Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: NWO uses Rotten Tomatoes to destroy Hollywood

  1. #1

    Default NWO uses Rotten Tomatoes to destroy Hollywood

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/b...imes&smtyp=cur

    tl;dr: movie execs are blaming RT for poorer-than-expected sales this summer.

    I can agree with the view that studios have become risk-averse and increasingly lame over the years, with detrimental effects on the quality of movies (originality, execution etc). That being said, I am also extremely skeptical of the utility of crowdsourced ratings, both on theoretical grounds and based on anecdotal evidence. A lot has been written on this subject, and I recommend reading the brief discussion of ratings found in William Poundstone's "How to Predict the Unpredictable" for an overview of some of the problems.

    I don't think RT can be held responsible for the movie-industry serving up shit and expecting everyone to think it tastes like chocolate soufflé, but I think there might nevertheless be some merit to the notion that crowdsourced rating sites like RT may have unintended detrimental effects.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #2
    Damn Rotten Tomatoes for warning potential viewers about terrible movies so they can avoid shelling out a massive amount of money to watch them.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    I believe it's reasonable to say that truly abysmal scores and extremely high scores are both reasonably reliable. But scores in between I'm very skeptical about and no doubt movies with middling or 60-70% scores are having a hard time.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I believe it's reasonable to say that truly abysmal scores and extremely high scores are both reasonably reliable. But scores in between I'm very skeptical about and no doubt movies with middling or 60-70% scores are having a hard time.
    I doubt anyone looks at a score of 60% and decides to not go to a movie they were otherwise going to see.

    Metacritic is better by the way. Fresh doesn't mean good. A movie could get a high Rotten Tomatoes score just because most critics think it's not terrible.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #5
    Didn't I post about how the industry was killing itself thinking it was smart to release tent pole after tent pole movie? This is only going to get worse unless they drastically change the 2018 release schedule.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Didn't I post about how the industry was killing itself thinking it was smart to release tent pole after tent pole movie? This is only going to get worse unless they drastically change the 2018 release schedule.
    Yeah, as if it weren't like most of the supposed blockbusters didn'b bomb because they pretty much caused an effect with me as a viewer in accordance with their RT rating. I think I can safely say that the movies I liked best this year did not have a crazy big budget. It seems a given these days that CGI and special effects sucks up all the money in such a thorough way that none is left for scriptwriters.
    Congratulations America

  7. #7
    As time goes on I feel that the movie experience and the home movie experience is getting closer and closer to parity. The sheer volume of entertainment options these days makes it so that a movie must be absolutely amazing for me to bother with going to the theater.

  8. #8
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Hint to Hollywood...More Collateral, less The Mummy (Tom's one)
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  9. #9
    I find this whole thing so amusing. If this were indeed the case, Fandango would notice massively lower booking rates on movies with lower ratings (which leads to more revenue).

    Come to think of it, I'm not sure why Fandango made this purchase.

    But then there's this: http://gizmodo.com/data-analysis-exo...ods-1803781282

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Hint to Hollywood...More Collateral, less The Mummy (Tom's one)
    Even this wouldn't save Hollywood from the path they are traveling down. Once they find a groove that works they beat it into the ground until its no longer profitable. The current type of movie isn't the issue, its the fact that so many big budget and/or big name movies are releasing so close together. Movie goers are getting fatigued, and the more often you get them into a theater the more quickly they realize how expensive and sub par the experience has become. 2018 will see 40 tent pole movies, in 52 weekends. They are not only cannibalizing their own sales they are going to make it near impossible for movies without a huge advertising budget to get any type of traction. 2018 is going to be a rough year and I wouldn't be surprised to see a parent company try to unload WB or Universal before 2020.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •