I personally think they are. People treat these movies like they are some of the greatest films in cinema history when they were mediocre at best.
Talk about an extremely pretentious trilogy about comic book superhero that dresses like a bat, drives a batmobile and fights crime that took the source material WAY TOO SERIOIUSLY.
Yes; way too exposition heavy and very little visual story telling; Begins and Rises have bad passing issues (especially Rises). Begins was underwhelming and then Rises was massively disappointing. Really only the Dark Knight is good (and it is really really good); other than that the rest are average at best. Overall I'd rank the trilogy at about a 8/10 (Begins 7.5, Dark Knight 9.5, Rises maybe 6.5 if I am being generous).
Dark Knight IS one of the greatest action films in film history it can be considered near on par with things like Terminator 2 or Empire Strikes back. but the rest of the trilogy is pretty 'meh'.
But don't tell that to the fanatic Nolanites; they are likely to go nuts on you and drag you through the mud until you are as low as they are.
No.
share...partly? I think The Dark Knight is a bit overrated, but not much. Batman Begins might actually be underrated. The Dark Knight Rises kinda brought the trilogy down; that's the one that a lot of people didn't like. I know a lot of people did...it was divisive.
Since that film, it's become kinda in-vogue to smash on the trilogy a little. I think some of that is push-back against the hard-core Nolanites (who are really rabid). These guys get on people's nerves, so they point to TDK trilogy, Rises in particular, and mash it down a little bit, partly to reset it to a less-inflated state, partly to bug the Nolanites.
There was talk of The Dark Knight being "robbed" of a Best Picture nom, I personally think that's a little silly. It also hit No.1 on IMDb top 250, I think. That's WAY overrated. I doubt any Batman picture could make the top 250 films of ALL TIME. That's unlikely.
Yeah, I'd say they're a touch overrated, particularly The Dark Knight. Rises has a pretty bad rep, though. A well-deserved bad rep.
That is a fair point about Begins being underrated. personally I was underwhelmed by it but I don't think it is bad by any means; it just didn't really have anything that stood out as special. It was a pretty generic origin story and not even really as 'fulfilling' as Sam Raimi's first spiderman (and I don't even like spiderman, I am much more of a Batman fan).
But yes Rises does bring the trilogy down; that was a very disappointing conclusion. Almost as bad as Godfather Part III was in comparison to the first 2.
Yeah talk about Dark Knight getting a best picture is a little overblown. It is a near perfect action film and should be considered around the level of where you might place Terminator 2 or Predator. Maybe in the top 250 maybe even the top 100 of all time films. but number 1 off all time, no way. not eve close.
Tdkr reputation is pretty good actually
shareExactly it is #70 on IMDB, has great reviews on MC and RT, made over a billion dollars and is the conclusion to one of the most beloved trilogies of all time.
shareThat's because all the Nolan Fans pumped up the ratings. They were rabid at the time about it. The series is ok. But they are indeed mediocre. With the last film pretty bad.
shareTdkr has great ratings everywhere it’s not just Nolan fans. Critics loved it too
shareCritics are often wrong.
shareWatch out on this topic with these 2, they are very likely the same person and will harass you. Look at Lhkjjl57688 history 26 posts in total over a 6 month period and almost all in conversation with moviechatuser497. Others are suspicisous this guy has multiple sock account but this is the most egregious.
Also I love how they argue the critical reception is proof that Rises is great and yet if you turn that argument on them and say TFA is also rated great (actually higher than Rises) they'll lose their mind (not minds because they barely even qualify as having one).
The hypocrisy is just freaking astounding with this guy.
Force awakens is rated great I’ll never deny that since I’m a different person but you are a fucking troll so whatever
shareHow would you know if I am a "fucking troll" I have literally never interacted with you; if you are indeed not a sock account, mr. 27 total comments over a 6 month period all on the dark knight rises discussion board, must of which are just sucking off moviechatuser497. You are bullshit sock account and you know it. pathetic.
shareBecause you reply like one. Look like one and feel like one. I know a little bitch when I see one. I had no quarrel with you. You assumed I’m somebody else when I’m my own person. You could ask this site and they will tell you I have a different IP address but instead you attack like a little bitch cause that’s all you are and will be in the end
share"I have a different IP address"
lol because VPN is not a thing or anything.
