Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Printable Version
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... (/thread-64729.html)
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... (/thread-64729.html)
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Vaun - 09-09-2017
This article appears to be what is simply a public relations campaign by the movie industry, to basically beg people to come back into theaters.
My take is simple, but this.
The obvious, that is clearly not stated in the article;
- No one wants to go to movie theaters anymore.
- Movie theaters are expensive, dirty, crowded and unsafe.
- The cost of one movie night at the theater would almost pay for Netflix for an entire year, for the average family.
- Movie dates usually suck.
- My advice to the movie industry; rebrand the movie viewing experience. Force theater owners to improve their product. Re-Romanticize the theater experience.
The obvious we have all discussed here ad nauseam;
- Todays movies are mostly garbage.
- No one takes a creative risk. Movies follow predictable formats and story lines.
- Actors generally are not people to look up to, or even envy these days; we are all sick of hearing about their ridiculous lives.
- Traditional gender roles and stereotypes are mocked, downplayed and all but destroyed, causing revulsion in most people(men and women alike).
I have no pity for these producers. Whats happening to the movie industry is what happened to newspapers, radio, television, and all formerly "traditional" forms of media. Its an evolution that we should all welcome. If these productions no longer get 5-10x in gross profits over the production budget, then figure out a new business model and quit whining to the NY Times.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes
LOS ANGELES — Hollywood had a horrible summer.
Between the first weekend in May and Labor Day, a sequel-stuffed period that typically accounts for 40 percent of annual ticket sales, box office revenue in North America totaled $3.8 billion, a 15 percent decline from the same span last year. To find a slower summer, you would have to go back 20 years. Business has been so bad that America’s three biggest theater chains have lost roughly $4 billion in market value since May.
Ready for the truly alarming part? Hollywood is blaming a website: Rotten Tomatoes.
“I think it’s the destruction of our business,” Brett Ratner, the director, producer and film financier, said at a film festival this year.
Some studio executives privately concede that a few recent movies — just a few — were simply bad. Flawed marketing may have played a role in a couple of other instances, they acknowledged, along with competition from Netflix and Amazon.
But most studio fingers point toward Rotten Tomatoes, which boils down hundreds of reviews to give films “fresh” or “rotten” scores on its Tomatometer. The site has surged in popularity, attracting 13.6 million unique visitors in May, a 32 percent increase above last year’s total for the month, according to the analytics firm comScore.
Timothy Ryan, sitting center, and Grae Drake, in purple, are senior editors for Rotten Tomatoes, which has a staff of 36. Credit David Walter Banks for The New York Times
Studio executives’ complaints about Rotten Tomatoes include the way its Tomatometer hacks off critical nuance, the site’s seemingly loose definition of who qualifies as a critic and the spread of Tomatometer scores across the web. Last year, scores started appearing on Fandango, the online movie ticket-selling site, leading to grousing that a rotten score next to the purchase button was the same as posting this message: You are an idiot if you pay to see this movie.
Mr. Ratner’s sentiment was echoed almost daily in studio dining rooms all summer, although not for attribution, for fear of giving Rotten Tomatoes more credibility. Over lunch last month, the chief executive of a major movie company looked me in the eye and declared flatly that his mission was to destroy the review-aggregation site.
Kersplat: Paramount’s “Baywatch” bombed after arriving to a Tomatometer score of 19, the percentage of reviews the movie received that the site considered positive (36 out of 191). Doug Creutz, a media analyst at Cowen and Company, wrote of the film in a research note, “Our high expectations appear to have been crushed by a 19 Rotten Tomatoes score.”
Kersplat: “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” got a Tomatometer score of 28 — anything under 60 is marked rotten — and audiences stayed away. After costing Warner Bros. at least $175 million to make, the movie took in $39 million at the domestic box office. In total.
How did a clunky website that has been around for 19 years amass such power?
