Rotten tomatoes

Can someone explain me how this place works?

Other urls found in this thread:

i.imgur.com/uhKcnEK.jpg
hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-film-unit-loss-widens-835365
highlighthollywood.com/2014/05/sony-studios-sinking-in-debt-tv-division-only-thing-saving-the-struggling-studio-highlight-hollywood-news/
nytimes.com/2013/11/01/technology/sony-blames-box-office-trouble-for-its-quarterly-loss.html?_r=0
theverge.com/2012/2/8/2784224/sony-downgrade-standard-poor-tv-losses
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it doesn't

i read through the critic reviews and i think the issue may partially be that comedy is fucking dead.

like you watch the reviewers with no agenda to push like RLM, and then read the RT reviews from folks who probably consider themselves 'serious film buffs' and you wonder if they saw 2 completely different movies.

>people praising bill murray's miserable, sour-faced cameo
>people think the jokes are "a laff a minute" or praise the film not for being a film but because it's "progressive" as if that has fuck-all to do with the script being crap or the special effects looking terrible and cheap.

Because RT fudged the numbers, deliberately holding back the negative reviews to get it to 75% which is when things become "certified" then it needs to go to 69% to lose it.

rotten tomatoes is an awful website with pretentious critics and audience

fpbp

>pretentious critics
their job is just gathering reviews from blogs and websites

Some piece of shit sjw set that up.

A combination of the following:

1. The internet going absolutely batshit over this movie one way or the other, generating buzz for what most consider a "meh" reboot movie thing.

2. Actual objective criticism getting buried in blind praise or unadulterated rage so that aggregate numbers get fucked up anyway.

3. Most people who see movies don't actually have the best tastes or can inform their opinions enough to give a shit about RT scores.

4. The majority of the internet just can't accept that the movie isn't great but isn't terrible.

both films take something with depth, flatten out all the creative wrinkles, and sell their brand as a feel-good 2-dimensional product to rake in free money.

the difference between the two is that whoever is in charge at Disney seems to know what they're doing and as a result, fudging RT score isn't necessary

but Sony NEEDS a hit, they literally NEED a successful franchise for their film division to stay afloat after numerous flops.

They also happen to be a company known for aggressive marketing, paid reviews, "good faith gifts", etc, as well as their utter lack or originality or creative integrity.

>sell their brand as a feel-good 2-dimensional product to rake in free money

people make this point sometimes like it is objectively wrong to want to make money in a capitalistic and super competitive film market.

It's not.

...

A movie can make money and not be trash that makes you stupid just by watching it.

i'm sorry but even for a fucking cashgrab, did we really need a goddamn queef joke in the first few minutes of the film? did it need to end with the new cast shooting the GB franchise personified in the dick until it explodes? did the world of cinema need this trash on top of all the other trash?

what movie is BFG?

Big Fucking Guy?

is the CIA behind this?

yes, a movie can make money and still be trash. Something being trash is your opinion anyway, but if you really want studios to stop making bottom of the barrel "one size fits all" products, then stop buying tickets...

Only way to change the quality of the films you see is to force them to change. Otherwise, it's just bitching to bitch and you aren't forced to see anything you don't want to see anyway.

>did the world of cinema need this trash on top of all the other trash?

No one person gets to decide what movie "deserves" to be made you neet. If you don't like something, don't watch it.

These first world issues are getting autistic now.

Big fucking weapon
it's a Doom movie

do you guys actually read any of the actual reviews instead of just looking at the number?

if you did, its very easy to see why RT scores are generally useless

>reviews by literal nobodies who only generate traffic to their shitty sites by posting eye catching quotes
>reviews in general can be skewed based on outside factors - for example behind the scenes drama
>tomato or splat assignment can be completely arbitrary - for example something like "this movie was bad but I didnt die after watching it" will get a tomato

for the most part nowadays you are just better off watching the 10 obligatory teasers and trailers and making up your own opinion since you probably already saw the majority of the good parts of the movie anyways

i never used the term "deserve"

i never said it did or did not "deserve" to get made.

what i was saying was, did the world need yet another mediocre nostalgia cashgrab? especially from sony, who have historically proven themselves incapable of creating a film with any soul or identity whatsoever?

it's not just GB, i am also pissed at how bad the R&C film turned out, and Sony did not even bother to pay off any reviewers for that film. they just threw it out to die.

