>"You’re either the champion or you’re shit. Movies aren’t a sporting event. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc. it’s not productive to just give thumbs up and thumbs down and rate movies on a scale of how many burritos you’d give it out of 5. In a sense, we’re disrespecting the medium. You’d never rate a painting that way [pondering]: “hmmmm, this painting gets four paintbrushes out of six possible paintbrushes,” but for some reason we’ve decided that it’s okay to do that with movies."
- James Gray
Do you agree or disagree?
>>64325444
Please don't compare "Cinema" to actual forms of art and expression.
Your flicks, movies, films and all, are on the same level as video games and reality television in regards to artistry.
He has a point, but he's still making a retarded strawman of websites like rotten tomatoes. Nobody assumes a movie with 95% is objectively superior to a movie with 93%. It's just a useful metric telling you that "yeah, critics generally liked this movie."
And the truth is, nobody really gives a fuck what movie critics actually say. We only care about the bottom line--whether they would recommend it. And it's the exact same for art. If most art critics agree something is shit, it's not going into any museums.
>>64325444
critics practically did rate paintings in their columns, they just didn't assign them numbers. They're just indicators of a subjective feeling, unique to each author. No one takes them that seriously.
>>64325444
I would agree if he wasn't a sell-out millionaire who gets rich of the plebs he's insulting
Movies are made for plebs
>>64325516
How so? Do you have anything to offer other than vague cliches?
Sure. That is, if the movie industry would move past trying to appease everyone with the most base form of mind-numbing entertainment and try to actually say something with their films in an interesting, compelling way.
>>64325444
It works when there's literally thousands of people leaving reviews, giving you a data-based aggregate of an audience's opinion. I know muh art and everything but it makes sense desu
I'd agree with him if he didn't make terrible movies
>>64325565
>Nobody assumes a movie with 95% is objectively superior to a movie with 93%
You'd be surprised
>>64325444
burritos have nothing to do with film reviews usually this guy has no idea what he's talking about unless he mixed up yelpers with film critics
He is right, only in that PEOPLE NEED TO STOP CARING ABOUT THE FUCKING TOMATOMETER.
God. All you have to do is move your eyes below it to the Avg. Rating -- y'know, the ACTUAL rating.
What a faggot. Movies are entertainment.
>>64325444
he has a point, rating movies with numbers is completely useless, because how much youll enjoy it always depends on your taste, moood and expectations. a review should include what a movie does good, what it does bad and under what circumstances (if there are any) it can be recommended to watch. if a review has done that there is absolutely no reason to slap a number on it