Explain to me if you are not a sock account why only now 28 comments in total over a 6 month period and all on one discussion board and almost all interacting with the same user? if you can give me one damn good reason for this I will relent. Good luck, ass hat.
I joined this site just to defend tdkr that’s all. That’s why I only post in tdkr threads. And that other guy happens to be a defender as well. I don’t post anywhere else because I use reddit for that. I don’t know how else to prove it
share"I joined this site just to defend tdkr that’s all"
Yeah, that is not like suspicious at all. (sarcasm)
Why come on a movie site just to discuss one film? why not do that on reddit as well? This reeks of B.S.
Also if you check my post history you’ll see that me and them disagreed about lord of the rings so I’m not them .
shareThat proves absolutely nothing? you can fake a disagreement to sell the deception.
shareGo easy on aflexit, with the massive beating I gave him his brain damage is so severe he can't think rationally.
shareLmao what a shitty ass attempt at selling the sock account 'we disagreed on lord of the rings'. Fuck outta here.
share[deleted]
Did we also pump up the RT, MC and box office numbers? Sorry but I don’t have hundreds of millions of dollars to spare so that my favorite movie gets on the highest grossing films of all time list
shareIt’s ridiculous. Tdkr has great ratings in other countries it can’t just be Nolan fans in France Russia and China as well
shareThese haters were just bitter that the movie was great yet didn’t use or even acknowledge the Joker. I doubt they even believe their own nonsense they just want something to complain about. Seriously the sun going down too quickly? I have never seen a film more nit picked to death than TDKR
shareThat one pisses me off. It was dusk and it gets dark easily up north within 10 minutes which was the timeframe in the movie
shareThat and they say that Bruce getting back to Gotham is a plot hole yet if you know the first thing about his character you’d know it wouldn’t be a problem for a guy like Bruce. They don’t even know what a plot hole is. Bruce easily was able to travel the world with no resources in the first film and that was before he solidified his foreign contacts and became the ultimate of badasses
shareWhy are you talking to yourself you sad case? Lmao. We know Lhkjjl57688 is you, one look at his post history and it's blindingly obvious.
shareNah come on now; Lhkjjl57688 has a total of 26 posts and about 20 of them are in conversation with him; clearly it is a real person that only comes on board once per month to talk to just one user on one movie discussion board. Not at all suspicious. Move along, you just don't get how complex a relationship they have. It is beyond your immature mind.
shareEvery supposed plot hole can be answered on IMDb. I always tell people just read the site they have all the answers
shareLOL more like every supposed plot hole can be answered by simply paying attention. The haters are too dumb to do that.
shareStop talking to yourself you weirdo. It's creepy af.
shareAnother thing they do is say he rises twice in the movie it’s redundant. When he only risen once because the first time he was just a shell of himself he wasn’t truly back and got his ass kicked by bane
shareExactly, the first time he put the Batsuit back on he wasn't himself, he hadn't regained his fear of death yet.
shareMy favorite complaint has to be: Bruce quit because of Rachel, no he didn’t Rachel was one of the reasons he couldn’t leave Batman behind him. TDKR haters are so stupid.
shareYes ABSOLUTELY. Batman the Animated series was better.
shareYep, massively overrated. Every single one of them. They are visually uninspiring and emotionally unengaging. The serious tone just further highlights the ridiculousness of the concept of a crime-fighter dressed as a Bat. It makes every unrealistic aspect stick out like a sore thumb.
This kind of material needs to be dealt with a certain playfulness that Nolan is incapable of doing. His movies lack any kind of sense of humor.
