New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

[Paul Farquhar]

I think this movie will be just fine.

As long as they don't throw in a CGI Harold Ramis, it will be just fine....

...just fine... -nervous twitching-

As a free floating full torso apparition?

 

[Imaculata]

As a free floating full torso apparition?

I was thinking a free floating fully uncanny valley apparition. XD

 

[Blue Orange]

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).

 

[Imaculata]

 

[billd91]

I want to see a reanimated CGI Harold Ramis.

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.

 

[Imaculata]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Imaculata]

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".