The 36 people who work for Rotten Tomatoes hardly seem like industry killers. The site’s staff occupies a relatively ordinary Beverly Hills office complex — albeit one with conference rooms named “La La Land” and “Oz” — and includes people like Jeff Voris, an easygoing former Disney executive with graying hair who oversees operations, and Timothy Ryan, a former newspaper reporter who is a Rotten Tomatoes senior editor and lists “Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide” as favorite reading.
The employee with the pink mohawk is Grae Drake, senior movie editor. She does a lot of video interviews and lately has been helping to fill a void created when Matt Atchity left as editor in chief in July for a bigger job at TYT Network, an online video company.
Jeff Giles, a 12-year Rotten Tomatoes veteran and the author of books like “Llanview in the Afternoon: An Oral History of ‘One Life to Live’,” writes what the site calls Critics Consensus, a one-sentence summary of the response to each film. (Disney’s latest “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie was summarized as proving “that neither a change in directors nor an undead Javier Bardem is enough to drain this sinking franchise’s murky bilge.”)
“Everyone here sweats the details every day,” said Paul Yanover, the president of Fandango, which owns Rotten Tomatoes. “Because we are serious movie fans ourselves, our priority — our entire focus — is being as useful to fans as we absolutely can be.”
Hold on a minute. Fandango?
Yes. In an absurdist plot twist, Rotten Tomatoes is owned by film companies. Fandango, a unit of NBCUniversal, which also owns Universal Pictures, has a 75 percent stake, with the balance held by Warner Bros. Fandango bought control from Warner last year for an undisclosed price. (All parties insist that Rotten Tomatoes operates independently.)
Mr. Yanover said it was silly for studios to make Rotten Tomatoes a box office scapegoat.
“There is no question that there is some correlation to box office performance — critics matter — but I don’t think Rotten Tomatoes can definitively make or break a movie in either direction,” he said. “Anyone who says otherwise is cherry-picking examples to create a hypothesis.”
He cited “Wonder Woman,” which was the No. 1 movie of the summer, with $410 million in ticket sales. It was undoubtedly helped by a strong Tomatometer score of 92. “Dunkirk,” “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” all received high scores and drew huge crowds. Other films did not do well on the Tomatometer (“The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” “The Emoji Movie”) but still managed to find audiences.
Some filmmakers complain bitterly that Rotten Tomatoes casts too wide a critical net. The site says it works with some 3,000 critics worldwide, including bloggers and YouTube-based pundits. But should reviewers from Screen Junkies and Punch Drunk Critics really be treated as the equals of those from The Los Angeles Times and The New Yorker?
Mr. Yanover rejected those complaints, pointing to the site’s posted requirements. (“Online critics must have published no less than 100 reviews across two calendar years at a single, Tomatometer-approved publication,” for instance.) He also noted that critics at traditional outlets tended to be white men and that Rotten Tomatoes wanted to include female and minority voices.
‘Incredibly Layered’ Process
For the studios, the question of how individual reviews get classified as fresh or rotten is also a point of contention. Only about half of critics self-submit reviews and classifications to the site. Rotten Tomatoes staffers comb the web and pull the other half themselves. They then assign positive or negative grades.
“We have a well-defined process,” said Mr. Voris, the vice president of Rotten Tomatoes. “Our curators audit each other’s work. If there is any question about how a review should be classified, we have three curators separate and do independent reads. If there still isn’t agreement, we call the journalist.”
Staff members also fact-check what critics have self-submitted. In one recent instance, a review of “Alien: Covenant” that was submitted as fresh seemed rotten. The site reversed the categorization after contacting the critic for clarification.
Mr. Voris brushed aside the studios’ protests — shared by many critics — that the Tomatometer ratings damage films because they reduce nuanced reviews to blunt scores.
“I actually think it’s the opposite of simplified,” Mr. Voris said. “It’s incredibly layered.” Yes, the Tomatometer scores are the site’s best-known feature, he said. But Rotten Tomatoes also carries snippets of dozens of individual reviews. Beyond that, there are also links to full reviews. The site also generates its own news articles and feature stories (“75 Best Heist Movies of All Time”) that try to put new films into context.