No it is simply a different take on the Batman character. I am simply glad he actually respected the character commissioner Gordon unlike another director...
shareBB was fine.
TDK was fine but required major suspension of belief at times; unbelievably convoluted plans that are somehow executed flawlessly for example. Batman diving out of the window to save Rachel and leaving Joker and his henchmen in a room of party-goers.
TDKR bored me to tears.
I agree with this.
One thing I will say though on your criticism of TDK. I think the plans working perfectly from a story telling stand point stretch the suspension of belief but it serves a narrative purpose; namely Joker's plans always getting fulfilled perfectly lead to his hubris at the end and why he ends up losing to batman. His plans worked until they didn't because he overreached. I think it plays a very important aspect of the film by Joker being surprised he was wrong and the boats did not blow one or the other up.
Agreed on TDKR; boring film with terribly bad pacing but it did have a few redeeming qualities; still the worse of the trilogy.
Have you noticed how compliant everyone is in Nolan's films? Crowds of people remaining silent while some important plot point develops in the foreground. The cruise ships with the bombs on board - life or death situation for everyone on board, a full room of people in silence which results in the detonator being thrown out the window for example. Bane's and the Joker's inexhaustible supply of minions who obey without question and no explanation of where they came from. Cooper reunited with his daughter after decades apart takes place in a crowded room and everyone is dutifully silent.
Gotham city: crime free for years. Bane blows up a football stadium, reads out a letter and everyone takes him as the #1 authority The list goes on.
Most obvious is Interstellar. Whole planet is turning into a dustbowl and the _only_ solution the entire population can come up with is to grow corn.
Imagine Nolan in real life releasing a film and a whole bunch of people claim it's flawless without question or critique. You'd think they were a bunch of idiots...
there is some truth to most of what you say; especially about Joker's and Bane's minions (at least with Joker there is the excuse they are escaped mental patients not sure what excuse there is for Bane) and incredible way all the background characters are almost tranquilized they are so complaint and none disruptive. But in many ways that is not unique to Nolan films.
Yeah the Gotham city free from crime is total B.S. just because there was no existential threat like The League of Shadows or Joker killings does not mean they would be free from crime. I mean unless we are to believe people in city of 6 million no one is doing drugs or stealing; "I believe that when my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet" . That plot point right of the bat is almost impossible to accept in Rises; but it only gest worse from there.
I have not seen interstellar; after Inception I was kind of sick of Nolan's over reliance on exposition and total lack of use of interesting visuals. The guy is a good story righter but man he does not know how to use visuals in any kind of interesting way (he is like the inverse of JJ Abrams who is all visual and literally no story).
Don't have to imagine; there are people on this board that claim everything he does is perfect, even Rises which most people agree apart from Dunkirk was one of his weaker films.
"tranquilized " XD
Another example is the Joker's henchmen all shooting each other in the opening sequence of TDK. He must have briefed them all individually to shoot 'x' while each henchman not questioning if he would be shot himself.
For Gotham... the stories may well have worked in Tim Burton's vision of the city as it's more pseudo-fantasy (can't think of a better description) so the people who live there may behave differently too. Also the stories I'm sure originated in the comics where they would have worked. Adapting all this into Nolan's vision of Gotham doesn't work. And I have no idea how no-one found the bat during all the rioting.
Trust me, you'll hate Interstellar. I did enjoy Inception tho. Since most of it is set in a dream-world you can expect realism and physics to go out the window.
"Also the stories I'm sure originated in the comics where they would have worked."
1) Nope
2) Even if they had originated in comics, that's not because of the shift in medium. There are silly comics and good comics, just like there are gradients of quality in Any artistic expression.
That said: The Nolan Batman trilogy comprises some good movies, they're just not good *Batman* movies. I guess they're good "Elseworlds" Batman movies, if you want to stretch.
