log in or register to remove this ad

 

New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.
You are very clever.

And having shown me the error of my ways you have convinced me to reverse my decision and not see the film.

Wait. No. The opposite thing. :)
 

You are very clever.

And having shown me the error of my ways you have convinced me to reverse my decision and not see the film.

Wait. No. The opposite thing. :)
Ah yes, my mission in life, to make sure people don't see a movie!

Everyone should always see whatever they want. I'm just trying to point out how folks tend to use reviews in these kinds of situations, or boldly proclaim that reviews don't matter, etc., as though the point of critics is simply to tell people whether to watch something or not. The better of those reviews I linked to have interesting things to say about fan service and nostalgia. They're about as interested in whether you personally are going to see it as I am (no offense, of course).
 


MarkB

Legend
One of my favorite recurring themes in fandom/geekdom: folks loudly touting the good reviews for a much-anticipated release when the reviews are, in fact, good...and then saying, "Ah, who needs reviews anyway!?" when they're not.
As opposed to the ones loudly touting the poor reviews for a release they've decided in advance will be garbage, and dismissing them if they're positive?
 



AtomicPope

Adventurer
I'm on the fence for this one. I didn't like the reboot and Akroyd's criticism of Paul Fiege made more sense after seeing it.

"[Ghostbusters] made a lot of money around the world but just cost too much, making it economically not feasible to do another one. So that’s too bad. The director, he spent too much on it. He didn’t shoot scenes we suggested to him and several scenes that were going to be needed and he said, ‘Nah, we don’t need them.’ Then we tested the movie and they needed them and he had to go back. About $30 to $40-million in reshoots. So he will not be back on the Sony lot any time soon."

That's a LOT of money on reshoots, which tells me there was no clear plan from the director. But enough about that.

The problem I have with reboots are the same problem I have with George Lucas "remastering" Star Wars and having Han shoot second. People change. Art is a product of its time. When Lucas went back to Star Wars he was a different man. The new George wanted to tell a different story so he did it by rewriting the original and completely ruining Han Solo's story arc from an untrustworthy scoundrel to a stalwart friend.

Why would I think Ghostbusters will be any different?

Also, Finn Wolfhard is growing way too fast. He's going to be the size of Stay Puft if they have any reshoots.
 
Last edited:





Blue Orange

Adventurer
I want to see a reanimated CGI Harold Ramis.

I've heard movies with a '4' in the name tend to do poorly...and that's before the Chinese market became a big thing. (The number 4 is really bad luck in China, worse than 13 here.) So I think that's why they change the name when the fourth movie comes out.

Critics and moviegoers often diverge on Rotten Tomatoes. In general you'll see high-critic, low-moviegoer scores with 'message' movies that appeal to critics or artistically-challenging films that don't appeal to the public, and low-critic, high-moviegoer scores with franchises considered 'lowbrow' (look at many horror movie installments) or movies that wind up getting coded as 'conservative' for whatever reason (a lot of Clint Eastwood's stuff, for instance, or the recent Alita movie).
 



Oh, god, no. I think there are serious problems with creating new material with the animated, CGI images of dead people who have not consented their presence or use.

Both ethically, artistically, and visually.

Very rarely is it done in a way that isn't extremely jarring.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I want to see a reanimated CGI Harold Ramis.

I've heard movies with a '4' in the name tend to do poorly...and that's before the Chinese market became a big thing. (The number 4 is really bad luck in China, worse than 13 here.) So I think that's why they change the name when the fourth movie comes out.

Critics and moviegoers often diverge on Rotten Tomatoes. In general you'll see high-critic, low-moviegoer scores with 'message' movies that appeal to critics or artistically-challenging films that don't appeal to the public, and low-critic, high-moviegoer scores with franchises considered 'lowbrow' (look at many horror movie installments) or movies that wind up getting coded as 'conservative' for whatever reason (a lot of Clint Eastwood's stuff, for instance, or the recent Alita movie).

I'm sceptical if scores above 9.0 or the equivalent and very sceptical when the scores are approaching 9.5.

Otherwise
Lowbrow= low scores.
Historical drama with a message= high score.

Critics are essentially snobs and Rotten Tomatoes is useless. Movie is ok gets a thumb up but is it 6.5 or 9.5 good, doesn't matter.
 

Ryujin

Legend
I'm sceptical if scores above 9.0 or the equivalent and very sceptical when the scores are approaching 9.5.

Otherwise
Lowbrow= low scores.
Historical drama with a message= high score.

Critics are essentially snobs and Rotten Tomatoes is useless. Movie is ok gets a thumb up but is it 6.5 or 9.5 good, doesn't matter.
At least they also give an "Audience Score." Not that it's any more accurate, as trolls can seriously screw over that rating, but it tends to indicate something if the two ratings are wildly dissimilar.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
At least they also give an "Audience Score." Not that it's any more accurate, as trolls can seriously screw over that rating, but it tends to indicate something if the two ratings are wildly dissimilar.

Average the two scores. Add 10% if it's getting review bombed. Take off 10% if it's an arty farty critic darling.
 

Critics are essentially snobs and Rotten Tomatoes is useless.

I wouldn't say it is useless. I tend to look not so much at the ratings, but at the actual reviews. If multiple people share the same complaint about a movie, that tells you something. I tend to ignore "critics".
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top