Still, it is the Tomatometer scores that have become ubiquitous across the web. Rotten Tomatoes makes money through partnerships with companies like Apple, which lists the scores next to iTunes movie rentals and purchases. And to the dismay of movie marketers, Google has started to prominently display the scores even when users do not specifically search for them: Enter the name of a film into the search bar and the Tomatometer results pop up on the top right side of the results page, directly under the film’s poster.
“Rotten Tomatoes isn’t new, but its omnipresence is,” said Tim Palen, Lionsgate’s president of theatrical marketing. “The scores are even part of the local TV news on Friday going into the weekend.”
The battle between movie companies and critics is a perennial one. There was an outcry when some publications started using a series of stars to summarize reviews. (By some accounts, that system started in 1928, when The Daily News gave one star to the silent film “The Port of Missing Girls.”) Cries of harmful reductionism resurfaced in the 1980s, when the critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert brought their thumbs up or down edicts to syndicated television.
Rotten Tomatoes was founded in 1998 by students at the University of California, Berkeley who wanted reviews for kung fu movies in one place. The name harkens back to medieval Europe, where people would lob spoiled food, often eggs, at petty criminals in the stocks. The practice spread to some theaters in the 19th century. In 1883, The New York Times reported that “a large tomato thrown from the gallery” hit a Long Island actor “square between the eyes.”
In past years, studio publicists would occasionally lobby Rotten Tomatoes to include positive reviews from far-flung publications as a way of improving scores, especially for films with a 59 — on the line between receiving a red, plump fruit label (fresh) or the dreaded splotch of green goo (rotten). But Hollywood more or less lived with it.
Four things changed.
There was Fandango’s integration of Tomatometer scores with its ticketing platforms, which service about 28,000 movie screens in North America. Now, when Fandango customers buy tickets to a movie in the days leading up to its release, they are confronted by the film’s Tomatometer score. After the movie is released, a different Rotten Tomatoes rating — one based on audience response, which is invariably positive — begins to pop up on Fandango next to the Tomatometer score.
Then there is Rotten Tomatoes’ growth into a very popular hub. In 2009, the site, which sells advertising, attracted about 1.8 million unique visitors per month. It now attracts as many as 14 million unique visitors a month. The broader Fandango portfolio of sites reaches 60 million unique visitors a month.
Consumer behavior is also changing. People increasingly rely on review aggregation sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor to make all kinds of spending decisions. The trend is especially visible among young people, who make up Hollywood’s most important audience. According to National Research Group, a movie industry consulting firm, 34 percent of American teenagers now check Rotten Tomatoes before buying a ticket, up from 23 percent in 2014.
Hollywood Fights Back
Most importantly, studios are panicking because moviegoing is no longer a habit for most Americans. Because of climbing prices and competition from other forms of entertainment, a trip to the multiplex has become a special event. In particular, more movie fans are ignoring low- and mid-budget films when they are in theaters: Ehh, let’s wait until they show up on Netflix.
Studios are trying to battle Rotten Tomatoes on multiple fronts.
Marketers have discovered that early positive reviews can produce a bandwagon effect later, as some critics, especially those at less prestigious outlets, seek to go with the flow instead of against it. Studios have also started screening films early for pockets of critics. In some cases, studios create spreadsheets of which critics to invite to early screenings — often at festivals — based on questions such as who liked what in the past and who gives positive reviews more often than not.
“We are serious movie fans,” said Paul Yanover, the president of Fandango, which owns Rotten Tomatoes. A trailer for the movie “It” played in the lobby of its offices. Credit David Walter Banks for The New York Times
It is notable that “Leatherface,” a horror movie scheduled for release in late October, already has a very positive Tomatometer score of 86 based on seven reviews. (Rotten Tomatoes requires a minimum of five reviews before calculating a score.) The seven reviews came after an August screening at a London festival called FrightFest that was attended by reviewers from sites like Dread Central and HeyUGuys, which bills itself as an outlet for “love letters to cinema.”
