New Ghostbusters Afterlife trailer

[Morrus]

Good I suppose, that they change their mind. But why even pay attention to critic reviews if they can't recognize a piece of Hollywood history when they see it? Critics like Ciskel and Ebert panned Aliens because "it's about a child being put in danger", while everyone else can recognize it for one of the best sequels and action movies ever made. Then what use are film critic reviews?

What use is any opinion piece? You're either interested or you're not. You read it or you don't, just like any article. No other utility is required. What use is this post?

I find it interesting to see what others thought of things I've seen. That's one use for me personally.

 

[payn]

Even the Mummy didn't have EVERY critic agree, but the overall critic's reviews put it lower on their scale at around a C rating, while audience reviews at the time (20 years ago) put it in the 90 percentile.

I think the cases I have the worst situations are where reviewers rate something as mediocre or bad while most of the rest of the people who watch it rate it as awesome or great! That's where we see a disconnect.

I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases. (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one. You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)

That might be an instance where the movie hits certain notes that resonated with audiences at the time, but eventually lowers closer to its actual standard. I loved Independence Day when it dropped. I had so much fun with that movie at the theater. Today, I cant even handle more than 10 min of it.

Time can change perspectives and it also changes critical consensus. A lot of cutting edge material gets panned because its pushing the boundaries. Sometimes, its dreck and sometimes its the next level. Sometimes, a piece of work is just an amusement ride of fan service and its not trying to move the needle in any particular direction. A critic, however, always has their eye on the needle and is going to report under such criteria.

I find similar things with Video games as well...soo...

Video Games are an entirely different animal. Usually, there is a 10 point scale where I have never seen a critic go lower than 7 or maybe a 6. Audience reviewers? I hardly seen anything above 4 . Audience reviews of VGs are ridiculous. Often times, they have some type of user malfunction or hardware incompatibility that inexplicably knocks their review to the bottom. I find video game review to be entirely unhelpful most of the time.

 

[trappedslider]

One last Trailer

 

[wicked cool]

i saw the latest clip. im intrigued

 

[Jack Daniel]

One last Trailer

Hey; have you missed us?

 

[Zaukrie]

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.



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.

Isn't a different story a good thing, when it is a very different timeline and characters? Don't we want this to be a different story?

 

[billd91]

I do find it interesting that if you go ahead into the future, the reviewers seem to change their outlook or review of a movie that was universally loved by audiences to align more with audience views than what it was originally in some cases. (The Mummy didn't get this fate though, it got rated lower by audiences as time passed till now it is a 75% on Rotton Tomatoes...reviewers seem to keep the same score on that one. You can see even a bigger divide on metacritic, but general audience is still at 87% or thereabouts these days.)

Well, yeah, the critics' score stays the same. Published critics aren't still reviewing the 1999 movie. It would be a waste of time and resources for their employers if they did 20 years on when it's long out of the theaters. The audience score on RottenTomatoes, however, stays open since people can still get via DVD/streaming and watch it.

Ultimately, on RottenTomatoes, 61% critics and 75% audience are largely in agreement. It's over the threshold to be marked "fresh" by the critics and is, essentially, a rating amplified by a good score from the audience. The 48/8.7 ratings from the critics/audience on Metacritic aren't in agreement and may indicate weaknesses in Metacritic's method - at least for The Mummy.

 

[AtomicPope]

Isn't a different story a good thing, when it is a very different timeline and characters? Don't we want this to be a different story?

You've completely missed the point. Completely.

 

[Zaukrie]

You've completely missed the point. Completely.

Enlighten me. What was your point?

 

[AtomicPope]

Enlighten me. What was your point?

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.