>Only way to change the quality of the films you see is to force them to change
how do you figure this can be done when Big Business can just fudge whatever numbers they want if they really want something to look successful?

When you get down to the nit and grit of it, a movie IS only successful if people are watching it. Ad and marketing can become sinkholes without asses IN the seats.

I'm going to ignore how you don't seem aware with Sony Classics and think that they are a company that is incapable of making quality films...

On to the main point:

If you want them to stop making these movies, then stop funding them...none of you actually WANT to do that though.

None of you who will complain about it, will actually do anything about what you think is "bad" film.

People across the country are watching these films though, so there is a market. Not every movie needs to be a masterpiece. Do some of you ever consider how these films keep workers employed?

Thousands of people work on a single movie, movies like Ghostbusters or Minions or Transformers put food on the table for thousands of workers.

There are about 20 negative Top Critic reviews on the site but for some reason the top critic rating only counts 10 of them, even though it counts all 28 of the positive ones

What gives

>a movie IS only successful if people are watching it

i.imgur.com/uhKcnEK.jpg

not if the movie is published by sony

you have to keep in mind, they are desperate to keep their movie branch alive and they can't seem to land any significant hits compared to what they are dishing out.

GB might make back its production budget in a few weeks, or a month, but Nu Star Trek 3 is coming on the 22nd guaranteeing this film will be totally washed away

One bad Sony movie that is a commercial failure doesn't mean you get to project that Sony is a failure as making movies.

They aren't, they never have been. I bet some of the movies you like are Sony films...

want to bet?

>One bad Sony movie

>pixels
>hotel translyvania 2
>angry birds
>R&C
>paul blarp mall blarp

>''''''''certified'''''''' fresh

-pretty sure Pixels made its money back
-hotel transylvania 2 was well-received and made its money back and more
-R & C made its money back
-the blart movies made their money back

Sony has literally made hundreds of films, and two or three of the ones you mentioned were commercial failures.

Try again.

>These are the ONLY Sony movies that have ever existed. Sony is a company that has existed in 2015 to 2016.

you don't get a special prize for defending them you know. they pay lawyers to do that.

You are making crazy statements that Sony has produced bad films.

You realize that they not only have made hundreds of films (produced exclusively or had a hand in production in some capacity) but some pretty good shit has been distributed by Sony.

Django Unchained for one, is a Sony picture.
So is District 9.

It's hilarious that the people that went to see the reboot had a vested interest from a "culture war" standpoint in it succeeding, and yet it still isn't doing well ratings wise.

It's also bulletproof. If it fails, it's because of sexism and racism.

If it succeeds, it proves that people want this and it "btfo's" the sexist racists.

>because it's "progressive" as if that has fuck-all to do with the script being crap
it does have a lot to do with the script being crap though

You are also saying that Sony doesn't make money off these films...they make fucking boat loads of money.

What, is RT an actual credible source or something?

hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-film-unit-loss-widens-835365

$0.05 cents has been deposited in your account, thanks for helping defend the good name of Sony Pictures!

I dunno what you guys are talking about, the remake is perfect, they even got a gorilla in it.

I'm not sure you actually read this article. You think this has something to do with anything that has been said.

>"There are two reasons for the downward revision: one is that our forecasts were too optimistic. The other is that the strong franchises we planned on building haven't been built. Both Sony Pictures Entertainment and we at headquarters take this very seriously," said Yoshida. "Michael Lynton has appointed new management and we are working to combine creativity with financial discipline."

