Brett Ratner Is Assblasted Over RT Scores

>“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.”

Source: collider.com/brett-ratner-rotten-tomatoes/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sX2a6y8zM5A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>People said mean things about my movie on the internet WHY CAN'T I JUST CENSOR THEM

X-Men 3 was well directed. The issue was the script.
I liked the grainy film stock Ratner shoots with too.

>“It’s mind-blowing. It’s just insane, it’s hurting the business, it’s getting people to not see a movie. In Middle America it’s, ‘Oh, it’s a low Rotten Tomatoes score so I’m not going to go see it because it must suck.’ But that number is an aggregate and one that nobody can figure out exactly what it means, and it’s not always correct. I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores. What’s sad is film criticism has disappeared. It’s really sad.”

Response from RT's Jeff Voris:

>“At Rotten Tomatoes, we completely agree that film criticism is valuable and important, and we’re making it easier than it has ever been for fans to access potentially hundreds of professional reviews for a given film or TV show in one place. The Tomatometer score, which is the percentage of positive reviews published by professional critics, has become a useful decision-making tool for fans, but we believe it’s just a starting point for them to begin discussing, debating and sharing their own opinions.”

Translation:
>"Fuck off, Ratner."

People have always valued stats above all

Was Ratner this ass blasted when reviewers added scores to reviews

>but we believe it’s just a starting point for them to begin discussing, debating and sharing their own opinions.”
But that's not what happens. And that's what Ratner is saying.

People will not go see a movie if it has bad numbers.

I don't give a hot shit about BvS but that doesn't mean he's wrong. In the internet age most "professional critics" are either paid shills in the pockets of particular studios or pretentious faggots nothing is ever good enough for.

>one that nobody can figure out exactly what it means
If by nobody, he means "idiots from Sup Forums" then yes.

He's right though, since people only look at the tomato meter. There are lots of high score movies that have a lower tomato percentage because they turn off a good segment of the reviewers. At the same time, you have a lot of mediocre score movies that that have a high tomato percentage because it's bland and safe and doesn't offend everyone. It's a system that doesn't promote risk taking and controversial material and rewards safe unchallenging material and additionally reduces what few talented critics out there with genuine insight into a simple thumbs up or down metric.

He's just throwing a fit because BvS got a shit score.

>X-Men 3 was well directed

Rewatch the scene where Xavier dies. It's laughable.

>In Middle America it’s...
I bet this nigga knows just as much about middle America, as I do.

Ratner has nothing to do with BvS you stupid Sup Forumsirgin.

Someone snipe this whistleblower!

>Rewatch the scene where Xavier dies. It's laughable.
I watched it last month.
What about it is in any way "laughable"?

Thy way he smiles at Logan as he dies is pretty great imo.

>Middle America
Why doesn't he just come out and say that he thinks white people are responsible for BvS failing? God damn, I hate this fucking pussyfooting bullshit.

He's technically right, but he's still being a whiny crybaby about it.

I don't like him as a director but I completely agree that RT is cancerous garbage.

I hear they ride bikes out there

Tell that to the Transformers franchise. Or Suicide Squad.

It's word of mouth that's killing movies, not RT scores.

Rotten Tomatoes is genuinely worth it. It was alright at the start when it wasn't too popular and studios didn't know how to manipulate it, but at this point it's just not useful for knowing if a film is good.

>because there are exceptions, it's not a rule
RT *is* word of mouth.

every blogsite, buzzfeed etc...
>X movie opens to low RT score

>"idiots from Sup Forums"
if you think normies are any better in this regard, you are the bigger idiot
I know people who wouldn't even scroll down for the tiny blurbs from the reviews. They just look at the number and decide.

>the script.
now that you mention it
youtube.com/watch?v=sX2a6y8zM5A

If by "idiots from Sup Forums" you mean "everyone on the planet including studios who put the RT score in ads and posters" then yeah

You can almost hear the DCucks getting boners over this.

Sup Forums, you ruined this board.

Who?

Who is Brett Ratner? Someone from WB, I assume? If so, people will just say he's whining.

Either way, he's still right. RT scores are trash. They go way too high for decent movies, and way too low for things that are otherwise okay. The score isn't a percentage of quality, it's just an average of positive and negative. It's more like a percentage of viewers who will enjoy the movie, so even if something has a score of 23%, it could very well be a movie that you really enjoy.

I try not to let RT decide if I see a movie or not. I think one of the issues that the internet introduced into modern culture is that there are too many fucking opinions. People are very dissuaded from forming their own. Why think for yourself when you can just align yourself with this guy and his youtube reaction video and all the comments that already agree? It's human nature to want to be on the winning side of a conflict, regardless of what is actually at stake. People just want to draw a line in the sand and say "my side of the line is better, fuck you", so when they see a conflict of opinion, they jump on the side that will make them the majority, because then arguments are much easier.

>>because there are exceptions, it's not a rule
>RT *is* word of mouth.

Not really. People use "word of mouth" to mean things like social media buzz or recommendations from friends. Critics usually aren't included.

Obviously one affects the other, but they're not usually treated as the same thing. It's how you get movies that audiences love but critics hate, and vice versa.

