X-Men Last Stand Director: "Rotten Tomatoes Is The Worst Thing We Have in Today’s Movie Culture”
Other urls found in this thread:
letterboxd.com
twitter.com
>tfw no kelsey grammar best friend
>"Last Stand Director"
>not knowing who Brett Ratner is
i know he's jewish but he's pretty cool desu
Do people only hate him for that movie? He made kino like rush hour
First, it's Brett Ratner saying this. He's a shittier version of Michael Bay, ffs.
Second, the worst thing about today's movie culture is the overabundance of formulaic capeshit, part of which (the shittiest parts, in fact) is on his shoulders.
Third, nigga actually quoted the Juggernaut bitch meme in his X-Men movie. Who fucking cares what he has to say about anything. Go milk Rush Hour some more, you hack. I'm sure you can convince someone to give you the chance to make a shitty reboot no one wants.
>it takes a hack like Ratner to point this out
Yeesh
>“The worst thing that we have in today’s movie culture is Rotten Tomatoes. I think it’s the destruction of our business. I have such respect and admiration for film criticism. When I was growing up film criticism was a real art. And there was intellect that went into that. And you would read Pauline’s Kael’s reviews, or some others, and that doesn’t exist anymore. Now it’s about a number. A compounded number of how many positives vs. negatives. Now it’s about, ‘What’s your Rotten Tomatoes score?’ And that’s sad, because the Rotten Tomatoes score was so low on Batman v Superman I think it put a cloud over a movie that was incredibly successful.”
based Brett
he actually thinks anybody cares about his shit opinions as a hack director, sad
Rotten tomatoes "was" pretty accurate on picking out good/shitty movies, but over time it has shifted more towards mediocrity. They didn't really make too much of an effort to pick a wide array of reviewers for their metrics, and eventually ended up being a heavily left leaning review site.
If you make a leftist pandering movie, you'll get a 90%+ most of the time. Have some black people, some political message, or lgbtq, and you're looking at a movie that will be picked apart for its artistic/cinematic elements (even if they weren't there).
It's for the better.
Still a better director than your favorite Marvel director.
Lol being this mad because all his movies have Rotten ratings.
>ironic
lmao that sass
Not totally wrong
He's right.
RT is full of SJW faggots and liberals also payed reviews.
>there is nothing wrong with Rotten tomatoes
Said the paid Disney shills
that's the best praise you can come up with huh?
Rush hour trilogy > all of the dceu/mcu
I agree with this gentleman.
King Kong has a 78%, and Get Out is at 99%.
If I were too assign scores, King Kong would get 60-65%, while Get Out would be more at like 85-90%.
However, both movies appeal to leftists, due to slavery/racism themes, which magically bumps the shitty script of the first one, and poor moments of execution in the second one to higher levels.
Civil War had 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.
90%
Who remembers Civil War now? It played out like C-rate direct-to-dvd capeshit.
I'll take value in Brett Ratner's opinion whenever he finally manages to make a good movie
user. Get Out got top scores because racist people didn't go see it in the first place. So they couldn't review it.
Rush Hour 2 motherfucker do you remember it?
Apparently Logan was only a few percentage points better than Civil War. Let that sink in, when Logan (or even Spider-Man 2) was essentially The Dark Knight of MCU.
I don't think you know how Rotten Tomatoes works
I recently rewatched Civil War and it was a lot more boring than I thought after seeing it in theaters.
Fox X-MEN movies are bit part of Disney's MCU
90% is not a 9/10, look at the actual ratings you autists
Not part*
>shitty director complains about critics
Criticism of Rotten Tomatoes is valid but I'd rather hear it out of the mouth of a person that isn't Brett fucking Ratner.
>gone girl
>quote unquote good
imdb culture everyone
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE LIKE BRETT HATE ROTTEN TOMATOES BECAUSE IT'S A SHITTY WAY TO MEASURE A FILM YOU FUCKING IDIOT
All you had to do was Ghostbusters "Fresh".
Logan was the best movie released in the last 10 years
>Brett Ratner
He just copy other directors, including Rush Hour movies, even when they were fun.
Shit director, deserves nothing
Yes, it pools a bunch of reviewers saying which ones liked it vs. which ones didn't.
I was surprised by how many people liked both King Kong and Get Out, when compared to many other movies that had more reasonable percentages.
King Kong was supposed to be "fun," which was great and all, as long as "fun" includes a tolerable script, and chemistry between leads (neither of which happened). It was an extremely, extremely, poorly executed movie, and still managed to have more people liking it than I would have thought. Reason? King Kong is a metaphor for slavery, every time he did anything in my theater, black people were jumping out of their seats clapping. I'm glad they enjoyed it, but I thought it was the most overrated shit movie I've seen in a while.
Get Out was well done, but for 99% to have liked it, that's pretty fucking ridiculous. It was good, but for people not to see any flaws in the movie, or for that matter it making some shit points along with good ones... (Shoddy acting at points, heavy handedness in dialogue, etc.). I mean come on, I would still agree with like 85-95%, but fucking 99%? It's not fucking Lord of the Rings or something, its a movie about a bunch of racist white people doing racist white people shit. The premise helped cover up a lot of weaker/cornier moments, but they were there, they are always there.
Only for stupid, corn fed retards who fuck their cousins.
Read his actual quote, faggot.He has tons of respect for actual film criticism. Just not when it's devolved into a thumbs up/thumbs down system
He should be grateful, Rotten Tomatoes scores are generous. Sometimes they give a good score to a movie I think is crap, but it's very rare that a movie I really liked gets a score under 60%. A bad score damn near guarantees that the movie sucks.
