|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 5, 2019 19:38:07 GMT
Why doesn't Disney flex there influence over all their movies though? The Marvel Movies and Star Wars movies have been pretty critic proof no matter what. So why doesn't Disney flex their influence to get the shills to give the movies that don't have built in audience positive reviews? Like A Wrinkle in Time, Tomorrow Land, The Lone Ranger, John Carter, etc... Not to mention how crazy expensive these movies are. Don't forget Solo, the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Alice in Wonderland 2, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, Mary Poppins Returns, Cars 3, The BFG, etc. They took quite a loss on all of these films. It wouldn't make financial sense to let all of these crash and burn if they actually had the power to influence their reviews.
Now with the success of their live action remakes of animated classics (Beauty and The Beast, The Jungle Book, etc.), you would think they would have used this power to ensure that this year's Aladdin and Dumbo received nothing but positive reviews, especially with The Lion King coming out later this Summer, but they didn't and the reason is obvious to everyone except the conspiracy theorists.
If you are using access to influence reviews then it would just make sense to use that demand for other movies. The shills want access to Marvel and Star Wars? That is a demand you could exploit. You gave A Wrinkle in Time a bad review and you don't work for a major publication or have 10 million Subscribers on You Tube, I am sorry your pass to see Captain Marvel early has been revoked. It's a demand that can be exploited easily and would make more sense for Disney to do. With the exception of Solo, Marvel and Star Wars it's a pretty sure shot to make bank. Disney doesn't need reviews to push those movies. They need reviews for riskier titles.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 5, 2019 19:38:21 GMT
Actually, MCU is the standard. Any time a comic book film comes out, it gets compared to the MCU. I wonder why...
The Fox-Men films are held to such a low standard, it's gotten to the point where their own films point it out.
Even the Academy Awards thinks MCU is the standard because it was the MCU that broke into the Best Picture nomination. The Academy didn't think MCU is the standard. The Academy nominated BP simply because they were afraid of being called racist. And getting a Best Picture nomination solely because of the race card isn't something to be proud of. On the contrary, it's shameful that they have to resort to the race card to pressure voters into voting for it.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Jun 5, 2019 19:46:24 GMT
Even the Academy Awards thinks MCU is the standard because it was the MCU that broke into the Best Picture nomination. The Academy didn't think MCU is the standard. The Academy nominated BP simply because they were afraid of being called racist. And getting a Best Picture nomination solely because of the race card isn't something to be proud of. On the contrary, it's shameful that they have to resort to the race card to pressure voters into voting for it. Right.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 5, 2019 19:51:21 GMT
It's well-known that Disney has a lot of influence over RT. This looks like a case of Disney making sure that the last X-Men movie gets bad reviews so when MCU makes their 1st X-Men movie, they can say how it great is compared to the last X-Men movie. How is it well known that Disney has a lot of influence over RT? What happened to Aladdin? A Wrinkle in Time? Tomorrowland? And why would Disney sabotage their practically their own movie? Some might argue that A Wrinkle in Time and Tomorrowland are rated too high for the kinds of movies they are. They both have Metacritic scores in the 50s, even though many would say they were both pretty abysmal. Mind you, I also think that The Killing Joke is rated too highly. That movie is an abomination, and Bruce Timm is a talentless and creepy pervert who people only praise because they have a blind nostalgic attachment to Batman: The Animated Series.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Jun 5, 2019 19:56:25 GMT
Even the Academy Awards thinks MCU is the standard because it was the MCU that broke into the Best Picture nomination. The Academy didn't think MCU is the standard. The Academy nominated BP simply because they were afraid of being called racist. And getting a Best Picture nomination solely because of the race card isn't something to be proud of. On the contrary, it's shameful that they have to resort to the race card to pressure voters into voting for it. They didn't need Black Panther to accomplish that. They already had Green Book and Blackkklansmen to cover that base and if they wanted to, they could have added If Beale Street Could Talk as well. Black Panther made it in on it's own merits. If it was for just for the race card, it would have just gotten a single nomination (best picture), but it received several.
|
|
|
Post by ShrunkenHeadonKnightBus on Jun 5, 2019 19:58:39 GMT
Wow,I actually saw a review on YT that claims is not only worse than TLS, but the worst X-MEN movie yet
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 5, 2019 20:06:53 GMT
The Academy didn't think MCU is the standard. The Academy nominated BP simply because they were afraid of being called racist. And getting a Best Picture nomination solely because of the race card isn't something to be proud of. On the contrary, it's shameful that they have to resort to the race card to pressure voters into voting for it. Black Panther made it in on it's own merits. No, it's well-known that Black Panther was nominated solely because the Academy voters were afraid of being called racist. They already had Green Book and Blackkklansmen to cover that base and if they wanted to, they could have added If Beale Street Could Talk as well. That still wouldn't have satisfied ultra-liberals like Brie Larson, who always complain that there's not enough representation. Regardless of the other films nominated, the Academy voters were going to be called racist if they didn't nominate Black Panther. So the only reason Black Panther was nominated was because of the race card.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 5, 2019 20:10:53 GMT
Actually, MCU is the standard. Any time a comic book film comes out, it gets compared to the MCU. I wonder why...
