Originally Posted by IBobi (Post 10826552)

I'd say the box office numbers disagree with *you* :)

You can always tell how good or bad a movie is *within its genre* by the box office. Green Lantern will not make enough to merit a sequel. And XMFC? Kind of a bummer, by the numbers. Why?

Originally Posted by IBobi (Post 10826552)

I'd say the box office numbers disagree with *you* :)

You can always tell how good or bad a movie is *within its genre* by the box office.

Originally Posted by fumanstan (Post 10826557)

Surely you're not judging a movie's quality by the box office? Right?

Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt (Post 10826560)

I think Rotten Tomatoes is a better indicator of quality:

X-Men 82%
X2: X-Men United2 88%
X-Men: The Last Stand 57%
X-Men: First Class 87%

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10826578)

Scott Pilgrim disagrees with you. So does Blade Runner.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10826578)

Scott Pilgrim disagrees with you. So does Blade Runner.

Originally Posted by IBobi (Post 10826638)

Scott Pilgrim? Equally loved & hated by viewers. It looked so twee to me I never saw it (not a Cera fan).

Blade runner was 30 years ago, man. Whole different ballgame now in terms of what info people have at their disposal to determine what movie they see. Rareely will you see a "cult" hit that only succeeds on DVD any more. But thank god for Blade Runner.

Originally Posted by IBobi (Post 10826635)

I think you're looking at "all critics" RT numbers, not "top critics," yes? There are wayy too many cooks in the "all" kitchen, especially fanboys who go gaga for anything with CG in it. Look at the real, top critics numbers & you'll see a clearer picture (ahem, 71%) that backs the box office numbers neatly.

Originally Posted by IBobi (Post 10826635)

Never! Do I think Avatar and Titanic are the two best movies ever? Puhleeze. But a movie's success *within its genre* is well indicated by the B.O. If people like it, they go. If not, they stay away. A lot more of them are staying away from XMFC and Green Lantern than would be indicated by even a *decent* summer superhero movie. If I hadn't seen them both, I could walk away happy in the knowledge that they were subpar, based on the numbers (and I'd have another $30 in my pocket now).



I think you're looking at "all critics" RT numbers, not "top critics," yes? There are wayy too many cooks in the "all" kitchen, especially fanboys who go gaga for anything with CG in it. Look at the real, top critics numbers & you'll see a clearer picture (ahem, 71%) that backs the box office numbers neatly.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10826578)

Scott Pilgrim disagrees with you. So does Blade Runner.

Originally Posted by gmanca (Post 10826704)

Scott Pilgrim was a better movie than I gave it credit for, even if the main characters are a bit more hipster than I enjoy. What's funny about it is the praise for it's style by the same people who bitched about Ang Lee doing the exact same thing in Hulk.

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy (Post 10826827)

X-Men: The Last Stand did gangbusters B.O. "for its genre"...

So did Meet The Fockers.

The aforementioned Transformers 2.

All shit movies.

And if "fanboy Rotten Tomatoes critics" who go gaga for CG spectacles artificially inflate RT ratings/scores, how is the craptacular Green Lantern still in the lowly mid-20s?

Originally Posted by Boba Fett (Post 10826850)

As does:

Black Dynamite
Shaun of the Dead
Grindhouse
The Shawshank Redemption
Fight Club
Office Space

Originally Posted by IBobi (Post 10827484)

I'm as mystified as anyone about Transformers. Why was it made? Why would anyone see it? It can't all be Megan Fox's butt. My guess: HUGE huge marketing spend. .