|
Post by Vits on Jan 20, 2019 13:42:01 GMT
The more daring, artistic genre stuff is often punished by critics whereas play-it-safely-by-numbers with a bit of wokey-dokey seems to get rave reviews. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. no way it will ever go under 7 with audience on imdb. its highly enjoyable. the critics are way off on this one. you cant compare it to Venom on any level, I mean quality wise. its like a different galaxy. Venom was truly bad, badly shot, badly edited, with some questionable acting. this is well done with absolutely amazing acting. the script has weaker spots, yes, but to me its more about "are you willing to accept the directors game or not". i accepted it and it wasn't hard for me to do so. Critics also trashed VENOM. Were they wrong there too? Actually, why do you say your opinions on these movies like they were facts? You said that you were going to like it in other threads. That might mean that you were biased when watching it. despite his critical ratings going down, people still keep coming to his movies and make it a commercial success. 1) People buy the ticket before seeing the movie. If a movie is a box office hit it's mainly due to marketing. 2) Ever since THE HAPPENING, M. Night's name has been downplayed in the marketing. There was a report that people giggled when they saw the trailer for DEVIL and his name appeared on screen. His name wasn't mentioned at all in the marketing for AFTER EARTH. its like Gotti. that was also nearly not as bad as they said. GOTTI helped prove how unreliable online reviews and even just scores by non-critics can be. It also tried to make people hate critics by calling them trolls. So... Not the best example.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 20, 2019 17:25:47 GMT
no way it will ever go under 7 with audience on imdb. its highly enjoyable. the critics are way off on this one. you cant compare it to Venom on any level, I mean quality wise. its like a different galaxy. Venom was truly bad, badly shot, badly edited, with some questionable acting. this is well done with absolutely amazing acting. the script has weaker spots, yes, but to me its more about "are you willing to accept the directors game or not". i accepted it and it wasn't hard for me to do so. Critics also trashed VENOM. Were they wrong there too? Actually, why do you say your opinions on these movies like they were facts? You said that you were going to like it in other threads. That might mean that you were biased when watching it. despite his critical ratings going down, people still keep coming to his movies and make it a commercial success. 1) People buy the ticket before seeing the movie. If a movie is a box office hit it's mainly due to marketing. 2) Ever since THE HAPPENING, M. Night's name has been downplayed in the marketing. There was a report that people giggled when they saw the trailer for DEVIL and his name appeared on screen. His name wasn't mentioned at all in the marketing for AFTER EARTH. its like Gotti. that was also nearly not as bad as they said. GOTTI helped prove how unreliable online reviews and even just scores by non-critics can be. It also tried to make people hate critics by calling them trolls. So... Not the best example. I say "critics are way off on THIS ONE". didnt mean to imply they were wrong on Venom too. They were not. Venom was not too well executed (thats an opinion) But for me personally it was still an enjoyable movie and I can see how and why other people enjoyed it too. Sometimes I like bad movies. Glass I simply dont consider a bad movie (also an opinion). Glass wasnt perfect, there were some questionable choices in the script, but it was well shot and the acting was simply amazing in all key parts. Which is not something I can say for Venom. Sure I was looking forward to the movie, so that might have played into it, its not like I was hiding it. But I was looking forward even more to Welcome to Marwen and didnt like the movie so its not always a reliable "bias". I simply was entertained throughout Glass, was not bored for a minute, and actively enjoyed it. I dont understand what you mean by your sentence about Gotti, how did it prove anything? To me mentioning Gotti was a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. Critical score doesn't always match, sometimes they just get on the hate wagon too easily. Gotti got 0 from more than 50 critics on RT. That would have made it an absolutely unwatchable movie. It was not. Was it great? No. Was it very good? No. But I believe it was decent or just slightly below average. (way below expectations, sure). I didn't walk out, and was really invested in the plot, my biggest gripe with the movie was the editing.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 20, 2019 17:46:12 GMT
