Since when do people look at RT to decide if you want to go see a film or not? I couldn't care less what the score is on RT. If i want to go see something i will! Some people need to open their minds and forget ratings and grades.
Since when do people look at RT to decide if you want to go see a film or not? I couldn't care less what the score is on RT. If i want to go see something i will! Some people need to open their minds and forget ratings and grades.
I do normally check RT, it's normally quite good. But I did watch 2012's Total Recall and it wasn't as bad as everyone made it sound. I've never seen the original, but it certainly didn't deserve as much criticism as it got...
Since when do people look at RT to decide if you want to go see a film or not? I couldn't care less what the score is on RT. If i want to go see something i will! Some people need to open their minds and forget ratings and grades.
Since when do people look at RT to decide if you want to go see a film or not? I couldn't care less what the score is on RT. If i want to go see something i will! Some people need to open their minds and forget ratings and grades.
If there its a films i am interested in I will go see regardless of reviews, but RT can be helpful in terms of films I am more on the fence about or in terms of getting me to see film I otherwise wouldn't have. Having an open mind usually includes being able to weigh up information to make an informed decision you know....
If i watch a trailer or if there's something i'm interested in seeing(because of cast/director/story etc) i'll go see it. Of course i'll read reviews to find out what people make of it but regardless if it's something that appeals to ME for whatever reason i'll go see it.
I personally don't use RT so i've never once gone on there to find out the score and then decide if it's worth my time to watch it.
My main point was about the poster who said Man of Steel, 69% very disappointing. So what if it's 69%, you know what i mean? Does the film appeal to you? Do you want to watch a new Superman movie? If you want to see it, go see it. Forget about the score.
So...a crowd-pleaser, fan-pleaser, but not an altogether critic-pleaser seems to be the score so far. I'm sure the suits are happy with that.
Some sniffy reviews I note, but then critics have a habit of being like that for releases that remind them of their impotence. People will go to see this in droves regardless, so they'll be dismissive if the film dismisses them, so to speak. Not that their opinions aren't of interest - many are - but what they're not is influential, something critics often aspire to be.
It's fared better than many others of its ilk though. Radio 4's Front Row gave it a firm thumbs up and even The Indie gave it 3/5 - remarkable as 1/5 is usually their default setting for anything blockbuster-ish.
I feel let down now. I had my doubts about Snyder, should have been Nolan directing this
geez, you've not seen the film yet. Make your own judgement. Once you've seen the film say you're disappointed, but how can you know without seeing it? Don't just rely on critics.
Since when do people look at RT to decide if you want to go see a film or not? I couldn't care less what the score is on RT. If i want to go see something i will! Some people need to open their minds and forget ratings and grades.
As I said a few posts ago, I'm going to see Man of Steel regardless of it's RT score because I've been looking forward to it for months. However if I'm on the fence about watching a film, I will go check and see what the critics, reviewers and RT think to see if it's worth my time.
And if somebody was on the fence about seeing MOS, it's critical reaction and RT score could well turn them against bothering - It's now only 65% positive. I certainly wouldn't go and see a film I wasn't that bothered about with a score that low, and definitely not one classed as Rotten (which this is very close to becoming).
Isn't Superman meant to be the opposite of Batman? So why are people saying this is similar to Batman Begins?
The Donner films give that impression. There is a lot of serious potential to be taken from the comic sources. WB aren't trying to pull a Marvel 2.0 they are trying to do something clearly different with the DC films.
It truly does seem that critics have a huge chip on their shoulder over Snyder. Everything good is cause of Nolan, bad is Snyder. Apparently the film is too serious and has too much action. Guaranteed if this film was lighter it would be criticized for being too much like a Marvel film and that it needed the Batman approach. I go on a number of forums and not ONE forum member who has seen has said it was bad.
It's now only 65% positive. I certainly wouldn't go and see a film I wasn't that bothered about with a score that low, and definitely not one classed as Rotten (which this is very close to becoming).
I know it's the Rotten Tomatoes way of classifying things, but I fail to see how 65% is anything even remotely close to being classed as "rotten", to me that'd be like 30% and lower. Also, not to seem like an apologist, but having looked at the so-called "rotten" reviews it does seen as though they are overly nit-picky, one of then even negatively compares it to Watchmen and how faithful Snyder's film was to the graphic novel, a film which I love and is among the best comic book adaptations ever (imo). Had Man of Steel been exactly the same but credited as having been directed by Nolan then I almost guarantee that it'd be getting a far more welcoming reception, it seems to me as though some reviewers just have a problem with Snyder's last films and are just being overly harsh in response to THOSE films rather than judging this film (Sucker Punch was an execrable piece of shit though, I'll give them that...).