Another way to undercut Rotten Tomatoes involves restricting reviews until the last possible minute. Sony set a review embargo of opening day for “The Emoji Movie,” which left the Tomatometer blank until after many advance tickets had been sold and families had made weekend plans. “The Emoji Movie,” which ultimately received a Tomatometer score of 8, squeezed out decent opening-weekend ticket sales of $24.5 million.
If Rotten Tomatoes is a monster, the studios helped create it. As much as they fear and loathe low scores, they love high ones. Sony recently ended its trailer for “Baby Driver,” a heist thriller, by flashing the Rotten Tomatoes logo and “100 percent,” the film’s Tomatometer score at the time. (It later slipped to 94.) Annapurna did the same thing for “Detroit” in television ads. (Not that it helped; that drama flopped.)
And Rotten Tomatoes is getting stronger. The site is working to build its Tomatometer scores for TV shows into a more formidable force. Also in development are a half-dozen video series, including one built around a cheeky event created by Ms. Drake, the senior movie editor, called Your Opinion Sucks.
At that event, which started at the Comic-Con International fan convention in San Diego a few years ago, movie fans debate critics. The hourlong sessions can get heated.
“Let’s just say that it’s not an accident that I chose a costume that needs a whip,” Ms. Drake said as she prepared to co-host one of three sessions at Comic-Con in July. (She was dressed as Catwoman.)
On stage were online critics from The New York Observer, Screen Junkies and Schmoes Know. One member of the audience came to the microphone and offered an opinion: “The Fate of the Furious,” which got a “fresh” Tomatometer score of 66 in April, deserved an even higher score.
Snarky wisecracks from the critics and hosts started to fly. The stars have as much chemistry as “a mop and a bucket,” one said. Ms. Drake’s co-host, the comedian Scott Aukerman, said that “The Fate of the Furious,” the eighth movie in the action series, should have been called “No one wants to act with Vin Diesel anymore” because the actor had a separate storyline for much of the film.
It was time for the audience to vote. Most of the 200 or so people assembled raised green paddles, and so the movie was pronounced rotten.
With an intestinal gurgle sound effect.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Cattle Rustler - 09-09-2017
Quit making fucking remakes. Why would I pay for a plot that I already know beforehand?
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Vaun - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 07:52 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:
Quit making fucking remakes. Why would I pay for a plot that I already know beforehand?
TV is trying that now too. NBC is betting their entire year on a Will and Grace retread
![[Image: boring.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/boring.gif)
Though sometimes they get it right, I thought the new Spiderman was pretty good.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - ivansirko - 09-09-2017
I saw the movie Dunkirk in IMAX. It had been a long time since i really wanted to see a movie in the movie theater. It cost over 20 dollars. Loved the movie but 20 bucks is way too much to see one movie (along with the popcorn, drinks, and the teenagers with their cell phones).
Most movies have way too much SJW crap. Who wants to see Miss Sloane, a "political thriller about a lawyer taking on the gun industry" for 20 bucks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Sloane
The market says Hollywood sucks. Get rid of your SJW Socialist tendencies.
![[Image: wcsYlxq.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/wcsYlxq.gif)
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - redpillage - 09-09-2017
Besides all the political correctness and the mind smothering social justice crap there is another reason why Hollywood movies have sucked so much over the past decade or so: the growing Chinese market. Turns out the average Chinese doesn't care much about sophisticated plot lines, good dialog, and character authenticity. What they apparently favor are action scenes, hot babes, and a ton of special effects (the more the better), thus most movies today are no longer being produced for the average American perspective but to attract a global audience with Chinese being the biggest market.
I have not set foot in a Cineplex for over five years now and I honestly have no plans to ever do it again. My humble 32'' LCD monitor on my computer and my B&O speakers are sufficient enough to play anything in perfect HD quality and with acceptable sounds. 95% of the movies I see I would have not bothered with even 10 or 20 years ago. There are a few exceptions but in the end I still prefer the comfort of my own home. Plus Hollywood's political agenda has pretty much ruined the vast majority of movies and series over the past decade. With the latter a lot of times it's bait and switch in that they draw you in for a season or two and suddenly it's gay sex, trannies, and anti-white or anti-male propaganda all over the place.
