Studios blaming RT for bad box office, might drop critic screening

[The NZA]

deadline

 

How can two movies that excelled in their testing underperform stateside?

 

In the case of Pirates 5, I hear that the movie had the highest test scores in the history of the series. Once audiences get into the movie, they seem to be enjoying it with an A- CinemaScore, higher than the B+ of On Stranger Tides and in line with the second title Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End, and an 82% positive score. The franchise is still fresh abroad, and given its glorious overseas opening, the movie will certainly be profitable for Disney with an anticipated final global haul of $800M-$900M.

 

Meanwhile, Baywatch tested over a 91 three times. In all fairness to Disney, the stakes were higher here for Paramount: It needed a home run to start the summer but came in 48% below tracking. Pirates 5 was only $5M off the low end of the $80M Disney was expecting this weekend.

 

Insiders close to both films blame Rotten Tomatoes, with Pirates 5 and Baywatch respectively earning 32% and 19% Rotten. The critic aggregation site increasingly is slowing down the potential business of popcorn movies. Pirates 5 and Baywatch aren’t built for critics but rather general audiences, and once upon a time these types of films — a family adventure and a raunchy R-rated comedy — were critic-proof. Many of those in the industry severely question how Rotten Tomatoes computes the its ratings, and the fact that these scores run on Fandango (which owns RT) is an even bigger problem.

 

Both Pirates 5 and Baywatch started high on tracking four weeks ago, $90M-$100M over four and $50M over five days respectively, and the minute Rotten Tomatoes hit, those estimates collapsed. Over the weekend, I heard that some studio insiders want to hold off critic screenings until opening day or cancel them all together (that’s pretty ambitious and would cause much ire, we’ll see if that ever happens). Already, studios and agencies are studying RT scores’ impact on advance ticket sales and tracking.

 

“There’s just not a great date on the calendar to open a poorly reviewed movie,” said one studio marketing vet this morning.

 

posted without comment

 

[Little Nemo McFly]

Ah, the science of art critiquing.

 

I love tons of shitty movies. LOL - that's not even in quotes...they're shit.

 

Film making is a fucking sorry industrial bowel movement, nowadays - that seem to hinge and made solely w/ the goal of achieving 'critics are raving'...'certified Fresh'. It's mostly all disposable entertainment. So few movies are made w/ the intent on making something worthwhile. (Mind you, this is coming from a cinephile that sticks to particular tastes - I don't watch everything.)

 

There are people who make music for the sake of it - and sum that throw a fit because they didn't win 'an award'.

 

Sad how important the scores are. I mean, there's to be had in the discussion of pros n' cons - and interesting to see how well a movie does @ box office - but unless being financially invested...I don't need anyone to like what I like.

 

The science of 'art'. Timeless debate. Sucks when it's all about the 'likes' - which is where I see the state of the industry today. Way too many damn trailers...it's like they're trying to go viral w/ 'awesomeness' before a bad review does (heaven forbid).

[Iambaytor]

Maan, Suicide Squad deserved that Oscar, Croc looked better than any of the various glued on headpieces in Star Trek or the old man make-up from A Man Called Ove. Fuck off with that shit.

 

I cannot even begin to say how fucking worthless aggregate review websites are and Rotten Tomatoes is the worst one because it's given the most credence, CinemaScore is stupid too but it tends to skew in favor of movies since it's done to average joe theater-goers as they walking out of just having seen the movie.

 

I'm a critic, I've been doing it off and on for about 10 years now and I cannot overemphasize how little credence people should put into review scores. It is impossible to quantify one's feeling about a movie into a number and trying to do so is faulty at best. Reviews are for entertainment, analysis, and delivering a basic idea of what the viewer is walking into but the thing that people don't seem to realize is that we're being subjective, and we know we're being subjective. Nobody thinks Transformers is the worst movie in the world, not even the second one, they're simply trying to convey that their viewing experience was unpleasant but people latch onto these things and pile on top of movies that are generally, at worst, mediocre. It's nigh-impossible to write a compelling review about an actual bad movie, for it to evoke the emotion to tear into it means it has qualities about it that are well done. And there's a really stupid yardstick that says that a prestige drama, an indie-horror movie, a jump-scare laden summer shocker, a superhero movie, and a space opera should all be judged by the same yardstick. If I have to read one more fucking think-piece about how superhero movies are just spectacle laden (that's the point, they're super hero movies!) from the same person who gives rave reviews to this year's crop of well-made navel-gazing pap that's based on a true story that everybody will forget within a year (Captain Phillips, Sully, Spotlight.) Because all those prestige movies are just as cliched and formulaic as Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie Number 12, but let's pretend they're wonderful because they're enjoyable the first time you watch them. I've watched Mad Max Fury Road 10 times since 2015, I haven't watched Walk the Line all the way through since I saw it in the theater. It was by all accounts a well-made film but I have no desire to see it again and it really was a by-the-numbers biopic, so much so that it was the centerpiece of Walk Hard; a movie mocking that very formula.

 

TLDR: scores are pointless, critics can be pretentious but not nearly as the people who read them (the cult of Roger Ebert can fuck right off), a good movie is one that succeeds at being what it is, don't read Rotten Tomatoes.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Iambaytor

[The NZA]

i get that it felt like the comic to you, but that first half hour was a mess that i don't know it recovered from. i didn't hate it but SS wasn't good

 

you're kinda nailing the entire problem of numbered reviews for video games & other mediums too, i'd imagine. i think a score of some kind works when i feel i know the bar for a reviewer: needledrop does hipster hip hop reviews, certain former kotaku employees do solid gaming ones - because i think i know what a 0, a 5, and a 10 look like to them. obviously, if i'm inclined to agree (MGS4? 3-4 tops. Zelda 2 is maybe a 5-6, Katamari is a hard 9, soft 10 etc) that's someone i'm gonna follow.