The Fox-Men films are held to such a low standard, it's gotten to the point where their own films point it out.
Even the Academy Awards thinks MCU is the standard because it was the MCU that broke into the Best Picture nomination. For the record, TDK not getting nominated for Best Picture was so controversial that it led to the Academy expanding the number of Best Picture nominees.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Jun 5, 2019 20:12:44 GMT
Black Panther made it in on it's own merits. No, it's well-known that Black Panther was nominated solely because the Academy voters were afraid of being called racist. So Black Panther shouldn't be nominated because it's an all black cast?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 5, 2019 20:14:27 GMT
No, it's well-known that Black Panther was nominated solely because the Academy voters were afraid of being called racist. So Black Panther shouldn't be nominated because it's an all black cast? Black Panther shouldn't have been nominated because it's a crappy movie. Just like A Wrinkle in Time received bad reviews because it's a crappy movie and not because the reviewers were white as Brie Larson claims.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Jun 5, 2019 20:18:34 GMT
So Black Panther shouldn't be nominated because it's an all black cast? Black Panther shouldn't have been nominated because it's a crappy movie. Just like A Wrinkle in Time received bad reviews because it's a crappy movie and not because the reviewers were white as Brie Larson claims. If it was a crappy movie, then the Oscars don't nominate it, so that doesn't make any sense. Also, it wasn't just the Oscars, it was the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards, AFI top 10, NBR top 10, several critics top 10 films of last year, you'll find Black Panther. So it wasn't just the Oscars who thought Black Panther was a groundbreaking movie.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 5, 2019 20:25:58 GMT
How is it well known that Disney has a lot of influence over RT? What happened to Aladdin? A Wrinkle in Time? Tomorrowland? And why would Disney sabotage their practically their own movie? Aladdin, A Wrinkle in Time, and Tomorrowland aren't CBMs. And Dark Phoenix isn't an MCU movie. Disney wants the last X-Men movie to have low ratings so when MCU finally makes their 1st X-Men movie, they can say how great it is compared to the last X-Men movie. It's similar to how Vince McMahon often builds up a WWE superstar by having him dominate and destroy a bunch of jobbers. But they are Disney movies. You saying only Marvel Studios has influence over Rotten Tomatoes and not Disney? Also, They don't need Rotten Tomatoes to help them with making people see their own X-men movies as good. They have this to help them.
People see that and they know they are going to get something good.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 5, 2019 20:30:43 GMT
Black Panther shouldn't have been nominated because it's a crappy movie. Just like A Wrinkle in Time received bad reviews because it's a crappy movie and not because the reviewers were white as Brie Larson claims. If it was a crappy movie, then the Oscars don't nominate it, so that doesn't make any sense. The Academy has nominated plenty of crappy movies all the years due to political reasons. Black Panther is just another crappy movie that was nominated due to political reasons. What about that doesn't make sense? Also, it wasn't just the Oscars, it was the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards, AFI top 10, NBR top 10, several critics top 10 films of last year, you'll find Black Panther. So it wasn't just the Oscars who thought Black Panther was a groundbreaking movie. The Academy didn't think Black Panther was a groundbreaking movie. The entire plot of Black Panther is "Angry black man wants to strike back at white people for centuries of oppression." Nothing groundbreaking about that. The Academy nominated Black Panther simply because they were afraid of being labeled racists if they didn't nominated Black Panther. And fear of being labeled racist also extends to the Golden Globes, then BAFTAs, the SAGs, the AFI, and others. Those organizations nominated Black Panther because they were also afraid of being labeled racists. Heck, NBC fired Megyn Kelly for what was perceived to be racist comments, the NBA forced an owner out because he made racist comments, and the NFL has a rule that when teams interview for a head coach, they must interview at least 1 non-Caucasian candidate. Everyone is afraid of being labeled racist and that includes the Academy, the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs, the SAGs, the AFI, and the other critics. That's why they nominated Black Panther.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 5, 2019 20:31:02 GMT
Isn't Rotten Tomatoes ran by WB? No, WB invests in a minority share of RT. Many corporations invests in a minority share of other companies. But investing in a minority share of a company isn't the same as running a company. I invest in Microsoft stock so I'm officially an "owner" of Microsoft, but I have no say or control in how Microsoft is run. Similarly, WB has no say or control in how RT is run. So how in the world would Disney have influence over Rotten Tomatoes? Many companies change their policies because of customers or advertisers. So yes, advertisers often do have influence of over companies. Because they control the money. And Disney is as close to a monopoly as there is so Disney controls a lot of money and thus Disney has the power to heavily influence other companies like RT. So you saying they'd go against the company that's actually in their company for an outside company? I don't think so. Never go against the family.