Guess what!? I'm a white male, so Hollywood can go and fuck itself. Obviously they don't care about me a customer and are actively lobbying to destroy my life, my family, my culture, and our traditional social structure all across the Western hemisphere. This is bad enough, so why would I pay to feed the beast? Just saying ;-)
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Putin Closes - 09-09-2017
VR will bring the movies to its the death kneel. Just a matter of time. I'm sure now even the most blue pilled guy can google and see how movie dates are a terrible way to get to know a girl.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - JohnKreese - 09-09-2017
Presented without comment
![[Image: hqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W_PrRd-Y56c/hqdefault.jpg)
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Leonard D Neubache - 09-09-2017
The industry exists to serve the propaganda war, not the other way around.
They can claim that the low box office sales are hurting their bottom line but the reality is that they'd find a way to produce all of this shit even if it ran at a perpetual loss.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Vaun - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 08:33 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
The industry exists to serve the propaganda war, not the other way around.
They can claim that the low box office sales are hurting their bottom line but the reality is that they'd find a way to produce all of this shit even if it ran at a perpetual loss.
I'd like to agree with you, but can you point to any substantial government funding of the film industry? Other than tax credits, I dont see much. Film projects are largely funded by PE.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Handsome Creepy Eel - 09-09-2017
Hollywood sucks, but Rotten Tomatoes sucks even worse. It's a SJW-infested cesspool of corruption and a literal incarnation of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Vaun - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 08:51 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
Hollywood sucks, but Rotten Tomatoes sucks even worse. It's a SJW-infested cesspool of corruption and a literal incarnation of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Interesting perspective HCE. So would you say that RT actually shoots down films we would like to see?
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Leonard D Neubache - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 08:45 AM)Vaun Wrote:
Quote: (09-09-2017 08:33 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:
The industry exists to serve the propaganda war, not the other way around.
They can claim that the low box office sales are hurting their bottom line but the reality is that they'd find a way to produce all of this shit even if it ran at a perpetual loss.
I'd like to agree with you, but can you point to any substantial government funding of the film industry? Other than tax credits, I dont see much. Film projects are largely funded by PE.
I'm not saying that Hollywood is currently insolvent. I'm saying that if they were then money would be funnelled into their coffers one way or another.
The propaganda benefits the globalists, both locally and abroad. These assholes making this crap and the other assholes in government benefiting from it are in many cases true believers so it's not about the government sending them kickbacks and bribes to turn out certain content. They're all just lunatics protecting and forwarding their insane religion.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Number one bummer - 09-09-2017
What a joke. Rotten Tomatoes has slowly lost credibility over the last couple years which makes sense if they are owned by the movie industry. Rotten Tomatoes used to be known for just panning otherwise good movies. Scarface is a low 80 and Forrest Gump is in the low 70's. There are plenty of other classic movies that received low 90's at best but usually fell into the 70-80 range. You could see a 70+ score and movie would be ok at the worst and good at the best. The last couple years it seems like every-other movie that comes out is a 95+ despite most released movies over the last couple years being reserved to reboots, remakes, sequels and feminist driven superhero movies.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - shameus_o'reaaly - 09-09-2017
Interesting, and not just because of the insight into the critical process.
I've always been curious about the funding process of films, not just because the worst ones seem to get more money than
they could concievably have used, but also how some non-mainstream movies could get made, distributed, reviewed, etc.
I can think of so many books that would make great adaptations, and I've even tried to scribble stuff down myself, but I doubt they could actually get backing unless they were changed to the point of being unrecognisable-how could an independent screenwriter with a decent script actually get it into a cinema (which, falling revenues aside, is still a seal of approval, like having your book published in hardback by Simon & Schuster)without losing his integrity or vision?
Could a movie realistically be crowdfunded, I wonder?
