Do you agree? Do you care? (if any thinks this isn't related to producing... think again... producers care about this stuff... and should... just sayin) http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/23/ratner-tomatoes-scores/
Do you agree? Do you care? (if any thinks this isn't related to producing... think again... producers care about this stuff... and should... just sayin) http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/23/ratner-tomatoes-scores/
I agree with Brett Ratner, Why? I respect his work and he produced my favorite documentary WOODY ALLEN part 1 & part 2. (on NETFLIX now)I of course am a Woody Allen clone. Why? My Uncle worked with him as an actor in a dozen movies. And I need to be an actors director. What he does I do, That's all.
Ratner's full of shit. When he was growing-up, half the film critics were music critics who didn't even see the films they were sent on assignment to review. Read Roger Ebert's books and articles about being a film critic back then - Ebert was an early-adopter, and big supporter, of the Internet, so a lot of it is available free.
Ratner slams "Middle America" for using Rotten Tomatoes to determine whether or not they want to see a movie after saying Batman vs. Superman made $650mn. So who saw it? (Not me, but someone did - a LOT of someones, according to his math.) Those people despise "Middle America" and blame us for everything.
I don't use Rotten Tomatoes but, when I have, I've looked at both the critics' scores and the audience's - which are always different, and that hasn't changed either. No one in "Trumpland" has ever listened to movie critics. Every tentpole in the last five years opened on Friday and was streaming by Monday. Ratner and his ilk will never figure out why that is, but they immediately point their finger at every person in 48 other states.
I'm not down with using focus groups to write a film, but Emile's point stands. You give me $250mn and I'll show you a movie as big as Supes vs. Bats that's 10x better - and I'll walk away with $150mn before the film opens.
1 person likes this
Producers should care about these scores. Many people use them to decide what movie to pay to see in a theater. And that's how the achieve box office success. Ratner can be full of shit and this article does sound a lot like a whining brat trying to blame someone else for a movies failure. No one ever claimed that everything was going to be fair. As technology changes so does marketing movies. Where I agree with Rater is that a few decades ago most people would read one to three reviews and watch TV reviews. Today you click on a website and see an aggregator of dozens of reviews - sometimes from less than respected sources.
1 person likes this
No, rotten tomatoes long ago lost relevance with the real audience. Like imdb... once acquired by Amazon it lost real legitimacy as an indicator...
2 people like this
Audiences don't use Rotten tomatoes scores to decide what films to see. There are films with really low scores that are blockbusters. There are movies with high scores that bombed. The Boss Baby the current number one movie is "Rotten" yet made $50 Million this weekend. Suicide Squad got a 25% and made $750 Million worldwide. Saban's Power Rangers is a blockbuster and it's score is 48%. Martin Scorsese's Silence had a 85% and bombed outright. Patriot's Day was "Certified Fresh" with 80%, had big stars, and was about a subject a lot of people cared about, but bombed as well. A few years ago Superman Returns was "certified Fresh" and couldn't make it's money back at the box office, despite having everything that was necessary to be a hit--an A-list director, a hot star (Kevin Spacey, though admittedly not in the lead role) and a marketing buzz like crazy, plus from an established franchise from arguably the most famous character in history--then Man of Steel which was "rotten" sold more tickets despite that fact. Yeah, Rotten tomatoes scores are absolutely meaningless.