Will Fanboys Ever Learn?

[C. Lee]

But we were comparing how Raimi haters view the Spider-man movies versus the general audience..

I didn't make myself plain enough. I understand that you guys were talking about the Raimi haters and such....the point I was trying to make was, when someone is trying to tell me how good or bad a movie is and use something like the RT%...I don't consider anything they say about it from then on important. If they can't make the decision on thier own if they like a movie or not and need the conscensus of a bunch of strangers on the internet who probably lied on the poll just for the LULZ of it...then I don't need to hear thier opinion.

 

[danoyse]

To me...nothing at all. I don't give a damn what rotten tomatoes says about anything. There are hundreds of movies I hate that many people love and hundreds of movies I love that many people hate.

I personally judge movies by what I think about them after seeing them.

We're a dying breed, us folks who went to the movies before the internet told us what to think of them.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

How did my thread turn into a thread about the Raimi haters?

Anyway, I agree with Jamie I think that both X-Men: First Class and Spider-Man reboot are going to be hurt by the previous films.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I didn't make myself plain enough. I understand that you guys were talking about the Raimi haters and such....the point I was trying to make was, when someone is trying to tell me how good or bad a movie is and use something like the RT%...I don't consider anything they say about it from then on important. If they can't make the decision on thier own if they like a movie or not and need the conscensus of a bunch of strangers on the internet who probably lied on the poll just for the LULZ of it...then I don't need to hear thier opinion.

Yeah obviously on an individual basis your opinion is what matters but we're not talking about individual taste.

Generally user ratings are a good indication of how a movie is viewed by the public. For example The Dark Knight will have a much higher rating than Batman and Robin. Why? Because most people rate these movies honestly not for LULZ.

 

[chaseter]

A great movie should have high ratings from both the audience and critics.

65% is almost rotten. So obviously the audience wasn't that impressed.

Twilight New Moon is at 78% and 500 Days of Summer is at %81 from users. Pretty close. That means that they are close in quality.

 

[Figs]

How did my thread turn into a thread about the Raimi haters?

Anyway, I agree with Jamie I think that both X-Men: First Class and Spider-Man reboot are going to be hurt by the previous films.

I'm thinking the same thing, but it's hard to tell at this point. Didn't X3 do well in the theatre or did it have an immense drop off during it's second weekend?

I don't know the opinions of the general audience when it came to those two films. All I know is that I'm interested in the Spider-Man reboot and have to admit I'm starting to get excited for First Class with all the news being released recently.

 

[Jack Napier]

I didn't make myself plain enough. I understand that you guys were talking about the Raimi haters and such....the point I was trying to make was, when someone is trying to tell me how good or bad a movie is and use something like the RT%...I don't consider anything they say about it from then on important. If they can't make the decision on thier own if they like a movie or not and need the conscensus of a bunch of strangers on the internet who probably lied on the poll just for the LULZ of it...then I don't need to hear thier opinion.

If I always listened to the RT meter, I never would've seen "Taken" (which resides at 58%), and that would be criminal. We may not have the cure for cancer, but we'll always have that wonderful film.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm not excited for either of them. I was never hot on the X-series and I also don't like the director. And I think that it's too soon for a Spider-Man reboot. It does have a great cast though.

Right now I also think that Thor is going to underperform. I think it's going to be another Van Helsing as far as starting the summer off goes. I'm wrong on quite alot of flicks so maybe I'm wrong but thats my prediction for now.

 

[terry78]

The only way Spidey 4 becomes something new and fresh is if they bring on a villain that trumps the ones Raimi used in a whole new manner. Regarding seeing Spider-Man's acrobatics brought to life, that mission has been accomplished, and anything Webb does will just be updating the template.

 

[Octoberist]

I think it's my age speaking (I'm 27) but I can't get excited over Spider-Man at this point.

I don't know if The Lizard (If he's in) can be as engaging as Doc Ock, but I'm sure he'll trump over Sandman, Venom, and maybe Gobby.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Twilight New Moon is at 78% and 500 Days of Summer is at %81 from users. Pretty close. That means that they are close in quality.

But Twilight voters watched Twilight. Meaning that most people who voted were probably fans.