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - The Beast1 - 09-09-2017
Just take a look at the Ghostbusters 3 reviews.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/
You're telling me that hunk of crap is as good as a classic like Forest Gump?
No wonder the reviews have started getting shitty.
Oh and fuck the Chinese ruining cinema. Remember when the international market didn't matter at all? Those were the days when films were good.
Here's some advice:
1. Stop pandering to a global audience. I don't want to see token chinks and other cultural crap to appeal to those idiots.
2. Make ticket prices cheaper. When something is cheap i'm more apt to suspend my disbelief longer.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - debeguiled - 09-09-2017
If Hollywood wants to blame their failings on someone else, as well make a truly different kind of movie, I've got just the book they should option:
![[Image: MW-FR157_hillar_20170727102601_NS.jpg?uu...8e992d421e]](http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2017/07/27/Photos/NS/MW-FR157_hillar_20170727102601_NS.jpg?uuid=84063800-72d7-11e7-9bc7-9c8e992d421e)
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Captainstabbin - 09-09-2017
RT is just an aggregation site. The reviews come from a bunch of the most hardened leftists out there. Film critics used to be respectable journalists...now they're devout SJWs with an axe to grind. Just like the rest of journalists.
Notice the producers are scared to blame the people actually writing the reviews.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Nonpareil - 09-09-2017
The critics should be holding filmmakers accountable, not the other way around, but if gamergate showed us anything it's that the criticism community is a nest of vipers who are 100% for sale (though I imagine for Hollywood the price of admission is more than a piece of 4/10 sjw pussy), I doubt the movie critics circle is any different.
I saw Dunkirk with a friend (and just thought it was good, not life-changing, better than Interstellar but not as good as any of the Batmans or Inception). 2 tickets at $12 each, medium popcorn and two medium sodas and we were out over $40 in total, not to mention the 15 minutes each way driving and we go up to almost $50.
I can cook a wicked dinner for 4 people and still have enough left for a few beers or a joint for that!
I mean I would suggest if you want to draw people in have more hot young actresses doing full frontal nude scenes, but there's already been two fappenings.
And really, they were surprised a Baywatch movie got panned? It's based on an ultra corny tv show that's about looking at tits, for fucksakes! Not only that, but the Emoji Movie, another Pirates of the Caribbean, King Arthur, Atomic Blonde! That's a lot of shit there and not just shit but preachy shit that the average person doesn't relate to.
Edit: and not only this but these days there's an oversaturation of trailers. Movie trailers are shown at least once (and often twice) EVERY commercial break, and they use the best parts of the movies in them. Why would I shell out $50 when I've seen the best parts of the movie over a hundred times already?
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - LINUX - 09-09-2017
I usually only pay attention to the audience score. The rotten tomato score is often not accurate to my taste.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - polar - 09-09-2017
All movies go through marketing research panels with both critics and regular folks alike, yet assuming they take the feedback from all phases of storyboarding, how are they ending up with shit bombs when they tweak until the feedback is good?
It's not rocket surgery. If the Hollywood model is repeatedly losing money, their model needs changing.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Vaun - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 12:53 PM)polar Wrote:
All movies go through marketing research panels with both critics and regular folks alike, yet assuming they take the feedback from all phases of storyboarding, how are they ending up with shit bombs when they tweak until the feedback is good?
It's not rocket surgery. If the Hollywood model is repeatedly losing money, their model needs changing.
Exactly, this is where it doesn't add up. The major studios have millions invested in the science and data behind what will and wont work. Its a big reason why a filmmaker would work with a major studio. Are the producers and directors going against this data? Or is their data model flawed, much like we saw with the presidential election?
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Vicious - 09-09-2017
Blaming RT for slumping sales shows how far removed the industry is from their customers. I doubt even a percentile of the movie going audience cares or even know about RT. They do have dozens of other venues due to the Internet they know and trust with regard to movie talk.
