I don't think the reboot's second week prospects are looking good
A lot of people have been waiting for reviews to see it and from what I can tell the vast majority of reviews are painting it somewhere between mediocre at best and absolutely godawful at worst
I think Sony has fucked up another chance at a profitable franchise, and with how much they've sunk into this one, it might be their last one
[QUOTE=Sitkero;50747713]I don't think the reboot's second week prospects are looking good
A lot of people have been waiting for reviews to see it and from what I can tell the vast majority of reviews are painting it somewhere between mediocre at best and absolutely godawful at worst
I think Sony has fucked up another chance at a profitable franchise, and with how much they've sunk into this one, it might be their last one[/QUOTE]
It's going to get killed by Star Trek Beyond
I'm gonna go see Beyond twice just as a fuck you to Sony
Everyone on FP is talking like reviewers are shitting on it, but then I see this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/KhRc3qw.png[/img]
And I am just confused. Are people just in denial? I know review aggregation isn't an exact science, but a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes is a decent to good movie usually.
For the record I am not defending it, I haven't seen it and have no intention to because I simple don't give a shit about it at all. But the numbers seem to contradict what everyone on FP is saying.
[QUOTE=Socram;50747802]Everyone on FP is talking like reviewers are shitting on it, but then I see this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/KhRc3qw.png[/img]
And I am just confused. Are people just in denial? I know review aggregation isn't an exact science, but a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes is a decent to good movie usually.
For the record I am not defending it, I haven't seen it and have no intention to because I simple don't give a shit about it at all. But the numbers seem to contradict what everyone on FP is saying.[/QUOTE]
Look at the average score of 6.5/10.
73% gave it a positive score, it doesn't matter if it is a 5/10 or a 10/10. In theory it can have a 100% tomato rating, if everyone gives it a a measly 5.1/10, as long as it is positive value. Percentages and statistics are a bitch.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;50747822]Look at the average score of 6.5/10.
73% gave it a positive score, it doesn't matter if it is a 5/10 or a 10/10. In theory it can have a 100% tomato rating, if everyone gives it a a measly 5.1/10, as long as it is positive value. Percentages and statistics are a bitch.[/QUOTE]
That is a valid point. I guess I am just a little thrown off, regardless of that average rating (which to be fair I usually don't check, but I will from here on out) in my experience a move in the 70+% is typically a film that people tend to like, average FP goer included. Of course, this is a... special case haha.
Apparently the movie is very promising in the beginning but falls flat in the final sequence.
Seems like critics are giving it mostly a fair shot. 7/10 or a C are the scores I've been seeing. And most reviewer's praise the first 2/3rds and pan the last third.
[QUOTE=redBadger;50747848]Apparently the movie is very promising in the beginning but falls flat in the final sequence.
Seems like critics are giving it mostly a fair shot. 7/10 or a C are the scores I've been seeing. And most reviewer's praise the first 2/3rds and pan the last third.
Most hate seems to be from bandwagons[/QUOTE]
No it's mostly due to Sony blackmailing Bill Murray to be in the movie, the censoring of negative criticism from actual women, the low move of acquiring the rights right after Harold Ramis died, and even paying websites to say the film was great. Which one of those could have been Rotten Tomato for all we know.
Basically the film failed because alot of people already knew it was a scuzzy piece of manipulative shit. Only people who went to see were those that don't own computers, or thought that got fooled by the "people think it's bad because women leads" bullshit.
Can Sony just accept they fucked up [B]big time[/B] already, I can't stand the notion of how this can go on for any longer.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50747995]No it's mostly due to Sony blackmailing Bill Murray to be in the movie, the censoring of negative criticism from actual women, the low move of acquiring the rights right after Harold Ramis died, and even paying websites to say the film was great. Which one of those could have been Rotten Tomato for all we know.
Basically the film failed because alot of people already knew it was a scuzzy piece of manipulative shit. Only people who went to see were those that don't own computers, or thought that got fooled by the "people think it's bad because women leads" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I'm referring to the quality of the actual movie, not the scummy practices that go on behind the scenes. I personally have not seen the movie and will not support seeing the movie based on Sony being shit. That doesn't stop critics from doing their jobs though and giving the movie a fair non biased review
[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;50747996]Can Sony just accept they fucked up [B]big time[/B] already, I can't stand the notion of how this can go on for any longer.[/QUOTE]
They did alot of low shit and the film didn't even make back the budget on opening weekend, of course Sony isn't going to say anything, except just put a helmet on their heads, hide in their fallout shelter, and wait for people to forget about the film.
-snip- i need to reevaluate why i still care about ratings at this point in my "fp career"
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;50747995]and even paying websites to say the film was great. Which one of those could have been Rotten Tomato for all we know.
Basically the film failed because alot of people already knew it was a scuzzy piece of manipulative shit. Only people who went to see were those that don't own computers, or thought that got fooled by the "people think it's bad because women leads" bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Is there proof of this?
I'm actually writing an article concerning the new movie and ethics in journalism, I was going to do that but I can't find any solid evidence.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50748019]Is there proof of this?
I'm actually writing an article concerning the new movie and ethics in journalism, I was going to do that but I can't find any solid evidence.[/QUOTE]
None that I can think of, but ask here and I'm sure someone will have a link. If not in this thread certainly the thread in General Discussion.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50748019]Is there proof of this?
