Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
I just checked again and Top Critics is 53%, which I don't believe is on par with 79%.

Just a general shorthand but this is how the jargon seemingly translates:

Top Critics = aggregate of professional film critics
All Critics = aggregate of professional film critics + people with an internet connection and keyboard

That's not true at all - you're stating that it's an average of critics + the general public, but in fact if you look down all 4 pages of reviews currently for "all critics", everyone listed has a byline. Here are the requirements to be a critic on Rotten Tomatoes:

SOURCE APPROVAL

Print publications must achieve and maintain status as one of the following:

- A top 100 daily US newspaper
- A top 100 weekly US newspaper
- A top 100 magazine
- A top 10 entertainment-based publication

Sources used to determine national publication ranks include the Audit Bureau of Circulations, The Magazine Publishers of America, and the Association of Alternative Weeklies. Applications for international publications will be made on a case-by-case basis, with input from local Rotten Tomatoes editors when applicable.

Whereas:

TOP CRITICS

Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.

So, not everyone with a keyboard + mouse, at all.

You left out the broadcast and online requirements. There are a lot of bloggers who count.

I have to admit I'm shocked that some of those bloggers are doing half a million unique monthly visitors.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
so it's currently almost on par as the All Critics.

I just checked again and Top Critics is 53%, which I don't believe is on par with 79%.

Just a general shorthand but this is how the jargon seemingly translates:

Top Critics = aggregate of professional film critics
All Critics = aggregate of professional film critics + people with an internet connection and keyboard

I don't really get the argument about women (or girls) dressing up as Ghostbusters meaning that it has an impact because I have seen female Ghostbuters cosplay for some time.

Personnaly I am going to have to wait to hear from some people I trust the opinions of to decide whether to see it or not.

I'm getting this:



With 76% on all critics. When I go and actually count the Top Critics... there are 10 rotten. What is going on?

It's also saying in top critics there are 18 reviews when there are 20 total. I've tried deleting cache and using other browsers (even IE) and it's the same for me.

I've asked a few people to check with me and they're getting 50%. I'm just gonna assume it's on my end.

 Ouze wrote:
you're stating that it's an average of critics + the general public

Actually that isn't what I stated at all. What I said was "how the jargon seemingly translates". "Seemingly" is a fairly distinct word with a different meaning than "actually". If you are going to be churlish at least be more accurate.

 Ouze wrote:
So, not everyone with a keyboard + mouse, at all.

It is nice that they have presented standards for All Critics but All Critics still comes across as fairly useless unless there is a specific blogger et al you are looking for. Me? I only trust Youtube critics.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

I'm getting this:

Just went to it again and it is saying that All Critics have it at 78% and Top Critics is at 50%.

Either way it is still a "wait and see" kind of movie. Until hear from people I know, or some Dakkites, I'm not going. My "hope it is good" slot is already taken up by Star Trek Beyond and Suicide Squad at the moment. It sort of sucks though as I like the people in it but man so far nothing makes me think it is worth seeing in the theater yet.

I wasn't trying to be churlish at all, simply correcting what appeared to be an inaccuracy.

And yeah, I'm definitely waiting until it's been out for at least a week to even think about seeing it, perhaps the early reviews are an outlier.

 Compel wrote:
The Nerdist's revieew was basically, "it's fine."

They go on to say, (and I'm paraphrasing cause I misplaced the link) "they wish it was an amazing comedic masterpiece to shut up all the complaints about the casting, but the truth is, the films fine, not outstanding, not terrible, fine."

They also say that if you like Paul Feige films, you'll really enjoy it, if you dislike Paul Feige films, you'll still dislike it.

Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Here is his IMDB Director list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082450/#director

1 episode each of Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock. 7 episodes of Arrested development. Movies include Spy and Heat (I've never seen either).

Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

 curran12 wrote:
Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

I was never fighting for or against it. I'm a fan of the original and of the cartoon show. I was not impressed by the trailers and since my wife and I both work and have kids our ability to go see movies is limited so we have an admittedly high bar for going out to see stuff in the theater. Reviews can influence our decision if we're on the fence about making time to go see a movie but not if we both are turned off by the trailer.

 curran12 wrote:
Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

Reviews from any reviewer who tries to make it about "misogynists" can be safely dismissed, but it's worth listening to anyone who hated the trailers but was forced to admit the movie was actually really good, or who had realised the folly of parroting the director's bigoted propaganda to defend a movie that doesn't deserve it.

 curran12 wrote:
Honest question here, for either those who were really fighting for it or really fighting against it.

Do the reviews even matter? Or would it be a case of 'this review disagrees, bad/amateur/inconsequential reviewer'?

Aggregate reviews don't matter. They're just about the most worthless thing there is for anything that isn't universally acclaimed or scorned. Look at the individual reviews for BvS. Just about everyone thinks it was a flawed movie, and yet there are critics who thought it was horrendous and those who were overall positive about it. They can't both be "right."

The thing to do with movie reviewers has always been -- and this is easier than ever now -- to find reviewers that tend to line up with your tastes and then pay attention to their reviews. It might not even be one reviewer -- you might have a go-to reviewer for serious stuff, and another for brain candy films.

 gorgon wrote:
The thing to do with movie reviewers has always been -- and this is easier than ever now -- to find reviewers that tend to line up with your tastes and then pay attention to their reviews.

I think Roger Ebert said it well. I don't have the exact quote handy, but he said that when a review is well written, you'll know if you'd like a movie even if he didn't, which is something I've often found true for his reviews. I've read a lot of his books and I've liked them all.

 Ouze wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The thing to do with movie reviewers has always been -- and this is easier than ever now -- to find reviewers that tend to line up with your tastes and then pay attention to their reviews.

I think Roger Ebert said it well. I don't have the exact quote handy, but he said that when a review is well written, you'll know if you'd like a movie even if he didn't, which is something I've often found true for his reviews. I've read a lot of his books and I've liked them all.

Yeah, that quote pretty much hits the nail on the head. You can never go on a "star rating", or a simple "I thought it was rubbish" as it tells you nothing about the film. A description about a performance, or the story telling however can tell you all you need to know.

From the descriptions I've read about this new ghostbusters film, it sounds utterly woeful, and every bit as bad as the trailers made it look.

 Ouze wrote:
I wasn't trying to be churlish

Disrespectful and mean-spirited. Just full of hate to others thoughts and ideas.

I've seen/heard/read several review now, including a few from people I trust and the overall opinion seems to be it's not terrible, but it's not great. It's got some flaw and it's got some good parts but it's largely forgettable.

What it apparently is not though is as good as the original, which is unsurprising. I'm sure Feig disagrees, but then he seems to have an open bias in favour of women. If his intention was, as that article says 'make the case for female superiority' he has failed dismally.

 kronk wrote:

Compel wrote:
Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Here is his IMDB Director list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082450/#director

1 episode each of Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock. 7 episodes of Arrested development. Movies include Spy and Heat (I've never seen either).

Thanks Kronk but I was bring rhetorical. :-P

It's more along the lines of "this person has had no impact our influence on my life so meh."

To be honest, I accept that Spy is generally seen as a good film, is available on demand for me to watch right now for free. Still can't be bothered watching it. Or 90% of the other films I'm vaguely interested in seeing but can't be bothered going to the effort to watch them. And that doesn't involve me getting off my couch, nevermind going to the cinema.

Spy was actually pretty good. I really, really, really didn't want to see it, but my fiancee dragged me. I enjoyed it a lot. Statham has surprisingly good comedic timing.

Agree both with Spy being hilarious, and it largely being because of Statham. Spy I thought looked like garbage until it was scoring some monster numbers on RT - like 90+ % at the time if I recall. I was very surprised by how funny it was, at it's almost wholly responsible for why I felt initially cautiously optimistic about Ghostbusters.

 Compel wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Compel wrote:
Of course, I'm sitting there going, "Who's Paul Feige?"