Man, you guys really hate that DC and Fox aren't on top anymore, huh? So glad Feige learned from Fox's mistakes when he was working on the X-men movies.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Jun 5, 2019 20:31:19 GMT
Black Panther made it in on it's own merits. No, it's well-known that Black Panther was nominated solely because the Academy voters were afraid of being called racist. They already had Green Book and Blackkklansmen to cover that base and if they wanted to, they could have added If Beale Street Could Talk as well. That still wouldn't have satisfied ultra-liberals like Brie Larson, who always complain that there's not enough representation. Regardless of the other films nominated, the Academy voters were going to be called racist if they didn't nominate Black Panther. So the only reason Black Panther was nominated was because of the race card. Well known by whom exactly?
Then why didn't they also nominate If Beale Street Could Talk? They had 2 extra slots they could have filled.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 5, 2019 20:42:53 GMT
No, WB invests in a minority share of RT. Many corporations invests in a minority share of other companies. But investing in a minority share of a company isn't the same as running a company. I invest in Microsoft stock so I'm officially an "owner" of Microsoft, but I have no say or control in how Microsoft is run. Similarly, WB has no say or control in how RT is run. Many companies change their policies because of customers or advertisers. So yes, advertisers often do have influence of over companies. Because they control the money. And Disney is as close to a monopoly as there is so Disney controls a lot of money and thus Disney has the power to heavily influence other companies like RT. So you saying they'd go against the company that's actually in their company for an outside company? I don't think so. Never go against the family.
Man, you guys really hate that DC and Fox aren't on top anymore, huh? So glad Feige learned from Fox's mistakes when he was working on the X-men movies.
Things like this is why I blocked DC-Fan. He makes it sound like WB bought shares of the Company that Owns Rotten Tomatoes like me or you would do. That isn't the case at all. Rotten Tomatoes was owned by Fixster. In 2011 Warner Brothers whole bought Fixster, so they owned 100% of Rotten Tomatoes. They didn't invest in it they bought it out right. Then in 2016 Warner Brothers sold Fixster to Comcast, but retained a minority Stake in the Company. Even if he was correct and Warner Brothers just invested in Fixster and Rotten Tomatoes it still doesn't answer the question why would Comcast help out Disney? Comcast tried and failed to buy Fox. Brian Roberts Chairman and CEO of Comcast and Bob Iger of Disney do not like each other and it's well known. Edit: Also part of the deal when Warner Brothers sold controlling stock to Comcast was that Warner Brothers stays a Strategic Partner. So Yes Warner Brothers does have some say so on how Fixster/Rotten Tomatoes is run.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 5, 2019 20:58:11 GMT
I wonder if there is a way you could have a controlled study to find out how much Ratings effect ticket sales. I can say personally it doesn't effect the movies I watch, but I wonder as a whole how much it damages or helps a films bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 5, 2019 21:06:31 GMT
It doesn't even matter who owns Rottentomatoes. All of the critics on the site are independent and work for multiple different media companies. RT just aggregates the reviews.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 5, 2019 21:11:12 GMT
As much as Disney as a company pisses me off these days (for the record, virtually all Hollywood companies piss me off to a degree, but Disney especially), there’s not really any particular reason for them to want this movie to fail, given that they’re the ones distributing it. That’s not to say that they’ll give a damn if it fails, but why would they go out of their way to ensure that it does fail, when they’re the ones who are ultimately making money off it?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 5, 2019 21:12:45 GMT
It doesn't even matter who owns Rottentomatoes. All of the critics on the site are independent and work for multiple different media companies. RT just aggregates the reviews. There is always that. If people can't even get the control structure of the companies involved striaght do you really think they can get the nuance of the nebulous relationship between critic and aggregator?
|
|