• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hollywood movies bombed this Summer so Execs blame Rotten Tomatoes

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
NYT

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.
 

Sulik2

Member
Make better movies and space out the good ones better to preserve their legs. Your audience has too much quality entertainment online and on tv to bother going to see bad movies just to get out of the house.
 

rrs

Member
stop making shit mates, ain't nobody got the money to see ass when it's going to be on tv in 6 months
 
Well maybe if you didn't rely so much on potential blockbuster franchises and you know, strived for actual quality, maybe you wouldn't be in the rut that you are. Anyway I'm pretty sure there's already a few similar threads like this, considering how many times this topic has been brought-up, but eh.

I think the more likely cause is that Brett Ratner makes shit movies.

Ratner didn't make any films this year as a producer or a director, he's just making his own opinion apparent.
 
well, yeah, it's a system of yes and no where the real score is a small little number somewhere on the page located near the cover art of the movie.

not to say it's bad or anything but their simplistic method of showing whether or not a movie is good or bad does sway people's opinions.

you'd think reviews would be more in the forefront. oh well. life goes on.
 

Platy

Member
rottentomatoes just above average movies.

Rotten Tomatoes makes a BRILLIANT movie and a generic Marvel movie that is just good stays in the same level.

Like if was metacritic the movies would suffer even more.

Rotten tomatoes is like the bare minimum that a movie should pass.
 

Brinbe

Member
When movie-going is so expensive you're damn right that people will be more careful about what shit they spend their time and money on. Stop making awful movies, simple premise.
 
You mean people don't want to spend $10 to see a two hour film when they can just get a month of Netflix for that price?

It's okay though, James Cameron will save the industry once again with Avatar 2.
 

slit

Member
well, yeah, it's a system of yes and no where the real score is a small little number somewhere on the page located near the cover art of the movie.

not to say it's bad or anything but their simplistic method of showing whether or not a movie is good or bad does sway people's opinions.

you'd think reviews would be more in the forefront. oh well. life goes on.

Siskel and Ebert used to give a simple thumbs up or down and people stopped right there without reading the actual review. This is no different in fact it's probably better than that since at least it an aggregate.
 
It's a combo of movies being generally not good anymore, and movie ticket prices being absurd. Sorry I'm not gonna pay $15 to go see IT. I can wait several months and pay a fraction or own it for the same price.
 
Time and money

Why spend $10-$15 per person per movie when you can spend $10-$15 per month for multiple people to watch Netflix's catalog? Or Hulu's? Or get HBO now/go?

Not to mention having to actually go to the theater to see these things and possibly have to spend stupid amounts for a drink or candy or popcorn if you want any of that.

And this is from someone who regularly goes to the movies every month mind you
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Blaming the teacher for the report card always works out well.

”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.)

I had no idea. That is flat out hilarious, especially given the finger pointing.
 

UberTag

Member
One can argue marketing and trailers aren't doing some movies any favors, but that would mean it's the studios fault.
Trailers have never been worse, IMO. Comedies give away all of their best jokes. Dramatic films seemingly give away the entire narrative plot of the movie and then have that absurd rapid-fire cut of the entire thing appended to the start to overwhelm one's senses.

Only a few movies of late have had effective trailer campaigns. I believe Stephen King's It is one of them and it should enjoy a pretty spectacular opening weekend because of it.
 
Rarely are the 1000 movies you put out a year Hollywood, worth anyone's time. A fraction maybe ranging from 5-10 are worth seeing. When it gets to the point that the Emoji movie was christened and released the entire industry needs to rethink it's plans (even know that movie was somehow profitable).

RT isn't hurting your financial avalanche become a tinier financial avalanche it's the insane budgets and cynical cash grabs you out forth that no one wants to see. People can see a bad movie from a mile nowadays.
 
There are for certain legit criticisms of RT and aggregates but movie studio execs are the fucking last person I want to hear any of that from
 
Can we get more execs that understand a movie can ever just be bad and not worth seeing? Do the people who blame critics literally see every movie that exists and just think it's automatically good? Or do they get opinions from multiple sources before seeing something like everyone else
 
Ultimately you can't expect things to keep going up and up and up all the time, especially with middle class incomes being flat, a whole bunch of things competing for time entertainment-wise, and theatres continuing to be a sup-par experience relative to the price.

The focus on the tentpole also makes them way more prone to these big swings and misses.
 
Brett Fucking Ratner. I should have expected to find him in the middle of this mess. Blaming an aggregate site for bad ratings is basically blaming all critics on earth at the same time.

It's not everyone else, Brett.
 

neorej

ERMYGERD!
I do think people misinterpret the score on Rotten Tomatoes, but movies have bombed before Rotten Tomatoes launched, before the internet existed even.

Throughout history, there has been one constant in these failing movies: Hollywood. As long as people like David Ayer can get jobs after shitstains like Suicide Squad, your future will not get brighter.
 
