Rotten Tomatoes...Good or Bad?
In some movie news Brett Ratner was interviewed a while back and was said to have said that Rotten Tomatoes was basically bad for the movie industry. Using the fact that he help finance a part of the Batman vs Superman flick. Which is still one of the worst films on the site. It even one a few Razzie awards. Which is the Oscar's for bad films.
I do think that he does actually have a point. While I'm not a total fan of Ratner's work I do think that Rotten Tomatoes is bad for business. Though honestly it's hard for me to be totally against a flick. The only recent movie I have actually hated; wanting my time and money back is the BFG. That movie for me is horrible. I'd rather poke my eyes out.
Sites like metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes do in the short term only project the value of said movie. If you look back on the history of film so called "bad" films actually have now status of "good" films. Waterworld for it's day didn't make any but actually has in fact made it out of the red and into the black. Though I don't think it's helped with the director of that film and I know Kevin got a lot of trash for it as well.
All I'm saying is that just because some film is "bad" doesn't mean that it is. Film is subjective. Personally the movies that I go see are films I want to go and see. I don't pay a movie ticket to go see a Woody Allen movie. In fact I find his movies the same and kind of dumb. I don't get him as a director or writer. I just don't.
I do find it funny though that one of the Rush Hour films that the creator of the site used all of the reviews for that film and that is how he came up with the idea of Rotten Tomatoes. So maybe in some way it's his way of lashing out at something. That probably does play into it as well. He's more of a producer now then a director. His main series Rush Hour is about it on his resume.
So what do you all think? Think that sites Rotten Tomatoes is good or bad? Do you put much stock or even really care?
I do think that he does actually have a point. While I'm not a total fan of Ratner's work I do think that Rotten Tomatoes is bad for business. Though honestly it's hard for me to be totally against a flick. The only recent movie I have actually hated; wanting my time and money back is the BFG. That movie for me is horrible. I'd rather poke my eyes out.
Sites like metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes do in the short term only project the value of said movie. If you look back on the history of film so called "bad" films actually have now status of "good" films. Waterworld for it's day didn't make any but actually has in fact made it out of the red and into the black. Though I don't think it's helped with the director of that film and I know Kevin got a lot of trash for it as well.
All I'm saying is that just because some film is "bad" doesn't mean that it is. Film is subjective. Personally the movies that I go see are films I want to go and see. I don't pay a movie ticket to go see a Woody Allen movie. In fact I find his movies the same and kind of dumb. I don't get him as a director or writer. I just don't.
I do find it funny though that one of the Rush Hour films that the creator of the site used all of the reviews for that film and that is how he came up with the idea of Rotten Tomatoes. So maybe in some way it's his way of lashing out at something. That probably does play into it as well. He's more of a producer now then a director. His main series Rush Hour is about it on his resume.
So what do you all think? Think that sites Rotten Tomatoes is good or bad? Do you put much stock or even really care?
Comments
Post a Comment