I guess I'll see for myself on Friday afternoon, but I highly doubt it'll be "rotten"...
I know it's the Rotten Tomatoes way of classifying things, but I fail to see how 65% is anything even remotely close to being classed as "rotten", to me that'd be like 30% and lower. Also, not to seem like an apologist, but having looked at the so-called "rotten" reviews it does seen as though they are overly nit-picky, one of then even negatively compares it to Watchmen and how faithful Snyder's film was to the graphic novel, a film which I love and is among the best comic book adaptations ever (imo). Had Man of Steel been exactly the same but credited as having been directed by Nolan then I almost guarantee that it'd be getting a far more welcoming reception, it seems to me as though some reviewers just have a problem with Snyder's last films and are just being overly harsh in response to THOSE films rather than judging this film (Sucker Punch was an execrable piece of shit though, I'll give them that...).
I guess I'll see for myself on Friday afternoon, but I highly doubt it'll be "rotten"...
well its like this i very much doubt this film is worse than Fast and Furious 6 which has a higher rating according to RT
I said on another forum. Rotten Tomatoes is a site based around the average scores of 200 or so critics (MOS still only has 80 or so) out of that about 70 or so may have a similar view to films as you, of that you pay pay attention to around 5. It is THOSE reviews that matters.
Why should you care about some obscure critic whose idea on films in general is unknown to you? You want to know the feelings of people who have a similar taste. Same with friends and relatives. 8 out of 10 of my friends could hate the film. Well on Rotten Tomatoes that would be 20%. But those 8 friends could absolutely hate the films I love, whereas the two that could love the films I love. Those are the ones I'd take note of. It's not biased it's the opinion of someone who has similar opinions as you.
Tookey really winds me up sometimes : "Costner has a vaguely distant look in his eyes, as though wondering why his career went so badly wrong after Field of Dreams". What a stupid line.
Yeah - JFK, Dances With Wolves, A Perfect World, Thirteen Days, Wyatt Earp, Open Range, etc, etc, were terrible weren't they Chris?!! Tookey's such a typical, narrow-minded dunce. All he can think of is Waterworld = career finished, when that clearly wasn't the case.
Isn't Superman meant to be the opposite of Batman? So why are people saying this is similar to Batman Begins?
Because this is a serious take on the Superman mythology which is fine but as you rightly mentioned Superman is the opposite of Batman so I hope that we don't have to endure a brooding, sulking Clark/Kal El for most part.
Since when do people look at RT to decide if you want to go see a film or not? I couldn't care less what the score is on RT. If i want to go see something i will! Some people need to open their minds and forget ratings and grades.
Quite - ratings on RT dont always agree with my opinion of a movie:
For example - the last two installments of the Batman franchise got high ratings - but to me were aweful and meh! (in that order).
The latest Trek also got a high rating - but to me was a meh!
RT are going to have to change the consensus at this rate. Have a feeling it will be under 60% (aka "rotten") by the end of the weekend.
Goes a bit too transformers towards the end, with lots of eye candy and not much else. If that's true, then a lot of movie goers won't care, they don't about transformers.
I agree that RT scores won't always align with my own opinion, but they quite often do, especially when it comes to blockbuster movies, and I certainly agree on the Batman's super high scores on there.
Comments
69% is still Fresh. And Warner couldn't give a shit about critical acclaim, or Todd Phillips wouldn't have got Hangover 3.
Also, Watchmen is only 64%, it's still a brilliant film...
I do normally check RT, it's normally quite good. But I did watch 2012's Total Recall and it wasn't as bad as everyone made it sound. I've never seen the original, but it certainly didn't deserve as much criticism as it got...
so how do you decide what to go and see ?
If there its a films i am interested in I will go see regardless of reviews, but RT can be helpful in terms of films I am more on the fence about or in terms of getting me to see film I otherwise wouldn't have. Having an open mind usually includes being able to weigh up information to make an informed decision you know....
If i watch a trailer or if there's something i'm interested in seeing(because of cast/director/story etc) i'll go see it. Of course i'll read reviews to find out what people make of it but regardless if it's something that appeals to ME for whatever reason i'll go see it.
I personally don't use RT so i've never once gone on there to find out the score and then decide if it's worth my time to watch it.
