Sounds like there was an alternate ending!

[Mr. Clemens]

I wouldn't assume that every young person is braindead in terms of entertainment, but I also think that the people who have poor ideas of what a good movie is make up too big a portion of this demographic.

Real talk right here. Some sweeping generalizations about young people in this thread, and it ain't fair. Shit, I showed my 19 year-old son The Changeling (1980) a couple weeks ago, and he loved it. Tell me that movie ain't s-l-o-w...

I look at it like this: if there's nothing in the cafeteria to eat except gummie bears, then the kids are gonna eat those gummie bears. What we need to do is keep showing them and talking to them about films of quality, so they can refine their palate, get off the gummie bears, and force Hollywood to make them something of substance.

[The Kurgan]

Depends on the studio. But the evidence is there. When a movie has a critic score in the 90% but an audience score of 40% or lower...something is wrong.

Why that? It's not that uncommon that critics and audience disagree. If you use a rating system like RT, your example just means 90% of critics gave it a positive review vs 40% of the audience. It does not mean 90 vs  40 of 100 attainable points.

But even then, a high score on rating sites does not equal Marvel cash for a movie.

There is a clear bias for a favorable review. Favorable reviews garner more viewings. More viewings mean more money. More money means success. Success means sequels. Are we tracking?

Regarding the points...that's a flawed position because of simple size. 200 some critics versus over 10,000 reviews from movie goers.

Sure, if the score is higher, there is a higher chance that the movie is actually good.But to claim that the only reason some movie makes money or not is the rating sites score is just bull. A lot of highly rated movies don't make any money and vice versa. You overrestimate how much people take rating scores into account when they decide if they watch a movie or not.

If all it took for box office gold was to pay of some critics, all studios would do it and critics would live like kings and The Predator would have made a shit ton of money.

Why is it flawed ? Two different scores for people to take into consideration. You trust in the critics judgment you go for the critic score, you don't, go for the audience score. 

[AhabPredator]

Depends on the studio. But the evidence is there. When a movie has a critic score in the 90% but an audience score of 40% or lower...something is wrong.

Why that? It's not that uncommon that critics and audience disagree. If you use a rating system like RT, your example just means 90% of critics gave it a positive review vs 40% of the audience. It does not mean 90 vs  40 of 100 attainable points.

But even then, a high score on rating sites does not equal Marvel cash for a movie.

There is a clear bias for a favorable review. Favorable reviews garner more viewings. More viewings mean more money. More money means success. Success means sequels. Are we tracking?

Regarding the points...that's a flawed position because of simple size. 200 some critics versus over 10,000 reviews from movie goers.

Sure, if the score is higher, there is a higher chance that the movie is actually good.But to claim that the only reason some movie makes money or not is the rating sites score is just bull. A lot of highly rated movies don't make any money and vice versa. You overrestimate how much people take rating scores into account when they decide if they watch a movie or not.

If all it took for box office gold was to pay of some critics, all studios would do it and critics would live like kings and The Predator would have made a shit ton of money.

Why is it flawed ? Two different scores for people to take into consideration. You trust in the critics judgment you go for the critic score, you don't, go for the audience score.

Unless, of course, the only scores that make it into promotional material are the critic scores. Which they are. Same goes for reviewing aggregate websites. Metacritic especially.

Those are the ones that get written pieces. I'm looking at you, Kotaku

Those kind of places set the gold standard for "is it good or bad?"

[Highland]

I wouldn't say the Predator was too PC or anything. In fact I kinda thought the hotel scene room was a bit uncomfortable in today's climate. He went a bit too far there. Black that is.

[AhabPredator]

I wouldn't say the Predator was too PC or anything. In fact I kinda thought the hotel scene room was a bit uncomfortable in today's climate. He went a bit too far there. Black that is.

Don't forget Black got hardcore black listed for hiring the sex offender guy who got canned. I saw probably a dozen articles beat that to death.

[whiterabbit]

I fail to see the difference between The Predator and Marvel aside from the R rating. If it had slightly better fart jokes and broke the 4th wall it'd have been a dead pool movie.