That is true; one of the difficult things to accept about Nolan's batman is that it attempted to keep a sense of realism so closely that anything that would be impossible or improbably becomes difficult to accept. I mean it is a movie so there is a willing suspension of belief but Dark KNight at times stretched it for dramatic effect. Rises outright broke it on multiple occasions; that doesn't work in a real world setting. It is easier to accept fantastical elements if you are in a fantasy setting (as you point out, such as Burton's Gotham).
" And I have no idea how no-one found the bat during all the rioting."
He picked a really good hiding spot, same with the batpod; maybe he also left a sticky not on both saying "please don't steal because I'M BATMAN!" lol
My problem with Inception is damn near 3/4 of the dialogue is exposition. It is like the weakness of Nolan's writing but exponentially exaggerated. I didn't have a problem in inception with what was happening, as you point out it was a dream-world were realism does not apply; my issue was with the weak writing and terrible dialogue. And the film has 0 rewatch value. IMO it is Nolan's worse film that I have seen; Dunkirk was like a breath of fresh air compared to Inception. I'll take your word for it, I never really was interested in watching Interstellar anyway.
Not really. Only idiots that were teenagers in 2012 think this crap is anything but an angry teen version of children source material.
EVERYBODY ELSE, that means about 95% of the viewers, knows that in reality this is a mediocre attempt at entertainment, just more serious and less funny than marvel mediocre attempts at entertainment.
So, it's not overrated.
it hold an around an 85% critical and audience rating and is on many (user based) top 100 lists. In most websites it is rated higher than films like Jaws. Yes it is totally overrated if it was rated higher than Jaws.
shareYeah, it ain't no Jaws.
shareOh the fact that it is considered on par with or above films like Lawrence of Arabia or citizen kane or snatch or 2001; I mean the ranking of this film is outrageous. I mean on imdb they have it ranked above Aliens and has an equal score to Alien. That is absurdity. But then; people are dumb so if you do scores based on 'mass numbers' you are bound to get dumb results (one need not look further than political elections to see just how 'wise' the general population is.
shareI didn't really like the film, but I suppose if I liked the good bits more and didn't mind the bad bits as much, I'd think it was a pretty good movie, but I still wouldn't rank it on-par with stuff like Jaws or Alien. Alien is one of the best horrors OR sci-fis ever. It's a work of genius from the script on through the finished film. It's top-grade. TDKR is, at best, a fun action flick.
shareMy big issue with it is just a clear step below The Dark Knight and yet crazed fanatics praise it and try pushing the idea that it is a near perfect film, that is just ridiculous. Jaws and Alien are masterpieces and about as close to perfect as films can get, Rises does not even deserve to be in the same sentence as those films.
This is further annoying when you point out the flaws and in return you get ad hominem attacks and other non-arguments to try to discredit the critics without addressing the criticism. It is almost exactly the same type of sophistry that the TFA defenders use. The lack of coherent logic combined with the poor reasoning augmented by arrogant condescending comments drives me completely up the wall. They are so incredible stupid, and make terrible logically inconsistent points but try to pass it off as they are the ones that are smarter because of their opinion alone. I hate it because it is annoying but also disrupts good faith discussions.
There was, apparently, a lot of vote-rigging by the Nolanites creating fake accounts to upvote TDKR and downvote other movies around it. Tossers.
I've lost faith in professional critics after their highly-praised Ghostbusters 2016 totally bombed at the box office.
Oh yes the audience and critical scores of modern movies has to be questioned. The critical score was not as bad in 2012 as it is now; but the popular voting by mass audience has been screwy since the sites were created.
It would be cool that if on a site if you rated something very high (anything above 8/10) or very low (3/10 or below) you are forced to write a review to go along with your score. Because the extreme high or extreme low rating are kind of bullshit if you can't explain why you rate it as such. And would dissuade the sock accounts padding or tanking scores (they are not going to take the time to write a new review for each time they score).
I'll always go by audience score as on the long run as the score will settle down to an average value; You'll always get trolls voting 1* or 10* regardless of what the movie is. As much as I didn't think much of TDKR, I wouldn't say it's in the same league as Battlefield Earth say.