Here is his IMDB Director list: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0082450/#director

1 episode each of Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock. 7 episodes of Arrested development. Movies include Spy and Heat (I've never seen either).

Thanks Kronk but I was bring rhetorical. :-P

It's more along the lines of "this person has had no impact our influence on my life so meh."

I'd never heard of the guy, either and agree that "If you like X's work, you'll like this movie" isn't helpful if you don't know who X is.

Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

 General Kroll wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

Out of morbid curiosity, what made the bad parts so bad?

I am also interested!

I encouraged one of my friends to see it first and report back. With the current price of tickets it's rare I see anything in the theater but this is Ghostbusters, so I have to at least consider it.

Buddy of mine and his wife went to see it for her birthday. She loved it, he (die hard GB fan) hated it. Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet". So, everything the trailer made it out to be.

I'll let my wife and her sister and mom watch it, this gets a strict "Pass" from me.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Buddy of mine and his wife went to see it for her birthday. She loved it, he (die hard GB fan) hated it. Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet". So, everything the trailer made it out to be.

I'll let my wife and her sister and mom watch it, this gets a strict "Pass" from me.

This was exactly my strategy.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet".

While I've heard there's not too much of that, I've also heard from several sources:



The most tragic thing is that if it bombs and makes 1/3rd of what it cost to make (which I believe is the approximate prediction) back, that's a 100 million dollar lesson for Hollywood execs. Say what you will about them but if there's one thing they do respect it's the almighty dollar. And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

I was initially excited to see this, because I like Kate McKinnon and to a lesser extent Kristen Wiig, and even despite the fact that I really love Ghostbusters. I didn't expect it to be great and even stuck up for the first trailer when friends compared the CGI to last-gen console gaming. I stayed away from the back and forth over the second trailer. But even at a distance from the fray, I now have no interest whatsoever is seeing this, either in the cinema or (in two months) on a TV or tablet screen.

 Kojiro wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Also, from the sounds of it, it's pretty much women empowerment = putting men down/misandry jokes/jokes about the "haters and trolls on the internet".

While I've heard there's not too much of that, I've also heard from several sources:

Spoiler:

That the big bad is a male, and the coup de grace is to shoot him in the junk.

The most tragic thing is that if it bombs and makes 1/3rd of what it cost to make (which I believe is the approximate prediction) back, that's a 100 million dollar lesson for Hollywood execs. Say what you will about them but if there's one thing they do respect it's the almighty dollar. And the next time someone comes along with an idea for a film with an all female cast, this lesson will be in their minds.

Yeah, not the first I've heard about the ending. Second, the fact that Chris Hemsworth is a dumb hunky eye candy. Real progressive casting, right? Considering Annie Potts (attractive as she is) was hired to be their personal secretary and financial advisor, and never cast as dumb eye candy.

Second, I can't type fething Ghostbusters without getting the new crap why couldn't it have just been called Ghostbusters 3 or some subtitle??

I don't see how having something as eye candy automatically makes it unprogressive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Watched it last night, awful awful film, had its funny moments, but on the whole garbage, so many scenes that sucked, we're totally pointless and just made me cringe with how bad it was, male or female I couldn't give a gak, they have put another nail into my murdered childhood....

I never got this "ruined my childhood" thing, I mean the older content that you still love exists why not just keep enjoying that?

Or why we're pretending Ghostbusters 2 didn't thoroughly poop all over the franchise when Kate McKinnon was still in diapers.


Anyway, Ghostbusters is now certified fresh with a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes.

 Ouze wrote:


Anyway, Ghostbusters is now certified fresh with a 75% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Which is such a specious thing. Read some of the fresh reviews. This is how the "fresh" review from the WSJ ends:

"Silly is endangered these days, and normal has come under withering fire from stupendous, yet tedious, visual effects. Busting ghosts used to be a lot more fun"

That's fresh?

Richard Roeper hated it. I hope it does very, very poorly so they don't do another.