I had no idea. That is flat out hilarious, especially given the finger pointing.

Fandango.com can literally only make money if people go to movies yet are sabotaging ticket sales through review aggregation? Yeah, you can barely make this up.

The focus on the tentpole also makes them way more prone to these big swings and misses.

Wait until Marvel fatigue sets in. Gonna happen at some point.
 

louiedog

Member
And movies like The Big Sick and Get Out probably did much better because of it. I wonder what lesson could possibly be learned from that.

I thought the Get Out trailer looked good but it's not the kind of movie I typically go to the theater for, but after the great reviews and seeing it was something that could potentially be majorly spoiled I went on opening weekend.
 
Siskel and Ebert used to give a simple thumbs up or down and people stopped right there without reading the actual review. This is no different in fact it's probably better than that since at least it an aggregate.

it's too binary, though, cause folks (who use the website) have an arbitrary number they look for before they'd see a movie. to me it's a weird system because you're not letting them understand what a bad movie is, they just see similar bad movies and react based off that. gotta read the reviews if you truly want to understand. if you're not even reading the snippet then you're doing it wrong. i suspect rottentomatoes understands this because site layout can easily manipulate what is seen and what isn't.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
I liked King Arthur. It's not a bad movie. It might even be a great, but the reviews were very harsh on it. The internet lapped up the reviews and shat on it without watching it.

It's easy to shit on Brett Ratner's movies and opinions but he's not all wrong. The site is now more popular than ever. Social Media is more popular than ever. if you see a tweet or gaf thread that shows the movie has a 20% rotten rating, you arent going to watch it.

I personally think it's a combination of things. People are getting tired of comic book movies. It's been a decade of non stop comic book formulaic movies. I am a big movie buff but i decided to skip pretty much all the blockbusters this summer with King Arthur, Wonder Woman and Dunkirk the only movies i watched this summer. everything feels the same and this medium has become all spectacle and no substance. At least when it comes to Summer movies.
 

BlackJace

Member
Movies are fuckin expensive nowadays, so people really only see one blockbuster a year. They don't have the money to gamble on potentially shitty movies.

This is why MoviePass is lit, because it allows people to view a wider variety of movies without having to worry about bad ones.
 

Hubbl3

Unconfirmed Member
In general, the only movies that I'll deal with the hassle of the theater to see are Marvel and Star Wars movies.

When a single movie theater ticket costs the same or more than a 1-month subscription to Netflix, I'm just gonna go with Netflix.
 

SDCowboy

Member
It's a combo of movies being generally not good anymore, and movie ticket prices being absurd. Sorry I'm not gonna pay $15 to go see IT. I can wait several months and pay a fraction or own it for the same price.

And it's not like the old days where it took a year or more for the movie to get a home release. Not it's like a few months. There are few movies these days that intrigue me enough to pay current theater prices.
 
Comedies give away all of their best jokes. Dramatic films seemingly give away the entire narrative plot of the movie and then have that absurd rapid-fire cut of all of entire thing appended to the start to overwhelm one's senses.

So, so true. I remember many movies where I watched the whole goddamn thing with just the trailer. Major plot twists, entire story, anything goes apparently.
 
Make better movies. Worked for Wonder Woman. And try to make less sequels/remakes and try something new. I know, that sounds crazy to Hollywood.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
Time and money

Why spend $10-$15 per person per movie when you can spend $10-$15 per month for multiple people to watch Netflix's catalog? Or Hulu's? Or get HBO now/go?

Not to mention having to actually go to the theater to see these things and possibly have to spend stupid amounts for a drink or candy or popcorn if you want any of that.

And this is from someone who regularly goes to the movies every month mind you

Yeah, this. Tickets at my local theater, online, to get reserved seats, are $13.75 per. Close to $30 for my wife and I to see a film in the theater, and a large drink/large popcorn take that to $45. God help us if we want to take our kids. I think it was close to $100 when we took two of our daughters to Wonder Woman.

It takes a good movie to get me out of the house anymore. They've priced us out of the theater... one ticket costs more than my 4K/HDR Netflix sub. Fuuuuck that. There's too many quality series across streaming services, TV, and too many good games for me to feel the burning desire to drop $50 on a movie just to get out of the house.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Ratner didn't make any films this year as a producer or a director, he's just making his own opinion apparent.
While true, the company he co-owns helped produce and fund such hits as The LEGO Batman Movie, Wonder Woman, and Dunkirk.
 
honestly, I did not even go by RT to decide what to watch or not.

a) I judged the trailers.

b) I listen to the evening news and radio. Movie critics were not a fan of those movies.


Baywatch trailer was terribad
 
On August 4, 2011, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced Ratner would produce the 84th Academy Awards with Don Mischer.[29] However, Ratner resigned on November 8, 2011[30] after remarking that "rehearsal is for fags".[31]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Ratner


Maybe he can stop being a piece of shit who makes crappy movies. White male privilege y'all
 
Top Bottom