I don't know how critics' minds work. I feel they follow a herd mentality. Getting invited to the red-carpet premier followed by a party afterwards with the stars probably sways their opinion.
Do like your idea tho. You can only rate a movie if you can write a justification for why you gave it that score.
"You can only rate a movie if you can write a justification for why you gave it that score."
not for the average scores of course; no one would rate movies and you would have almost no audience score. Only the 'extreme' rating require it. If you are going to give something a 10/10 or a 1/10 you better be able to justify it.
Ghostbusters 2016 was highly praised by critics? It has an average score of like 6.4. that's higher than I think it should be but that's not a high score by any stretch.
sharethe critical rating of it is around 75%; on Metacritic it got 30 positive critics reviews and 19 mixed compared to only 3 negative. It might not have been "highly praised" by critics but it was way higher rating than it should have got.
And those are the website reviews. If you read the new york times, Garden, Washington Post etc film reviews the critics praised it to high heaven on those major outlets.
So yeah; the critics are basically full of shit agenda driven shills today. They are so afraid to lose first excess rights the only time they will give a negative review is if they get a pre-set sign from the studio that 'it is okay to be honest'. Solo was an example of that, the troubled production and Disney making moves to pull back marketing and licensing for it right before release was basically a free pass to critics that Disney already wrote Solo off as a sunk cost; that is one of the first times critics had been honest in a while (and funny thing is from what I heard Solo was not even that bad of a movie).
See but films like live action Lion King, Aladdin, and Dumbo were critically panned. Also I pay more attention to the average score than the tomato meter. It is more of an indication of the overall opinion. Disney was pushing live action lion king very hard.
shareI imagine there is some insider information in which the live action remakes don't matter for the critical reception to Disney. The point I am trying to make is the critics don't seem to be honest when there is risk of blow back. And if you look it also depends on the year. Jungle Book 2016 and Beauty and the Beast 2017 received high reviews. The 3 examples you bring up are all from 2019. There is some difference in how the critics are responding based on the moves disney is making. For example there may have been insider information that Iger was stepping down in 2020 so the critics felt a little more free to bash things.
Or it could be that films that a sure thing disney doesn't care if they get bad reviews; only when there is risk of not making money on a film do they care.
I might be stretching it is true; maybe the critics just have shit opinions. lol
See I don't fully agree on that. Malificient came out in 2014 and got panned also. Which to me is funny because even though I don't think it's good it at least tried a new twist on the story rather than replicating the original beat for beat. Since when does the average person give a flying hoot about critical reception? The transformers films got slammed critically and still continued to make lots of money. Bumblebee is the most critically liked live action transformers movie and it did the poorest financially. Star wars was going to make cash no matter the critical scores because it's star wars. Same goes for the live action Disney remakes, it's banking off nostalgia. Solo was the rare case where a Star wars movie bombed but I doubt it was because of reception critically. I think you are reaching honestly.
shareBut that is the point though; the critics are shit. They rate things high when they shouldn't and rate things low when they shouldn't. And in most cases they do not align at all with the audience reception; and when both do align it is over something was seemingly always going to fail or always going to succeed.
Star Wars has been loosing money despite it constantly getting high critical rating until it was 'seemingly' viewed as a sinking ship.
I might be reaching, I acknowledge that; but you have to admit the critics do not seem to be honest. Take for example the high rating of TFA. If you actually take time to read the written reviews most critics were not kind to how derivative it was of ANH; and yet they still rated it 9/10 or higher. Like if you read the actual review you would think they would give it a 7/10 at best but the number was strangely higher than what they actually thought of it. Now why would that happen? it is an anomaly; anomalies bug me. My explanation of this anomaly might be wrong or reaching but I can't really think of many other possible explanations. but maybe the explanation of "critics are subjective bias hacks that don't actually rate movies off of merit but how much they liked it" is the answer.
