 year old boys, and neither is the majority of this forum. Further, part of the reason kids have different tastes are their smaller range of life experiences, they cannot recogjise cliches due to having seen fewer movies, they have shorter attention spans, and incomplete neurological development: Kids do not feel empathy as adults do, suspension of disbelief is less of an issue, do not visualize consequences as well, and cannot follow romantic and sexual subplots as well.

Though again, I reiterate that it is important to entertain kids.

 

[insideguy]

One thing I do notice on rotten tomatoes is if you read the reviews( and I dont read all of them) a reviewer can give a movie 3 out of 5 and rt tomatoes will say its a rotten review. On the other hand a reviewer can give a movie 3 out of 5 and rt will give it a fresh review. Interesting some of them are up for interpretation from rt.

 

[Mjölnir]

But quality in a movie is not subjective so demographics shouldn't matter. If there's objective quality then a movie is just good. You did compare it to facial symmetry, which was an established fact because it was supported in all sorts of groups.

Saying that a movie appeals to some but not others defines it as subjective taste.