[Highland]

I wouldn't say the Predator was too PC or anything. In fact I kinda thought the hotel scene room was a bit uncomfortable in today's climate. He went a bit too far there. Black that is.

Don't forget Black got hardcore black listed for hiring the sex offender guy who got canned. I saw probably a dozen articles beat that to death.

Well that's a seperate thing, but yeah.

[The Cruentus]

(seeing the third ending)

....I just, I have no words. I need a drink.

[The Kurgan]

Depends on the studio. But the evidence is there. When a movie has a critic score in the 90% but an audience score of 40% or lower...something is wrong.

Why that? It's not that uncommon that critics and audience disagree. If you use a rating system like RT, your example just means 90% of critics gave it a positive review vs 40% of the audience. It does not mean 90 vs  40 of 100 attainable points.

But even then, a high score on rating sites does not equal Marvel cash for a movie.

There is a clear bias for a favorable review. Favorable reviews garner more viewings. More viewings mean more money. More money means success. Success means sequels. Are we tracking?

Regarding the points...that's a flawed position because of simple size. 200 some critics versus over 10,000 reviews from movie goers.

Sure, if the score is higher, there is a higher chance that the movie is actually good.But to claim that the only reason some movie makes money or not is the rating sites score is just bull. A lot of highly rated movies don't make any money and vice versa. You overrestimate how much people take rating scores into account when they decide if they watch a movie or not.

If all it took for box office gold was to pay of some critics, all studios would do it and critics would live like kings and The Predator would have made a shit ton of money.

Why is it flawed ? Two different scores for people to take into consideration. You trust in the critics judgment you go for the critic score, you don't, go for the audience score.

Unless, of course, the only scores that make it into promotional material are the critic scores. Which they are. Same goes for reviewing aggregate websites. Metacritic especially.

Promotional material? Like on the movie poster or the trailer? That's natural, "critics favorit at film festival  XY" makes better promotion than audience score 90% at RT. Are you complaining that promotional material is biased? Of course it is. It's promotion. If a particular movie would sell better when swinging around the audience score, they will do so.
But if you want an audience rating, you can find one for every movie.

I don't argue that rating sites can be unreliable but to make that out as the sole reason if a movie bombs or not is not true. Venom scored poorly with the critics and made a fortune as does the Transformers series for example.

As you said follow the money. If it would only take paying of a 100 critics for millions at the box office, all studios would do it.

I wouldn't say the Predator was too PC or anything. In fact I kinda thought the hotel scene room was a bit uncomfortable in today's climate. He went a bit too far there. Black that is.

Don't forget Black got hardcore black listed for hiring the sex offender guy who got canned. I saw probably a dozen articles beat that to death.

Putting people in the pillory gives clicks/views etc. The whole yellow press functions on that principle. That has nothing to do with PC or whatever.

(seeing the third ending)

....I just, I have no words. I need a drink.

Good Lord...what the f*ck....

[BigDaddyJohn]

The Predator, politically correct ? Hahahahahahahahahahaha

[Gazz]

Joy, the shill conspiracy theory.

Funny how open source information can show it's not a theory. Numbers don't lie. Follow the money.

There isn't money to follow. It's the pizzagate of the movie world.

[Ultramorph]

Looks like Fox had plans to reboot AVP in a big way if Predator did well. Can't say I'm sorry to see this direction scrapped, but the franchise going back on ice would suck.

[Voodoo Magic]

Looks like Fox had plans to reboot AVP in a big way if Predator did well. Can't say I'm sorry to see this direction scrapped, but the franchise going back on ice would suck.

I'm not so certain this was Fox's plan, but rather Shane Black's plan, and ultimately (like so much else) was reshot and reigned in.

[AhabPredator]

The Predator, politically correct ? Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Daddy Disney will change that. You wait. 

[The Kurgan]

The Predator, politically correct ? Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Daddy Disney will change that. You wait. 

If they make a great Predator movie again, where is the problem?