My main point was about the poster who said Man of Steel, 69% very disappointing. So what if it's 69%, you know what i mean? Does the film appeal to you? Do you want to watch a new Superman movie? If you want to see it, go see it. Forget about the score.
Some sniffy reviews I note, but then critics have a habit of being like that for releases that remind them of their impotence. People will go to see this in droves regardless, so they'll be dismissive if the film dismisses them, so to speak. Not that their opinions aren't of interest - many are - but what they're not is influential, something critics often aspire to be.
It's fared better than many others of its ilk though. Radio 4's Front Row gave it a firm thumbs up and even The Indie gave it 3/5 - remarkable as 1/5 is usually their default setting for anything blockbuster-ish.
All the good stuff is because Nolan produced but all the bad stuff is Snyder :rolleyes:
geez, you've not seen the film yet. Make your own judgement. Once you've seen the film say you're disappointed, but how can you know without seeing it? Don't just rely on critics.
As I said a few posts ago, I'm going to see Man of Steel regardless of it's RT score because I've been looking forward to it for months. However if I'm on the fence about watching a film, I will go check and see what the critics, reviewers and RT think to see if it's worth my time.
And if somebody was on the fence about seeing MOS, it's critical reaction and RT score could well turn them against bothering - It's now only 65% positive. I certainly wouldn't go and see a film I wasn't that bothered about with a score that low, and definitely not one classed as Rotten (which this is very close to becoming).
The Donner films give that impression. There is a lot of serious potential to be taken from the comic sources. WB aren't trying to pull a Marvel 2.0 they are trying to do something clearly different with the DC films.
It truly does seem that critics have a huge chip on their shoulder over Snyder. Everything good is cause of Nolan, bad is Snyder. Apparently the film is too serious and has too much action. Guaranteed if this film was lighter it would be criticized for being too much like a Marvel film and that it needed the Batman approach. I go on a number of forums and not ONE forum member who has seen has said it was bad.
I know it's the Rotten Tomatoes way of classifying things, but I fail to see how 65% is anything even remotely close to being classed as "rotten", to me that'd be like 30% and lower. Also, not to seem like an apologist, but having looked at the so-called "rotten" reviews it does seen as though they are overly nit-picky, one of then even negatively compares it to Watchmen and how faithful Snyder's film was to the graphic novel, a film which I love and is among the best comic book adaptations ever (imo). Had Man of Steel been exactly the same but credited as having been directed by Nolan then I almost guarantee that it'd be getting a far more welcoming reception, it seems to me as though some reviewers just have a problem with Snyder's last films and are just being overly harsh in response to THOSE films rather than judging this film (Sucker Punch was an execrable piece of shit though, I'll give them that...).
I guess I'll see for myself on Friday afternoon, but I highly doubt it'll be "rotten"...
well its like this i very much doubt this film is worse than Fast and Furious 6 which has a higher rating according to RT
Why should you care about some obscure critic whose idea on films in general is unknown to you? You want to know the feelings of people who have a similar taste. Same with friends and relatives. 8 out of 10 of my friends could hate the film. Well on Rotten Tomatoes that would be 20%. But those 8 friends could absolutely hate the films I love, whereas the two that could love the films I love. Those are the ones I'd take note of. It's not biased it's the opinion of someone who has similar opinions as you.
Tookey really winds me up sometimes : "Costner has a vaguely distant look in his eyes, as though wondering why his career went so badly wrong after Field of Dreams". What a stupid line.
Yeah - JFK, Dances With Wolves, A Perfect World, Thirteen Days, Wyatt Earp, Open Range, etc, etc, were terrible weren't they Chris?!! Tookey's such a typical, narrow-minded dunce. All he can think of is Waterworld = career finished, when that clearly wasn't the case.
Because this is a serious take on the Superman mythology which is fine but as you rightly mentioned Superman is the opposite of Batman so I hope that we don't have to endure a brooding, sulking Clark/Kal El for most part.
Quite - ratings on RT dont always agree with my opinion of a movie:
For example - the last two installments of the Batman franchise got high ratings - but to me were aweful and meh! (in that order).
The latest Trek also got a high rating - but to me was a meh!
Goes a bit too transformers towards the end, with lots of eye candy and not much else. If that's true, then a lot of movie goers won't care, they don't about transformers.
I agree that RT scores won't always align with my own opinion, but they quite often do, especially when it comes to blockbuster movies, and I certainly agree on the Batman's super high scores on there.