That goes for any franchise with a fanbase.

 

[chaseter]

But Twilight voters watched Twilight. Meaning that most people who voted were probably fans.

That goes for any franchise with a fanbase.

You just proved your previous point invalid. For all we know 15 fat guys with no job sat there and voted 500 times each. Who knows. However, the critics can't vote 50 times and they are fans of movies, not of a director or a character.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You just proved your previous point invalid. For all we know 15 fat guys with no job sat there and voted 500 times each. Who knows. However, the critics can't vote 50 times and they are fans of movies, not of a director or a character.

What the fans think matters.

They know when they're being cheated because they're read the best the source material has to offer. The movie critic who has never read a Spider-man comic in his/her life wouldn't care if Peter Parker was an Asian midget on rollerblades.

 

[chaseter]

Alright, so apparently 500 and New Moon are closely related in quality according to teh fans.

 

[mclay18]

No way a Spider-Man movie will cost under $100 million and as I've said before, studios always lie about budgets.

That's true. But I think one could do a decent Spider-Man film for $80M by being very creative and frugal. But Sony likes to spend where it counts.

 

[C. Lee]

What the fans think matters.

In what way? I believe the current line of discussion is about how the Raimi haters were using the RT scores to back up thier hate. It may make them feel good about themselves that a site on the net agrees with them....but it doesn't make the people who like his movies change thier minds.

That a great number of "fans" voted negatively in a poll on the net means next to nothing to many people. From what I see all across the net....haters and negative people post and click on polls more than positive people do. A poll saying that a majority of people hated something can mean that a majority of people hated it or that many people who liked it didn't vote in the poll.

So did a majority of fans hate it or was it only the majority of haters who even bothered to vote? That's why I get so mad at all of these haters/lovers camps on everything that springs up on here. I'm telling you....the haters are more vocal and persistant. They don't change the minds of the lovers...the lovers just get tired of the same old rhetoric and attacks over and over every time they try to talk about something they like.

 

[Warhammer]

Whoever seriously uses Rotten Tomatoes to gauge the reception of a movie (whether it be the critics, the fans, or the cream of the crop) is an idiot. That website is NOT a good enough gauge for ranking films. If someone ever was debating with me and tried to back their point with referencing RT, I would laugh in their face for their ignorance.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Whoever seriously uses Rotten Tomatoes to gauge the reception of a movie (whether it be the critics, the fans, or the cream of the crop) is an idiot. That website is NOT a good enough gauge for ranking films. If someone ever was debating with me and tried to back their point with referencing RT, I would laugh in their face for their ignorance.

I disagree, thought not completely. The only time I depend on it is when I'm on the fences about seeing a film in theaters. But if its low on the tomatometer (below 30%), I admit to really being resistant to seeing the film because I don't want to waste money.

I've said this many times, but in this day and age where it cost $10 for a movie ticket I'm gonna waste my time on a film that may or will most likely suck. I found RT to be a good gauge of films, though I will admit that at times Rotten =/= bad film and Fresh =/= good film.

And I have no problem with referencing a film when using critical reception or fan as an example (along with Metacritic and IMDB). I think they're all pretty handy in an argument though I would never make it my sole argumet (that's stupid).

 

[jmc]

Whoever seriously uses Rotten Tomatoes to gauge the reception of a movie (whether it be the critics, the fans, or the cream of the crop) is an idiot. That website is NOT a good enough gauge for ranking films. If someone ever was debating with me and tried to back their point with referencing RT, I would laugh in their face for their ignorance.

Whilst I agree RT is too easy (and ludicrous) a crutch for fans to use to back up an argument, the site still has merit to determining what films are worth spending money on. Can't speak for others but I wanna know if my hard earns are gonna be spent on something worthwhile. Why waste $17 on something that only a third of critics like?

 

[TheFuture]

Whoever seriously uses Rotten Tomatoes to gauge the reception of a movie (whether it be the critics, the fans, or the cream of the crop) is an idiot. That website is NOT a good enough gauge for ranking films. If someone ever was debating with me and tried to back their point with referencing RT, I would laugh in their face for their ignorance.