>Or Suicide Squad

That Oscar will never not be funny.

You know who he is.
You want people to post bad movies he's made so you can laugh.

You're boring.

Eh, Rotten Tomatoes is kind of a problem only because the scores aren't given their proper context and most casuals don't know how the scoring works
>Ghostbusters 2016 gets advertised as a 76% fresh movie
>Average person sees this and thinks it's B+ movie in terms of quality
>Really it's only a C- on the scoring system but 76% of critics gave it a passing grade

What does the video game board have to do with live-action cap films?

>I try not to let RT decide if I see a movie or not. I think one of the issues that the internet introduced into modern culture is that there are too many fucking opinions. People are very dissuaded from forming their own. Why think for yourself when you can just align yourself with this guy and his youtube reaction video and all the comments that already agree? It's human nature to want to be on the winning side of a conflict, regardless of what is actually at stake. People just want to draw a line in the sand and say "my side of the line is better, fuck you", so when they see a conflict of opinion, they jump on the side that will make them the majority, because then arguments are much easier.
saved
I actually find it hard to just watch movies I've loved for years, now that I know most people hate them. It's strange.

I really don't know who he is. A scriptwriter?

they really needed it after the flop so good for them

Why does it seem like that fellow film markers are the only ones that likes Snyder's movies ?

...No, he's a director that's considered not very good.
X-Men 3 for example.
I agree with him about RT tho.

I would not call SS a flop. It was a commercial success, but if you are talking of BvS, then I agree.

The kind of people who watch 'challenging' movies aren't the kind of people who pay attention to RT scores.

The thing is, people need some way to filter movies to figure out what to watch. There's just too much movies, and entertainment option in general, to be able to see or even really know about everything.

If you're trying to decide what to spend your limited time and money on, RT is a useful tool.

>I actually find it hard to just watch movies I've loved for years, now that I know most people hate them. It's strange.
I don't understand why you would. People have different tastes in everything, be it movies, tv, music, clothing, food, etc. Even the most popular material has people who genuinely dislike it and even the most unpopular material has cult followings. If you like something, you should like it because it appeals to you on a personal level. You don't need to bow down to peer pressure or lemming mentality.

The problem with blaming RT for it is that that's not going to change that person

He was never going to read the review regardless and probably is one of the mouth breathers that think 7/10 = shit

I love my tomato garden. I water it and pull weeds every single day.

This! I use it all the time it's great.

>Before RT
"Is this film any good? Better ask my friends."
>After RT
"Is this film any good? Better check what the internet says... then ask my friends."

Also...
>I think it put a cloud over a movie that was incredibly successful.
Yes, how dare a bad film's reputation for being a bad film overshadow the huge amount of money it made. You could swap out BvS with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and the statement would be the same, you stupid fucking hack.

He should hire people to counteract the people Marvel pays to dole out Rotten ratings. Or he should make a black movie so it gets a perfect score. just stop complaing white pedo director!

That's such a random mix of films I'm having a hard time understanding your point, and I think Batman v Superman is not just worthless garbage, it's a moral wrong.

Do a better job.

>stating a negative opinion = "assblasted"
>white men starring in a television show is an act of violence against women and minorities
Which one is Sup Forums? Which one is tumblr? We don't know anymore.

>V for Vendetta
>good

lol@RT

>What’s sad is film criticism has disappeared.

Bullshit. Films get bad scores because of multiple poor reviews. Those individual reviews will still be unfavourable on their own. For most people the overall score being extremely poor or extremely positive is an impetus to read a few reviews and see what's wrong/right.

Like it or not, it does say something when the vast vast VAST majority of reviews for something are bad. At the very least it's a good indicator that you should stop and check things out before spending your money.

Basically, Ratner is just butthurt that people have increasingly potent defences against being tricked by trailers and burned by bad films.

He's right

>shit director who has never made a good movie in his life defends a shit movie
wow, what a shock

Is the original Crow any good? Saw a movie of the guy in a city of crazy people and demons and shit. Can't remember much of the plot since I was drunk, but I don't remember it being that good.

I don't find it hard to watch them, but years later it was always weird to me that people thought Ghostbusters 2, Waterworld or The Super Mario Bros. movie sucked. I always liked them just fine.

There is an especially large effort to frame Ghostbusters 2 as an abysmal piece of shit by SJWs, now, who are trying to justify the existence of the 2016 disasterpiece by saying "Your franchise was already ruined, white males!"

>You could swap out BvS with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

>I know nothing about filmmaking
Oh it shows.
BvS has LONG stretches of no action, for one thing.

Only two of those are any good

You should never watch anything below 90%

I think what he's saying is that the mongloids residing in flyover states are too poor and uneducated to appreciate good cinema like BvS and rely entirely upon a numerical value to base their judgement on, instead of a well articulated criticism supplied by film critics of yesteryears.

>Bad director gets asshurt that no one likes a bad movie

More at 11.

So how exactly does he explain all the commercially successful movies with shit RT scores?
Evidently it can't be that damaging.