Thing is this is a tricky thing because yes they get it wrong sometimes. The general public also gets it wrong a lot of the time as well though. There never will be a metric by people that is perfect because everyone has different reasons as to why they rate a movie low or high. Examples I can give is how did Kingdom of the Crystal Skull score as high as it did among critics? The audience score for that film is much more telling of the quality of that film. Even I was being fair that film should get no higher than a 5/10 and that is being very generous. However on the other hand Mask of Zorro which I think is a very underrated solid film gets more love from the critics than it does the audience. An even better one would be Under the Skin. General audiences put Thor above Under the skin let that sink in...
I know but that was what I am saying. Critical reaction is not what deters people from seeing a film. History repeated itself with Star Wars. Phantom Menace and TFA made loads of cash because there was a Star Wars drought. Both came out and people were super excited, they saw the movie. The films they saw were not good but they played dumb because they were in denial and just so happy to have a Star Wars film, since it had been so long. Everyone said oh it was just a fluke our expectations were too high. Well then Attack of the Clones and Last Jedi hit and it was clear that what occurred was no accident. Naturally people are not as hungry now because everyone is not as desperate for another Star Wars film since it was not that long since Phantom Menace and TFA. Which is what led to Attack of the clones and Last Jedi making far less. It was the disappointment and the lack of Star Wars drought. I think a big part of Solo bombing is Disney saturated the market. Not saying that is the only reason but I think it plays a part.
The tough part about being a critic it is hard to have such a concrete firm opinion right out of the gate. Continuing.
There is no time to ponder, give a retrospect view you just have to boom give it right then and there. It kind of reminded me of Black Panther a little bit. Black panther is far better than TFA but it is not as good as it's critical rating suggests. It also irks me that it was that which broke the mold for a comic book movie being nominated for best picture. Like seriously that is the one to do it? Not The Dark Knight, Logan, Superman the movie, or Sin City, it is that one. Right...
shareYup again, it is an example of the virtue signaling; the meta narrative, that leads to praise and awards and not the quality of the film itself.
shareOne thing in your point I don't agree with is the "star wars" drought effect. Mandalorian's popularity and reception prove there is no fatigue/saturation for this franchise when the product is good (or even just mediocre). It is ONLY when the films are straight up terrible and insulting to the legacy of the series do they receive poor audience reception and make less money. But somehow in many cases (such as TLJ) they still get high critical review.
With the modern star wars (and a lot of films today as a whole) the reason that bad films often get heaps of critical praise is when there is some indication of a political message; which means the critics pay more attention to the meta narrative than the films themselves. Something like the Lion King remake had no political message and was just clarity a money grabbing film so the critics reviewed it 'honestly'. Star Wars had a clear 'diversity' messaging (the force is female type of stuff) they were virtue signaling. Which means critics gave it praise despite its quality.
Mandalorian is a tv show in age of streaming. Solo is a side title therefore don't make as much as a main title. Rogue one is considered a good film it is better than tfa. Thing is it didn't make as much money as tfa. Why would last Jedi make less when both audiences and critics liked tfa? The main titles are where the most interests lie. The mandalorian had the benefit of being a tv show and an actual quality one at that. Thing is I personally think critics and audiences took it easy on revenge of the sith because the first two sucked. I can't stand that film aside from action set pieces. Story sucks and it breaks lore.
There is a hole in that logic as well. Batwoman gets torn apart by both critics and audiences even though it showcases the first openly gay superhero. Aladdin also pushes woman power, listen to that song by Jasmine in the live action film.
The answer to why TLJ made less money is simple; the general audience hated it. The people that paid for repeat viewing of TFA did not do so for TLJ. Almost all people that liked TFA when to see TLJ once and then not again. The box office of TLJ had nothing to do with the positive critical reception. Everyone paid to see it once and then hated it so didn't go again; then there was bad word of mouth over it.