You sound like a delight.

 

[chaseter]

RT has saved me from seeing stinkers many, many times. It is a pretty good gauge of what the general consensus is from critics. If you want to get technical, there is no accurate gauge of movie quality except your own opinion and that doesn't hold up in a debate sooooooo.

 

[That-Guy]

Yeah, although the data is inherently flawed due to the fact that RT includes reviews by some "critics" who have the collective film knowledge of a third grade class, it's usually a sure bet that if a movie is at 10%, it's going to suck.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The thing with the Spider-Man reboot is with a different cast and everything, I'm hoping we won't have a tired feeling when we see Spider-Man swinging. I know it's basic, but I hope they still can gauge an interest and excitement from what makes him so visually pleasing.

But if they use the Lizard right in the promotion, that will get people in the seats. It all has to be done right. The reboot is still too soon though which will makes people mad and/or confused. Everyone I've mentioned it to aren't happy that it's a reboot.

Thor I think will underperform. Which makes me nervous for Avengers. Another thing I'm concerned about. Will audiences care to see possibly two out of four heroes that they like in the theater?

 

[Warhammer]

I disagree, thought not completely. The only time I depend on it is when I'm on the fences about seeing a film in theaters. But if its low on the tomatometer (below 30%), I admit to really being resistant to seeing the film because I don't want to waste money.

I've said this many times, but in this day and age where it cost $10 for a movie ticket I'm gonna waste my time on a film that may or will most likely suck. I found RT to be a good gauge of films, though I will admit that at times Rotten =/= bad film and Fresh =/= good film.

And I have no problem with referencing a film when using critical reception or fan as an example (along with Metacritic and IMDB). I think they're all pretty handy in an argument though I would never make it my sole argumet (that's stupid).

Whilst I agree RT is too easy (and ludicrous) a crutch for fans to use to back up an argument, the site still has merit to determining what films are worth spending money on. Can't speak for others but I wanna know if my hard earns are gonna be spent on something worthwhile. Why waste $17 on something that only a third of critics like?

You sound like a delight.

RT has saved me from seeing stinkers many, many times. It is a pretty good gauge of what the general consensus is from critics. If you want to get technical, there is no accurate gauge of movie quality except your own opinion and that doesn't hold up in a debate sooooooo.

The reason why RT is a horrible gauge for critical reception is because the site is so absolute. Let's say ten critics voted on two different movies. Let's say six of those critics thought the movie was unbelievably great and had a shot at the Oscars. Then let's say the other four thought it was too pretentious. That gives the film a 60% right?

Now let's say for the second movie, eight of those same critics thought the movie was enjoyable. The other two thought it flat out sucked. That gives that film a 80% right? Based on the reviews, movie #1 is probably better than movie #2, but the RT scores don't reflect that do they? So how in the world is that accurate? If you really want to gauge critical reception, pick and choose one to three critics that share your opinion at least somewhat. Glance at their reviews then make up your mind. It isn't hard and will take you maybe three minutes.

 

[Figs]

The thing with the Spider-Man reboot is with a different cast and everything, I'm hoping we won't have a tired feeling when we see Spider-Man swinging. I know it's basic, but I hope they still can gauge an interest and excitement from what makes him so visually pleasing.

But if they use the Lizard right in the promotion, that will get people in the seats. It all has to be done right. The reboot is still too soon though which will makes people mad and/or confused. Everyone I've mentioned it to aren't happy that it's a reboot.

Thor I think will underperform. Which makes me nervous for Avengers. Another thing I'm concerned about. Will audiences care to see possibly two out of four heroes that they like in the theater?

I kind of have those feelings too. I can't wait to see it though. The important thing to me is that the Avengers film gets made so we can watch it. If it bombs I don't care so long as I like the film. It's not my money to lose if it bombs.t:

I'm also curious as to the look and feel of the next Spider-Man. As long as it's good I don't care that it's a new cast and restart to the franchise. If I like it, when it hits home video it will be sitting on my shelf with Spider-Man 1 & 2, just like I have Batman and Batman Returns next to BB and TDK. I never got the crazy increase in Raimi hate once they announced the restart, at least for his first two films.