>Yes, how dare a bad film's reputation for being a bad film overshadow the huge amount of money it made.
The blatant hypocrisy exposed with Iron Fist will make me laugh for years.

batman v superman is perfect now.

got something to say about my mom?

It's fucking great

I revisit it every five years or so and it holds up every single time

>Basically, Ratner is just butthurt that people have increasingly potent defences against being tricked by trailers and burned by bad films.
This.

What kind of argument is that?
There are tons, (i'd guess many more), bad movies that made little money.

Well yeah, did you expect them to go "sorry our website is doing exactly what it's meant to do, we'll stop that right now and take it down".
If RT didn't exist it would be metacritic or something else anyway.

>everyone who thinks BvS was bad is a Marvelfag!

This delusion will never stop being funny.

>Who is Brett Ratner?

Are you that clueless?

>being tricked by trailers

AKA the DCEU SOP

Iron Fist was total shit, but it's always nice to see the sheer irrelevance of SJWs get rubbed in their faces.

The issue is that RT makes very easy to buy reviews like Disney does. Before you needed to go to every critic and pay them to praise your flick, which immediately gave them away as shills. Now all they have to do is rate it over 6.00001/10 and then trash it in the review if they didn't like it. Half of the positive reviews for BatB were mostly trashing the flick, but hey, those banners in your blog aren't going to pay themselves are they?

I agree. Not because of BVS but just movies in general. Before movies could grow and become more than what a group of people thought of it at that period of time. There are various factors that can come into play that can affect the opinions of a movie. What if we had RT back during the time when movies were more experimental? What if we had RT when the Shining came out? There are so many good movies that at one time were disliked by critic but now looked at completely differently.. Before we didn't have this reminder of documentation saying that this movie is suppose to be bad. So movies weren't stinted for the next generation that could see past the bias or opinionated views on them at the time.

Poor Marvel then, not even that after Dr Strange

I'm sure she's a nice lady, user. BvS is still pretty goddamn terrible though.

The thing that annoys me is that most people are clueless about stats and thus easily swayed when someone misuses them to prove their narrative.
I remember a news story a few years back that used the stat that shows people have more car accidents around where they live to say that people were to inattentive on roads they know well. Nevermind that considering they use those roads a shit ton more it's bound to be where most accidents take place.

>disney buys reviews
>but WB who literally OWNS RT doesn't get good reviews
No, user. The DCEU is just that goddamn bad. Lego Batman got great reviews because it was actually well done.

>Before we didn't have this reminder of documentation saying that this movie is suppose to be bad. So movies weren't stinted for the next generation that could see past the bias or opinionated views on them at the time.
That's not true though. Bad reviews for movies still existed back then and you could still look at them. Movies and other media get reevaluated over time and that's not changed.

The First one kicks ass, they made a bunch of shitty straight to vhs/dvd sequels though, avoid those at all costs, sounds like you may have seen one of those

No one actually believes this, it's just shitty bait. Don't fall for it.

It doesnt stand the test of time well at all, Satan trips.

I know literally 0 person irl who uses RT at all. Maybe stop frequenting idiots.

RT doesn't have reviewers so WB owning it has nothing to do. And Disney buys reviews

Dude is kinda right. People are obssesed with that site and they don't even pay attention to the actual score. That being said, he is using a horrible example. What cloud? that movie still made tons of money sure, but that doesn't make it less shitty. SS was even more successful but not even hardcore dceu fans defend that turd. And it's not like RT was the only site shitting on it.

>Only two of those are any good
Which ones?

Has anyone done a study on this? It would be interesting in trying to figure out how much RT impacts a film's success.

Though that would be hard since you can't really know how well a film would have done without it.

>Lego Batman got great reviews because it was actually well done.
It's a 7.5/10, which is good but not great. Yet it's at a 91% tomatometer because it didn't offend anyone. That's one of the points, it's safe and unoffensive and it's being rewarded for it's mediocrity [spoilers]like MCU films.

I'm not really that big into movie culture, and I especially tend not to give a shit who directed them. I just watch them.

I just checked his IMDB page. He really hasn't directed anything of note.

Wait, what? Iron Fist is getting shit reviews. What are you talking about? It's Netflix's first real Marvel flop.

Days of future past and Dark Knight

Not a ratings flop though, which is what matters.

In RT, but I guess he means the Netflix rating system which is still going strong at 5 stars.

This.

>>Safe and inoffensive
Yes obviously, it should've had a jar of piss that's mature.

Poop jokes are much better, according to critics and manchildren alike. Shame about the Academy though

It's probably just the controversy that made people give it a try. I've been tuned out of Marvel's Netflix series after Season 2 of Daredevil was weak, but I'm interested in catching Iron Fist just to see if it really is bad, or if it's a case of universally shit/tainted opinions.

>jar of piss
I never got this meme.
What about this is bad?

So? I don't think you understand how arguing works.

>Yet it's at a 91% tomatometer because it didn't offend anyone. That's one of the points, it's safe and unoffensive and it's being rewarded for it's mediocrity [spoilers]like MCU films.

Ha ha, this is adorable.

Now twist yourself into more knots explaining how Logan got a 92%. Or how Get Out got a near-perfect score.