 

i know we've talked about aggregate review sites & your (rightful) disdain of them, but to the casual moviegoer who wants a vague idea without reading specifics, it's hard to argue their use. part of me just thinks they need context: a horror movie over 65 might be pretty fun - you can enjoy em at lower #'s but you're taking a chance unless you're really down for the ride. a DCEU flick over 50 sounds promising, a marvel one around there might be really flawed. at some point this gets silly though: i'll watch all kinds of forgettable shit i wouldn't bother with otherwise if, say bruce willis is there and remotely appears interested.

 

more to the point: if chud required a simple watch/pass thing at the bottom of your reviews, would that ruin things for you? besides knowing people are gonna scroll past all the words to get to that sometimes.

[Keth]

i get that it felt like the comic to you, but that first half hour was a mess that i don't know it recovered from. i didn't hate it but SS wasn't good

 

you're kinda nailing the entire problem of numbered reviews for video games & other mediums too, i'd imagine.

 

Not to shift the discussion from movies, I kinda wish games would do away with numbers. This may be fit for it's own thread, but lord knows we have a ton of those around here in one form or another. I'd much rather have something with bullet points detailing what a certain reviewer liked or didn't like about a certain thing. Jim Sterling is a good example of someone who I respect, but really have a hard time with his reviews. He will gave Deadly Premonition a 10/10 for the love of god. I mean, he stands by it to this day, and his reasoning for it is sound I guess, but he also gave Breath of the Wild a 7/10. And I'm not on the team that says that is a bad score, but more so that it is a pretty unbalanced way of reviewing a product, and it makes his opinion hard to gauge in that capacity. I suppose you could argue those games are apples and oranges or whatever, but I still see slapping a number on a product to rate it is problematic to say the least.

[Iambaytor]

The Oscar was for make-up special effects, not film editing, screenplay, or directing. Your thoughts or the objective quality of the movie on the whole has fuck-all to do with it. It had one of the best practical make-up effects in the last ten years, that deserves credit.

 

And yeah, I never cared for scoring my CHUD reviews and I can promise you that even those reviewers whose metric you think are understandable have a hard time scoring something that doesn't fall on one end of the scale or another. And that's the biggest problem with those aggregate reviews, critics are begrudged to see as many movies as possible so if they see something they don't want to see and it doesn't change their mind they'll resent it more and throw the scale off. Rotten Tomatoes isn't a poll of people who necessarily wanted to see a particular movie. On that front cinemascore is a bit better but since it's a poll done right as people are leaving movies that have more thoughtful or complicated endings or maybe require a bit of reflection aren't going to score nearly as well as broad crowd-pleasing fare. Admittedly there's no right way to do this but Rotten Tomatoes and Cinemascore certainly do it the wrong way.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Iambaytor

[The NZA]

related:

 

Scorsese: Sites like RT & CinemaScore set a tone that's hostile to serious filmmakers

 

 

There is another change that, I believe, has no upside whatsoever. It began back in the '80s when the “box office” started to mushroom into the obsession it is today. When I was young, box office reports were confined to industry journals like The Hollywood Reporter. Now, I'm afraid that they've become…everything. Box office is the undercurrent in almost all discussions of cinema, and frequently it’s more than just an undercurrent. The brutal judgmentalism that has made opening-weekend grosses into a bloodthirsty spectator sport seems to have encouraged an even more brutal approach to film reviewing. I’m talking about market research firms like Cinemascore, which started in the late '70s, and online “aggregators” like Rotten Tomatoes, which have absolutely nothing to do with real film criticism. They rate a picture the way you'd rate a horse at the racetrack, a restaurant in a Zagat's guide, or a household appliance in Consumer Reports. They have everything to do with the movie business and absolutely nothing to do with either the creation or the intelligent viewing of film. The filmmaker is reduced to a content manufacturer and the viewer to an unadventurous consumer.

 

These firms and aggregators have set a tone that is hostile to serious filmmakers — even the actual name Rotten Tomatoes is insulting. And as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene, it seems like there are more and more voices out there engaged in pure judgmentalism, people who seem to take pleasure in seeing films and filmmakers rejected, dismissed and in some cases ripped to shreds. Not unlike the increasingly desperate and bloodthirsty crowd near the end of Darren Aronofsky's mother!

[Drifter]

I'm blaming Trump for poor movie performances... people are unsettled, they're not indulging, they're waiting for the other shoe to drop, that Trump will do something to tank the economy or start a war. They don't feel safe going out for an escapist experience when they can hide at home and get the same content a little later. People are pensive, divided, and feel threatened almost subconsciously. So fuck that guy.

 

The film industry has also changed, all a studios eggs are in fewer and fewer baskets leading to the push for broader access to more and different demographics with foreign market considerations/pandering also generalize films for easy translation. Ask yourself, could films like the rated R 80s action flics get made today?

 

Also, ticket prices have ballooned for reasons that escape me, theaters are no where near as profitable as they should be given that it costs 10 bucks for a discounted ticket.

 

Has it also been pointed out that what studios and film makers are really just complaining about is that these aggregator sites aren't letting them trick the public into giving their shit-movies a once-over before the audiences revolt and the film cycles out?

[Little Nemo McFly]

Movies today can't afford to 'fail' - and that sucks.

 

No one can deny they don't make 'em like they use to - and I ain't talkin' 'bout fx or 'original' ideas.

 

We are in the midst of the Golden Age of...shit. I honestly blame the internet and declining attention spans.