>"The releases that we had hoped would become hits in the first half of this year didn't succeed, meaning that related earnings from home entertainment sales, games and other merchandising will be affected," Yoshida said in response to a question about the large cut in operating income forecast at the division.

how the fuck is this not relevant

"The conglomerate held its full-year forecast to March 2016 unchanged at sales of $65.4 billion (¥7.9 trillion) and a net profit of $1.16 billion (¥140 billion).

Sony stock was up 1.2 percent at ¥3,475 ($28.75) in Tokyo trading just before markets closed, ahead of the Nikkei 225 Index, which was almost flat."

Read what you post you fucking headline-only reading autist. They are projected to make the difference up soon.

it's treated that way in the same manner metacritic is only posted on Sup Forums, if it merits shitposting for or against something

Nothing in this article says that "Sony is a commercial failure now, they are not making money". They did not fulfill their predictions for the year, but they still remain a multibillion dollar company in both games, music, film and multimedia. They are projected to bounce back in a year.

"The conglomerate held its full-year forecast to March 2016 unchanged at sales of $65.4 billion (¥7.9 trillion) and a net profit of $1.16 billion (¥140 billion)."

You only read the headline and a few sentences, you think this makes Sony a failure for some reason. It doesn't. By your own article, it doesn't.

Can't you read !?

"Film revenue decreased 1 percent compared with the year-ago period, or 14 percent on a constant currency basis, to $1.5 billion on a poor performance by the studio's theatrical releases. Pixels was Sony's biggest earner in the quarter, which took $240 million globally, but failed to match expectations, particularly domestically. Hotel Transylvania 2 beat that with a worldwide of around $320 million, though it was released right at the end of the quarter on Sept. 25."

>decreased by 1 percent
>"failure"

Another $0.05 has been deposited. Your quota for the day is almost filled! We've gifted you a free 3-day trial of PS+ as thanks.

Good rebuttal I guess, user. Maybe read your own articles next time.

Ah, so it is pro-cancer.

>"President Hirai and I as CFO are responsible, and Michael Lynton is responsible too. He's responsible for entertainment overall, but it is in movie production where we are struggling. We at headquarters are very concerned about that and Michael Lynton is taking action to improve performance," Yoshida said.

>IT IS IN MOVIE PRODUCTION WE ARE STRUGGLING
>RELEASES WE HAD HOPED WOULD BECOME HITS DIDN'T SUCCEED

>B-BUT IT'S JUST 1% THAT'S NOTHING

why the fuck would they even need to apologize and comment on it if it's fucking nothing

it's a mash of different scoring systems and parameters, amalgamated into something resembling (but not really representing) the overall public consensus

I'm not even going to read this shit but I'll put out my complete honest opinion right now on Sony.

They make some pretty shit movies. (most movies in general are pretty shit right now)

They are the best console gaming company right now.

That VR thing they have coming out looks ok I guess?

They are apologizing because they didn't meet their expectations for the quarter and that effects shareholdings...if anything, the shareholders get more fucked up in a year from this than anything else. A 1 percent decrease in overall yearly returns is not a fucking failure you autist.

>It's a user doesn't understand how massive conglomerates conduct and manage business episode

>They are the best console gaming company right now.
yeah man, they're SO GOOD they sold 40 million consoles and the only games that sell more than a handful of copies are multiplats.

if they are saying a movie that made hundreds of millions of dollars performed "under expectation" that is pretty fucking embarrassing and also a blatant sign they spend so much on marketing and etc that they need to set obnoxiously high expectations of their films and the films aren't making back what they cost

I think you are inherently getting your argument confused:

>slight underperformance for a year
>film market failure

>Making a shit ton of money and inaccurately projecting their returns
>Completely losing money and making no positive returns

One is true, the other is bullshit. You go and guess before you shift the goalpost again, friendo.

>movie performance being "embarrassing", does not indicate that Sony is losing money enough to be considered a "failure".