I say "critics are way off on THIS ONE". didnt mean to imply they were wrong on Venom too. They were not. Venom was not too well executed (thats an opinion) But for me personally it was still an enjoyable movie and I can see how and why other people enjoyed it too. Sometimes I like bad movies. Glass I simply dont consider a bad movie (also an opinion). I dont understand what you mean by your sentence about Gotti, how did it prove anything? To me mentioning Gotti was a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. Critical score doesn't always match, sometimes they just get on the hate wagon too easily. Gotti got 0 from more than 50 critics on RT. 1) I'm glad that you admit that it's your opinion... but you've also said things that seem like facts instead. If you don't understand why critics are seeing something that you didn't, why not ask? Why belittle them? Why encourage other users here to dismiss them? 2) Look up "GOTTI Rotten Tomatoes controversy." 3) There's no hate wagon. If there was, GOTTI would've gotten a 0 score from every critic. Instead, it got a 0% on the TomatoMeter. That means that nobody gave it a score over 5/10. The average score (what I think truly matters) is actually 2/10.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 20, 2019 17:54:24 GMT
I say "critics are way off on THIS ONE". didnt mean to imply they were wrong on Venom too. They were not. Venom was not too well executed (thats an opinion) But for me personally it was still an enjoyable movie and I can see how and why other people enjoyed it too. Sometimes I like bad movies. Glass I simply dont consider a bad movie (also an opinion). I dont understand what you mean by your sentence about Gotti, how did it prove anything? To me mentioning Gotti was a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. Critical score doesn't always match, sometimes they just get on the hate wagon too easily. Gotti got 0 from more than 50 critics on RT. 1) I'm glad that you admit that it's your opinion... but you've also said things that seem like facts instead. If you don't understand why critics are seeing something that you didn't, why not ask? Why belittle them? Why encourage other users here to dismiss them? 2) Look up "GOTTI Rotten Tomatoes controversy." 3) There's no hate wagon. If there was, GOTTI would've gotten a 0 score from every critic. Instead, it got a 0% on the TomatoMeter. That means that nobody gave it a score over 5/10. The average score (what I think truly matters) is actually 2/10. 1) I was under the impression it was easy to understand that these are opinions. I am a critic myself, and most of the time aligned with RT. Why wouldnt I encourage the audience to see a movie they may have otherwise not wanted to see based on critics bashing it, if I personally like the movie? Nevertheless there have been instances when my opinion differ, thus I highlight where I believe the critics are off (for various reason. For example its fairly trendy to diss Sandlers movies, and lately its kinda trendy to diss Shyamalan also and its trendy to give higher scores to some socially more relevant movies). I do it both when I think something is way better or way worse than the aggregate critical opinion. 2) I am familiar with it, however it doesn't change anything I said about Gotti before. To me it was a good example of a movie that is way more deserving than aggregate 0 or individual average of 2/10. 3) this is your opinion that there is no hate wagon. mine is different. agree to disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 20, 2019 20:14:55 GMT
1) Why wouldnt I encourage the audience to see a movie they may have otherwise not wanted to see based on critics bashing it, if I personally like the movie? Nevertheless there have been instances when my opinion differ, thus I highlight where I believe the critics are off (for various reason. For example its fairly trendy to diss Sandlers movies, and lately its kinda trendy to diss Shyamalan also and its trendy to give higher scores to some socially more relevant movies). 2) I am familiar with it, however it doesn't change anything I said about Gotti before. To me it was a good example of a movie that is way more deserving than aggregate 0 or individual average of 2/10. 3) this is your opinion that there is no hate wagon. mine is different. agree to disagree? 1) You can tell people that without telling us that critics are wrong. Those examples aren't trends; M. Night has made some bad movies. Actually, if anything, GLASS' reception indicates that critics do like him because the bar was set high with SPLIT and maybe THE VISIT. Adam Sandler has made more bad movies than M. Night and, unlike him, he doesn't even try. His performances usually seem like he's sleepwalking. He once admitted that the stories take place in exotic locations as an excuse to have a vacation. 2) It proved that audience scores aren't reliable and that if there's anyone we shouldn't listen to is studios who try to divide critics and moviegoers even more... even though it would be a lot easier to just accept constructive criticism and learn from their mistakes in order to make a better movie next time. 3) In this case it's not really an opinion since I gave you evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 20, 2019 20:18:42 GMT
