B-but audience scores

>b-but audience scores

Yeah how'd that work out, Sup Forums?

44% of people didn't understand it.

Honestly surprised it isn't higher

>very slow methodical and atmospheric period suspense/horror movie
>pleb audiences can't take it
holy shit someone stop the presses

Appeal to majority is literally pleb tier.

Same goes for appeal to authority though.

Form your own opinion.

When will the Rotten Tomatoes meme end?

It's used almost exclusively by plebs and its binary system is no where near deep enough for proper ratings.

Anyone who decides what movies to watch based on RT is a retard

Well advertising sold it as a standard horror when in reality it was a slow period piece with arthouse and horror themes.

People got salty because they wanted their jump scares and gore.

Its really not a movie for all audiences, and theres nothing wrong with liking it or disliking such work, like i really don't get what you trying to say.

Ever heard of cult classic? I'm glad it did well enough to make money, but not TOO well so that it became a meme like Citizen Kane. I want to see more from the director.

But what if the movie I like is either liked by the majority or the authority?

Pretty much this.

Cinemascore is still the best of whether the average audience will like a movie. Online ratings are limited to people who frequent a website to share their feelings on the movie.

Christ, that's pretty low

It was an okay film. Probably highly overrated but I liked parts of it. I feel the same about Kimi no Na Wa. The super great movies of that year turned out to be good but not great.

I'm crossing my fingers that Logan is as great as people are making it out to be.


Maybe it's just my fault for getting hyped

triggered

>I want to see more from the director.
This. I was really impressed to find out it was his first feature film.

People are plebs. Teenagers expecting Paranormal Activity are even plebier.

>Maybe it's just my fault for getting hyped
Exactly. Stop doing that. Unrealistic expectations ruin more movies for people then bad film making.

I guess so. I did enjoy those films. Hell, I should have learned my lesson when I went into "When they Cry" with low expectations and ended up loving it

>how it was advertised prevented audiences from enjoying it on any level

That's the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on this stupid board.

VVitch is overrated.

>don't have standards and everything will look amazing

Nice Marvel logic.

I went in thinking I'd be disappointed. As I had heard it was a period piece (think The Crucible) billed as a horror film. It was unequivocally a horror film. And by far my favorite horror film in the past decade.

I like that it didn't have any twists. thank god the "quick everybody copy M Night Shamylam" era is coming to an end.

>Cinemascore is still the best of whether the average audience will like a movie.

PFFT fuck no. Most of the people who are surveyed for CinemaScore were given free screenings and that can affect the grade they give.

If it were advertised as a slow arthouse film far less people would have seen it and the only people who would have seen it would have got what they went in expecting.

It's like if, in order to boast sales, white wine was advertised as red. More people might buy it, but it would likely be the worst red wine they have ever tasted. To a true connoisseur of white wine it might be the best wine ever created, but that isn't what the average red wine drinker wanted.

Advertising created an expectation for normies and when a film isn't what's on the tin they will immediately hate it. This is also why trailers basically show every plot point now.

Yup. What you see is what you get. It managed to be straightforward while still maintaining an air of mystique. Plus it helped the protagonist was fucking delicious.

I don't disagree that it was a horror film, but it does lack many of the elements that most people associate with horror films, which explains the audience reaction.

People were simply presented with something that didn't match their expectations.

Fuck, even I didn't understand the movie. Someone can feel free to explain it (symbolically, not literally).
And this is coming from someone who understood Scarlet Letter (which isn't a big deal but most misunderstand it anyway)

Great film

>slow
>atmospheric
It's boring.

Neither was I. And I thought it was a stellar film. I liken it to that one hamplanet on that My Six Ton Life or w/e it's called trying to eat greens, which many would agree can be fucking delicious and gagging and crying. Plebs are so used to garbage that upon seeing actual quality they cant stomach it.

It's ok son, for people like you we have Michael Bay.

It was a two hour long butter commercial.

most of the people who went to see it thought they were going to see a Conjuring Prequel not the Crucible

I ended up liking it but I went in thinking it was going to be a cheesy teen horror flick

The audience score is low because when you say "a horror movie" today most people expect a certain kind of experience which is a completely separate thing to film (to them)

Like when you go to see a horror, the majority of the audience judges the movie completely different from an action/thriller/drama. It's like all the movie elements dissapear and the only measurement of quality of the movie is how many times you got "spooked". It's almost like a rollercoaster ride, not a movie for them.
The studio had to market The Witch as a scare horror movie so more people would see it, and when they actually see it they don't care about the family relations and character development and the production design etc, they just want to get some loud noises after a few seconds of silence every now and then and go happily home "wow that was spooky hehe"

It's really interesting. And really really sad.

it's because it was supposed to be a horror movie so it attracted the typical dumbfuck horror audience