You are wrong on Batwoman. It hold a positive critical reception (79% on rotten tomatoes and only 1 negative review on metacritic). From what I have heard it is a mind numbingly terrible show (haven't seen it so can't confirm) that can't possibly deserve nearly 80% positive critical reviews. The deal with Aladdin seems to be in the camp of "it is going to make money no matter what". Even so there was not any really harshly bad reviews. On metacritic there is only 2 negative critical reviews the rest are mixed.
Like I said though; it might be just that the critics' opinions are shit but I am trying to reason out why their opinions are shit. There seems to be a mix of things affecting how they are doing their reviews; none of which seem to have anything to do with judging the individual films on their actual quality and merit.
I don't believe that is completely true. Tfa had a higher opening weekend in the box office than last Jedi did. So partially true no repeated viewings but that doesn't explain the lower opening weekend.
I stand corrected on Batwoman then. Thing is about Aladdin it's average score is a 5.8 from critics. That is a bad score. Even just looking at the numbers that tells it's not liked by critics. Thing is the live action Aladdin has a strong audience rating though. 94% approval rating with an average score of 4.5/10. Have to say the critics were way more accurate on this film than the audience was. That has a higher user score than mask of Zorro, Rise of the planet of the apes, Dawn of the planet of the apes, or War For the planet of the apes... Yeah... critics give the edge to the films I listed over live action Aladdin.
Well I go back and forth on this. I can't fathom how the audience rated Aladdin high. I saw that film for free and yeah bad would be an understatement. Audiences can be just as bad as critics.
The difference was not significant: TFA $247,966,675 TLJ $220,009,584. Not even a $30 million dollar difference. Compare that to Rogue one which opening weekend was about $100 million less. You can explain the 30 million drop off by accounting for the people like me that knew TLJ was going to be a disaster so didn't go at all. The significant difference was the 2nd weekend drop off, if I remember correctly TLJ second weekend saw an 80% drop off. That is unheard of.
Yes Aladdin didn't score well but that is not because of a diversity of opinions. Most critics just rated it average. None rated it high or low.
The critics can be wrong, the audience can be wrong; both can be wrong and both can be right. But I get the impression that the reasons for the audience reaction is not the same as the critics. The audience will rate a bad movie good if it is at least entertaining. Critics will rate a bad movie good if it 'signals the right message', as well as other factors of course.
It is clear few of the audience and even fewer of the critics are actually judging the films based on merit and quality. If they were the critics would rate TLJ low and the audience would have rated TFA lower.
That is just it though I honestly do not think Last Jedi would have made more than TFA even if the public liked it. Would it have made more than last Jedi did? I think so but not as much as TFA.
By my estimates they rated it bad. What is the cutoff for average and bad? I mean BVS Dawn of Justice scored a 4.9 average score and it is considered one of the worst blockbuster films in recent memory. Batman 1989 got an average score of 6.5 I would say that is lukewarm or average. Below a 6 I would consider bad.
Audiences and critics go into a movie with a different mindset. Critics have to see every film regardless of if they have an interest or not. You should do your best to review a film without being jaded and give the most logical points possible. Since you have to see every film it is hard not to be jaded against films you know will most likely not be good. You are also more likely to pickup on cliches and derivative story telling than your average person. A person gets to see the stuff they are interested in and do not have to bother seeing films they have no interest in. Therefore they will not pickup on cliches as fast. I agree sometimes critics get caught up in the message rather than the craft. However sometimes your average viewer rates things off of sheer subjectivity and how entertaining it is. I honestly have my issues with both.
No it likley would not have done as well as Force Awakens but it should have been able to get closer to 2 billion if not over it. I mean it made less than Black Panther.
"Audiences and critics go into a movie with a different mindset"
That is my point; especially for the critic; what you mindset is going into the film should be checked at the door and judge the film based on its merits. Is it objectively good; does it tell the story it is trying to effectively; does it make good use of it production value, is it entertaining? The combination of these factors should ALL that matters. The only one that really matters alot to the audience is "is it entertaining". The critic it is there job; so if they are not interested it doesn't matter; rate it fairly. They don't though; they let their outside the film perspective influence their rating; and because of that they are not able to separate objective and subjective in their critical analysis.