1) Why wouldnt I encourage the audience to see a movie they may have otherwise not wanted to see based on critics bashing it, if I personally like the movie? Nevertheless there have been instances when my opinion differ, thus I highlight where I believe the critics are off (for various reason. For example its fairly trendy to diss Sandlers movies, and lately its kinda trendy to diss Shyamalan also and its trendy to give higher scores to some socially more relevant movies). 2) I am familiar with it, however it doesn't change anything I said about Gotti before. To me it was a good example of a movie that is way more deserving than aggregate 0 or individual average of 2/10. 3) this is your opinion that there is no hate wagon. mine is different. agree to disagree? 1) You can tell people that without telling us that critics are wrong. Those examples aren't trends; M. Night has made some bad movies. Actually, if anything, GLASS' reception indicates that critics do like him because the bar was set high with SPLIT and maybe THE VISIT. Adam Sandler has made more bad movies than M. Night and, unlike him, he doesn't even try. His performances usually seem like he's sleepwalking. He once admitted that the stories take place in exotic locations as an excuse to have a vacation. 2) It proved that audience scores aren't reliable and that if there's anyone we shouldn't listen to is studios who try to divide critics and moviegoers even more... even though it would be a lot easier to just accept constructive criticism and learn from their mistakes in order to make a better movie next time. 3) In this case it's not really an opinion since I gave you evidence. we both seem to be talking about different things and/or assign different meanings to the same words. so how about we end this and lets agree to disagree?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 21:22:30 GMT
Meh, I wasn't impressed. Macavoy's performance was stellar but that's about it. A missed opportunity AFAIC.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 20, 2019 21:37:47 GMT
Meh, I wasn't impressed. Macavoy's performance was stellar but that's about it. A missed opportunity AFAIC. and to think he had only like a week to rehearse. and created 3 more distinct personalities than we saw. he really is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jan 21, 2019 4:34:11 GMT
It deserves to be trashed by the critics and everyone. It was slow going, with some stupidity in it, but then it finally got going, but at the end the stupidity became epic. How was it slow? I was thoroughly entertained
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 4:56:27 GMT
It deserves to be trashed by the critics and everyone. It was slow going, with some stupidity in it, but then it finally got going, but at the end the stupidity became epic. How was it slow? I was thoroughly entertained It was slow going as in it took a while to finally start doing something interesting, but that part had too much stupidity in it.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jan 21, 2019 6:05:44 GMT
This is the work of a filmmaker who came perilously close to losing his entire audience by believing his own hype about his genius and who seems to have learned absolutely nothing from the experience. The film may be titled “Glass” but as it turns out, the whole endeavor is pretty much 100% pure Ass. what are you talking about? his films are repeatedly proving he has a huge and very loyal audience, despite his critical ratings going down, people still keep coming to his movies and make it a commercial success. you can say critics like him les and less but have you seen the numbers from box office? other than Water Lady which made its primary budget, what other movie was there that would be A] anything but success at the box office, and/or B] indicating people are getting tired of him/ he is on the verge of losing his audiance or ever was. I am genuinely interested what you are talking about… Even the After Earth was a box office success…. www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=shyamalan.htmMaking back the same amount at the box office as a film cost to make has NEVER meant a film did even ok, a film historically has always had to earn double it's production budget, primarily because A: marketing cost were so much lower that they didn't factor in much, and B: domestic intake was the majority of a films revenue, domestic splits being higher than international, but the change in how much marketing cost in the last 20 years and the rise in importance of international sales has changed all that, it's now more like a film needs to recoup 2.5-3x it's budget to be considered a financial success based off of box office alone.