I'm actually writing an article concerning the new movie and ethics in journalism, I was going to do that but I can't find any solid evidence.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://gephardtdaily.com/entertainment/did-sony-pay-for-positive-reviews-for-the-ghostbusters-reboot/"]Here.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Socram;50747802]Everyone on FP is talking like reviewers are shitting on it, but then I see this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/KhRc3qw.png[/img]
And I am just confused. Are people just in denial? I know review aggregation isn't an exact science, but a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes is a decent to good movie usually.
For the record I am not defending it, I haven't seen it and have no intention to because I simple don't give a shit about it at all. But the numbers seem to contradict what everyone on FP is saying.[/QUOTE]
I recall there being a lot reviews marked positive in the first few days where there's like a comment about an actress being pretty great but the movie itself was absolute tripe
[QUOTE=dai;50748200]I recall there being a lot reviews marked positive in the first few days where there's like a comment about an actress being pretty great but the movie itself was absolute tripe[/QUOTE]
I made a post highlighting a number of reviews either deriding the film or not reviewing the film but mocking the detractors [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1526197&p=50729258&viewfull=1#post50729258]here.[/url]
[editline]21st July 2016[/editline]
Thankfully, this movie will be an abyssmal box office failure, so we wont ever have to deal with this bullshit ever again.
Well. Atleast nobody else will try this stunt. But Sony is the same company that kept Amy Pascal after the Email scandal and hired [url=https://disqus.com/home/channel/marvelmania/discussion/channel-marvelmania/tom_rothman_a_history_of_fox_mismanagement/]Tom "im literally no hyperbole being totally serious the actual reason behind every single bad FOX movie since 2000 including both AVP movies, Daredevil (Affleck), Fantastic Four 1 and 2 (including cloud Galactus), Fant4stic, X-Men 3 and Origins, and i campaigned internally to make sure Deadpool was never made" Rothman[/url].
i saw it last night. Found it pretty enjoyable despite some flat jokes, cringey one liners and a bit of a cookie cutter 'summer blockbuster' type ending, a solid 6/10.
Leslie Jones' character looked like the worst thing ever in the trailers but actually ended up being the best Buster out of the 4.
[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;50748082][URL="http://gephardtdaily.com/entertainment/did-sony-pay-for-positive-reviews-for-the-ghostbusters-reboot/"]Here.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yeah, read that already. There's no proof in that, just speculation. And apparently the guy that was shilling for the movie wasn't paid anyways.
I just need concrete proof, you know?
[QUOTE=Socram;50747802]Everyone on FP is talking like reviewers are shitting on it, but then I see this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/KhRc3qw.png[/img]
And I am just confused. Are people just in denial? I know review aggregation isn't an exact science, but a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes is a decent to good movie usually.
For the record I am not defending it, I haven't seen it and have no intention to because I simple don't give a shit about it at all. But the numbers seem to contradict what everyone on FP is saying.[/QUOTE]
if you look on metacritic, you'll see it also reflects the average of the critic scores
[url]http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ghostbusters-2016[/url]
the tomatometer is p.deceptive at times
[IMG]http://i1.kym-cdn.com/news_feeds/icons/original/000/021/639/6fe.jpg[/IMG]
Oh man what a ride this is
i have no idea why they thought it would be smart to put $144 million into this.
an average AAA movie is about 70-80 mil, upwards to 100, i dont know how sony expected to not only survive (which could've been believeable considering they've made back that 70 mil) but [I]double[/I] what it made and continue on to soar in profit. the last movie i remember having that budget would've been the last few disney films, and fuck man the only reasons those ones (frozen in particular) were as popular as they were was because of a fluke and a musical number.
[editline]21st July 2016[/editline]
even if it were a great film, the chances of it really making a ton of profit would've still been nill. ghostbusters isn't star wars, it was one film in 1984, making their nostalgia audience very slim. the only way i guess they thought they could do it was to create controversy, but controversy can only sell a film for so long. this is an incredibly dumb, risky move by sony and it hasn't paid off. hell, it'll barely scratch the budget when it tops out. what an absolute joke.
This is a CGI-laden comedy and its budget is only $6 million less than Mad Max: Fury Road.
Let that sink in. They wasted SO much money.
Sony needs to start accepting new ideas. Movies like John Wick proved that you don't need to have a whole franchise or a reboot to have a successful movie.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50753134]This is a CGI-laden comedy and its budget is only $6 million less than Mad Max: Fury Road.
Let that sink in. They wasted SO much money.
Sony needs to start accepting new ideas. Movies like John Wick proved that you don't need to have a whole franchise or a reboot to have a successful movie.[/QUOTE]Almost all of Sony is hemorrhaging money, so they're frantically looking for any trick to salvage that. And that causes them to hemorrhage even more money.
[QUOTE=Socram;50747802]Everyone on FP is talking like reviewers are shitting on it, but then I see this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/KhRc3qw.png[/img]
And I am just confused. Are people just in denial? I know review aggregation isn't an exact science, but a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes is a decent to good movie usually.
For the record I am not defending it, I haven't seen it and have no intention to because I simple don't give a shit about it at all. But the numbers seem to contradict what everyone on FP is saying.[/QUOTE]
basically astroturf
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