Hollywood needs to focus on creating stories and less on trying to guess what the audience wants.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - polar - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 01:01 PM)Vaun Wrote:
Quote: (09-09-2017 12:53 PM)polar Wrote:
All movies go through marketing research panels with both critics and regular folks alike, yet assuming they take the feedback from all phases of storyboarding, how are they ending up with shit bombs when they tweak until the feedback is good?
It's not rocket surgery. If the Hollywood model is repeatedly losing money, their model needs changing.
Exactly, this is where it doesn't add up. The major studios have millions invested in the science and data behind what will and wont work. Its a big reason why a filmmaker would work with a major studio. Are the producers and directors going against this data? Or is their data model flawed, much like we saw with the presidential election?
I think it's telling that in an age where Netflix and Amazon are investing into content that appeals to particular demographics, Old Hollywood movie studios are doubling down on high-budget blockbusters which only pay off if they can somehow appeal to all demographics worldwide.
They push identical products to thousands of screens worldwide, which simultaneously reduces the appeal to any particular group, while forcing them to minimize risks in plot and character selection.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - The Beast1 - 09-09-2017
Quote: (09-09-2017 01:01 PM)Vaun Wrote:
Quote: (09-09-2017 12:53 PM)polar Wrote:
All movies go through marketing research panels with both critics and regular folks alike, yet assuming they take the feedback from all phases of storyboarding, how are they ending up with shit bombs when they tweak until the feedback is good?
It's not rocket surgery. If the Hollywood model is repeatedly losing money, their model needs changing.
Exactly, this is where it doesn't add up. The major studios have millions invested in the science and data behind what will and wont work. Its a big reason why a filmmaker would work with a major studio. Are the producers and directors going against this data? Or is their data model flawed, much like we saw with the presidential election?
Their problem isn't making money. These films mentioned are probably grossing $100+ million internationally which is more than enough to make up production loss.
What they're complaining about is the fact that American audiences aren't stupid and don't want a globalist piece of crap pandering to China and other cultures. Hollywood is making films now for China instead of Americans coupled with extortionist ticket prices.
They won't be changing soon as it seems the rest of the world is content with this crap.
Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes - Movie Producers Cry Foul.... - Simeon_Strangelight - 09-09-2017
Every bloody big Hollywood studio has Diversity, Gender Studies and LGBTQERZR consultants. Let them eat shit for all I care. They blast propaganda 24/7, destroy healthy gender and family archetypes, piss and shit on actual models that work (male hero, female love interest who actually loves him, happy family as a goal etc.) - and then they wonder why their bullshit tanks.
Baywatch? Even if the concept of a comedy would have been nice, no fucking way will the women be "objectified". They could not do that of course and make fun about sexy women, go over-the-top with an Ueber-Alpha-Baywatch stud and scores of girls. That would have been fun, but they have to pass the fucking Bechtel test and be all PC and shit.
Another diverse King Arthur movie? Yeah - because the other felt 100 were not enough - each one more diverse, more globalist centric than the last one. This one is no exception. Even a quick review has told me that they pumped 175 mio. $ into a bullshit product that people hated and no one asked for it.
Hollywood is filled with some very talented and smart people, but if they are tasked with shoving propaganda bullshit into the movie, rape every working story model, then the entire concept would not work.
Imagine a remake of JAWS. It could not be made today, because the male bonding on the boat would not go through. It would have to be at least one very masculine woman on board or even 2 women and one man. The entire dynamic of men bonding with each other on that boat and then almost all dying trying to fight for their lives - that would be all gone.
Fuck Hollywood. Let China take over - their propaganda is more subtle and they do a better job.
Also - yes - the cinema model will decrease in turnover naturally, because real unemployment is higher than it seems, cinema dates are hardly done by anyone anymore and the internet offers some stiff competition. The biggest growth of cinema is in developing countries like China or India. This will not reverse. A better Red PIll Hollywood would just slow the decline - instead they exacerbate it.
Rotten Tomatoes by the way is owned by a Comcast and Warner Brothers. So if that is troubling to them, then they just need to shut this bullshit down. The site is Hillary central.