As such Lady in the water was a massive bomb, production alone would have cost the studio over $35m, then on top of that whatever the spent on marketing, After Earth best case cost them the entirety of the marketing for that film, likely cost them a few million or 10 with the production, probably the same or worse with Air Bender due to it's budget and if they had to pay for the IP or not.
You may like him that's great but to say what film has he done that was anything but a box office success is silly, several can be questioned, and atleast 3 are outright failures just by looking at the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 21, 2019 9:00:38 GMT
what are you talking about? his films are repeatedly proving he has a huge and very loyal audience, despite his critical ratings going down, people still keep coming to his movies and make it a commercial success. you can say critics like him les and less but have you seen the numbers from box office? other than Water Lady which made its primary budget, what other movie was there that would be A] anything but success at the box office, and/or B] indicating people are getting tired of him/ he is on the verge of losing his audiance or ever was. I am genuinely interested what you are talking about… Even the After Earth was a box office success…. www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=shyamalan.htmMaking back the same amount at the box office as a film cost to make has NEVER meant a film did even ok, a film historically has always had to earn double it's production budget, primarily because A: marketing cost were so much lower that they didn't factor in much, and B: domestic intake was the majority of a films revenue, domestic splits being higher than international, but the change in how much marketing cost in the last 20 years and the rise in importance of international sales has changed all that, it's now more like a film needs to recoup 2.5-3x it's budget to be considered a financial success based off of box office alone.
As such Lady in the water was a massive bomb, production alone would have cost the studio over $35m, then on top of that whatever the spent on marketing, After Earth best case cost them the entirety of the marketing for that film, likely cost them a few million or 10 with the production, probably the same or worse with Air Bender due to it's budget and if they had to pay for the IP or not.
You may like him that's great but to say what film has he done that was anything but a box office success is silly, several can be questioned, and atleast 3 are outright failures just by looking at the numbers.
which 3 are box office failures?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jan 21, 2019 13:50:41 GMT
Lady In The Water - Box office totalled all of $2m above it's production budget, given minimum of 50% of said box office stays with the theatres that's a best case income of $36m for the film and a minimum loss of $34m without factoring in marketing cost. After Earth - Box office was less than double it's production budget by about $16m dollars, again best case scenario that film took in around $121-2m in box office receipts on a $130m budget so that's a minimum $8-9m loss not including marketing which for a $130m movie would be easily in the 10's of millions probably being over $50m so that's a huge loss just on the box office alone. The Last Airbender - Made less than $320m I think on a $150m budget, so this if you give it all the benefit of the doubt could be considered a success but only if you figure it made every penny domestically for the biggest share it could get, and spent nothing on marketing at all, but it didn't, it made the bulk of it's money internationally which cuts their share by about 20%, so instead of $95m it's more like $76m or less, so that's like $65.5m domestic take plus lets be generous and say $80m international that's only $145m so it's lost money regardless and that's again not factoring in marketing cost which again due to the film intending to be a blockbuster is going to be 10's of millions of dollars even at a low end.
With his other films like The Happening best case earned $81-82m for the studio from box office, which on $48m budget is cool but if it has what I have heard was industry standard marketing for the mid 00's then that's about another $35m or so for a total studio cost of about $83m, but this could have maybe not been the case who knows, I do know smaller films in the same time period did get that level of marketing budgets though.
Studios often will tout a film being a success even when they aren't because doing otherwise is bad business, but also because they aren't necessarily lying, a box office flop still can be a overall success, because if it's close enough they can write off the box office losses with home media and licensing the movie for TV, but still a box office failure is still a box office failure if it fails to recoup it's expenses at the box office, and if expensive enough as in over $100m or more even recouping expenses is not enough to qualify as a success or ok, at that many 0's studios expect profit from the box office alone.
|
|