I agree but ask yourself this why would it do less than before if people even liked it? I do not deny it would have made way more but still not as much as TFA. I think a part of this is because there was a Star Wars drought. See but people are weird because Transformers Revenge of the fallen got terrible audience and critical reception yet still made loads of cash and the sequel Transformers Dark of the Moon made even more than that film did.
That is how it should be yes but that is easier said than done. I will be honest I have no interest in the latest Adam Sandler drivel that he kept putting out well that was until Uncut Gems but still. If I was forced to watch Pixels, Grown Ups or any of his crap within the last few years I can't rate that stuff fairly because I despise it. I can acknowledge that, therefore I do not watch it. I agree though it is their job. However I can understand this sometimes a movie can kind of fool you on first viewing. Like once you sit and think you are like okay was that good? You then can break down why it was good or not. Sometimes it works the other way also.
For instance I saw Blade Runner after hearing about how much of a classic it was. I was like man this is tough to sit through, I get that is visually stunning but honestly I did not enjoy it much. Well after revisiting it and rewatching it every year, it grew to be one of my favorite films. Even though I love it I will say though it is not an easy watch. You have to be in the mood for it. Under the Skin I did the same thing with. I can't stand the critics are paid conspiracy though that always annoyed me. The reason it annoyed me was everyone I encountered used that excuse when critics liked a movie they didn't. The prime example was when on imdb people said Disney paid the critics to give Suicide Squad and BVS bad reviews. Critics hate anything not Marvel... Yeah that explains why TDK trilogy got such high critical reception right? Rottentomatoes should be banned... So you are so pathetic you can't just enjoy a movie and be okay you need validation that badly? Maybe critics blasted it because it was a trash film?
Empire STrikes back made a lot less than the original Star WArs? Can that be explained also by Star Wars Drought?
That is true; a move can fool you; TFA pulled out every trick in the book to full people (same with Avatar); both are very manipulative movies and if you only watch once and don't really think about it while watching the stupidity of it won't bother you.
There is a difference between movies that make you think and then when you do think you enjoy them more; and movies that require you to have your brain shut off while watching to enjoy it. that is the start contrast between a film like Blade runner and one like TFA.
Sequels back then usually did not make as much sequels do today.
Yep TFA pulled out every nostalgic trick in the book. It was a nice sleight of hand smokescreen.
Yes but I will be intellectually honest here. If I gave Blade Runner a rating after my first viewing it would have been a 6-7/10. Now I would give it a 9-10. Get my point?
Yup I get your point. The contrast would be someone that saw TFA the first time and rated it 9/10 but on the next viewing realized all the stupid that was happening and moved it to 6/10.
Unfortunately very few go back and amend their scores once they give them.
Yes unfortunately few do. Thing is a movie that is good you like after thinking about it and either stays the same or gets better upon re-watch.
You wonder what films would be higher or lower on a list if many actually would go back and amend their score. For instance the biggest film I can not fathom is films like the Prestige being rated lower than TDKR. Personally I feel the Prestige is one of Nolan's best films. Yet when you look at the critical reception it is lower than TDKR. I just can not fathom that one. I feel the Prestige has great pacing, solid characters and the exposition to me feels more blended in and unnoticeable compared to a lot of his other films.
Exactly; the Prestige is without a doubt a much better film than Rises; and yet Rises has a higher critical score. How can that be if critics are objective in their review.
I fail to see how anyone was impressed by TDKR, it was disappointing by every measure of the quality and merits of filmmaking and concluding a 3 act structure. I mean if you look at if from a narrative structure; the themes, morals, and lessons learned of the 2nd act have literally nothing to do with the 1st or 3rd. In fact you can almost cut the middle movie out entirely and there would not be that much of a difference; narrative speaking.