Rotten Tomatoes isn't even close to the worst thing in movie culture. It trails far behind pederasty and the sexualisation of children.
unless you're not a fucking dumbass that doesn't know how math works, like Brett here
Why are plebs pretending to care about film criticism now?
For years you iqlets called Brody and White pretentious and anyone that agreed with them hipsters. Has your taste film improved now or are you still the tasteless drones you were when you cried hipster and that fun should be allowed since film is supposed to be """entertainment"""
or is this another excuse to shitpost and stay away from developing better taste again?
Great film criticism died years ago. This is nothing new. Fag needs to stop crying and adapt if he wants to continue making his shitty lowest common denominator movies (which he will anyway, all he's doing is whining).
Having a problem with rt is having a problem with democracy
The only problem that could arise here ethically would be if people were submitting on more than one account
t. Someone actually in the industry
I think you accidentally typed "worst" when you meant to type "best"
>t. Someone actually in the industry
Yeah you must be real proud of the unnoticeable shlock you make.
What qualifies someone to review a movie?
>It's a "shitty director invokes Pauline Kael when their movie reviews poorly" episode
A broken clock is right twice a day
Welles in F for Fake addresses this question. "Experts" and critics only have to pass a short time of early litmus tests before they are more or less just accepted as experts and not questioned by their peers.
Make a litterboxed, imdb, mubi or sac account and you can do it yourself
if you're good on sac you can get festival releases to watch before they're out of circuit too
>Having a problem with rt is having a problem with democracy
>t. Someone actually in the industry
The industry is hiring 15 years olds now?
The kind of people who don't understand this are the kind of people who criticize RLM for loving or hating certain movies.
They think there are no layers to film criticism beyond just "it was good" or "it was bad".
>F for Fake
I've been meaning to watch this. Is it good?
He's completely right. Which is why each cinéaste should find a film critic they admire, if they are at all interested in reading reviews.
i agree
>movie rated 6/10
>still somehow have 95%+ score
>gone girl
>"ITS BAD GUIZE! ONLY IMDB LIKES IT"
fpbp exactly what I was thinking when I saw the thumbnail.
Ratner is acting rather wounded for a guy who gets huge box office takes for the dreck he makes. Just take the money you crying baby.
I like it. It's a film essay about hoaxes, fakery and the production of art. There's nothing quite like it.
What if I'd never seen any other movie before? Would my review still be valid?
Probably. The democratization of review culture means that everyone has an opinion, all of them are valid and fuck you if you don't agree.
You'd still be able to review the only film you've seen
Guess I'll give it a go.
Ratner is a really bad jewish director but he isn't wrong.
What if someone had watched every movie ever, and I had watched none. Would our reviews still be equal?
>CRITICIZE CURRENT MOVIE JOURNALISM IS WRONG
>IF YOU DO IT YOU ARE A CRYING BABY
Logan is the most overrated movie released in the last 10 years.
In the modern review culture, yes absolutely. If you have enough of a personality to put yourself over you can be just a complete movie retard and get by.
No shit this board is full of plebs
>thinks anybody cares about his shit opinions
Sounds like he's /ourguy/
Well yeah one of the main reasons is because of plebs like you that came here after baneposting.
letterboxd.com
I mean just look at your fucking ratings
It's just a competently made western with an old superhero in the main role vs. an aging gunslinger. Settle down.
So by extrapolation someone who has no knowledge of the sciences can produce a review of a scientific paper of equal worth to a professor of that science
niggers and leftists are the most racist people though
Disney has completely hijacked RT.
...
Then why does Nocturnal IMDB sensibilities have the highest rating?
That's not even true. They get pretty decent directors, but force them to make everything look bland so the movies have a consistent style. Brett Ratner has never made a great movie. Kenneth Branagh has.
>Kenneth Branagh has
This is true. His movie version of Hamlet is kino.
BASED
A
S
E
D
So has Taika Waititi.
Neither Logan nor Spider-Man 2 are part of the MCU.
Watch The Neon Demon for the 50th time, faggot.
Critics are retards BATB is the best disney movie in a long time
Neon demon sucks faggot
Stick to Marvel
...
>Bringing up Reddit Letter Media at all
Faggot
>Flawless
>Flaws
Except the Tomatometer doesn't measure quality but - how many critics liked it -.
The actual score is below, you bumbling idiot.
He's 100% unequivocally correct
Rotten Tomatoes quoting plebs are fucking braindead retards
Has he even done anything worth hating? People says he's like some michael bay type director but the only thing I ever see nerds hate on is his x men
>people ITT actually defending RT
>And that’s sad, because the Rotten Tomatoes score was so low on Batman v Superman I think it put a cloud over a movie that was incredibly successful.
BvS's influence continues on, forcing everyone to reevaluate aspects of the movie industry previously accepted and taken for granted. Truly a movie ahead of it's time and one of the few works that can be unironically classified as "kino."
>expecting Sup Forums not to be contrarian
Rush Hour 1 & 2 are the only good things he's done as a director
The biggest issue with Rotten Tomatoes is that it promotes mediocrity and discourages risk taking
Take film A. Film A is loved by 50% of critics to high heavens, but the other 50% mildly dislike it. This puts Film A on a pretty poor RT score.
Take Film B. Pretty much all reviewers agree it's very mediocre and standard and predictable. So they give it a 6/10. Rotten Tomatoes translates this mediocre film into a 90% score.
That means the system promotes the safe and mediocre of the risk-takers. And such a system is DANGEROUS. Simple as that. When we have systems that basically discourage risks, then something is very bad and needs to be fought.