>a company making less money is not a failure
yes it is you retard

I really appreciate your honest replies.

Not sure why you replied to me with a chart that I dont care about.

You did see that I said my opinion, right?

How do sales numbers affect my personal opinion?

>I think that when a company underperforms based on their own expectations and projections for one year that the entire company is a failure. They might as well just burn all the rest of their money, they are a failure now. It's too late. It's all over.

Calling me a retard despite the fact that you have a cartoonish Monopoly board level understanding of how businesses work? Sure, user. You're right. Sony is dead...they better just take your advice.

Yes I can.

By your logic, every company that ever existed would just throw in the towel the moment they made less money than they wanted.

You happen to be legit mentally retarded. But this is what happens when our school system fails us.

then where's the sequel to big booty bitches in space? checkmate

>>>slight underperformance for a year
highlighthollywood.com/2014/05/sony-studios-sinking-in-debt-tv-division-only-thing-saving-the-struggling-studio-highlight-hollywood-news/

nytimes.com/2013/11/01/technology/sony-blames-box-office-trouble-for-its-quarterly-loss.html?_r=0

theverge.com/2012/2/8/2784224/sony-downgrade-standard-poor-tv-losses

>>>sonyfags this fucking deluded they will defend the company even against reality

i'm not the guy you were originally arguing with. but the fact that you went "pff like the company cares if it makes 1% less money" is undeniable evidence of your down syndrome. also the fact that your reading comprehension is apparently so bad that you think he said sony should burn their money.

>but the fact that you went "pff like the company cares if it makes 1% less money" is undeniable evidence of your down syndrome.

Never actually said that.

.the fact that your reading comprehension is apparently so bad that you think he said sony should burn their money.

hyperbole is not your thing I see.

last word

>underperformance and quarterly loss ≠ complete failure.

But I'm a "deluded sonyfag" because I know how to read statistics and understand basic bitch business management 101...okay.

>Never actually said that.

>A 1 percent decrease in overall yearly returns is not a fucking failure you autist.
>It's a user doesn't understand how massive conglomerates conduct and manage business episode

>they failed at making profit from recent movies
>therefore they should disband

>thinking that is a logical implication
you shouldn't talk about logic if you don't understand it

How is it that in your sperg filled head:

>1 percent decrease in overall yearly returns is not a fucking failure

means the same thing as saying:

>"pff like the company cares if it makes 1% less money"

?

>hyperbole is not your thing I see
hyperbole implies your statement was an exaggeration of some other statement which was made concerning sony getting rid of their money. but no one ever said that. instead of "hyperbole" i think what you're looking for is "being a retard spazzing out trying to assemble inane strawmen"

Nobody said "they should disband"

nobody said "complete failure"

nobody said "sony is dead"

you've springboarded into a broader accusation nobody made based on some people saying sony studios is shit and isn't making sony the kind of profits they are pouring into it, all but their music and gaming divisions are considered a sinking ship

no one said it was sinking FAST

The other user said that the poor results from a quarterly period and underperformance over less than a year were indicators enough to call Sony a failure. Everything else was hyperbole and exaggeration, sure.

This is Sup Forums.

Angrily responding doesn't make your comment any more true.

that's why i linked at least one report about sony's major losses each year since Kaz Hirai was made president of sony

they made less money than they thought they could. their goal was to make as much money as they thought they could given their resources and they failed to make as much money as they thought they could given their resources. they failed at their goal.

i don't understand why this is hard for you and you think it has something to do with burning money

nobody said "THIS WAS BETTER"
nobody said "THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA"

Man... all of us here at Sony Studios are getting misty-eyed seeing such devoted walle- I mean, ambassadors of the Sony brand, protecting our good name. But maybe next time you could consider mentioning our amazing Ghostbusters Movie + Game Bundle on PSN for just $79.99! If you pay the PS+ monthly subscription fee you even get a whole 10% off!

Oy VEY!!