Probably lucky they never met. .
Stuart would be killed in any chicken coop and eaten. I, don't even think a modern civilization of chickens could withstand the urge.
That’s how Stuart ended up an orphan. His parents didn’t abandon him. They were saving him from Chicken Little and his dad.
I knew his dad had that bloodthirsty look about him
Here's all the Disney films with an audiencescore under 50
Film|Tomatometer|Audience|Year|Difference
---|--:|--:|--:|--:
Doug's 1st movie|28|28|1999|0
Home on the Range|52|29|2004|-23
Jungle Book 2|18|30|2003|12
Return to Neverland|45|39|2002|-6
Make Mine Music|58|41|1946|-17
Chicken Little|37|47|2005|10
The Black Cauldron|57|48|1985|-9
Dinosaur|65|48|2000|-17
Melody Time|75|48|1948|-27
Disney's Teacher's Pet|76|48|2004|-28
Planes|25|49|2013|24
Here's the ones where the Audience is at least 20% below the critic
Film|Tomatometer|Audience|Year|Difference
---|--:|--:|--:|--:
DuckTales, The Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp|100|69|1990|-31
Disney's Teacher's Pet|76|48|2004|-28
Melody Time|75|48|1948|-27
Pinnochio|100|73|1940|-27
Dumbo|95|70|1941|-25
Ralph Breaks the Internet|88|64|2018|-24
Home on the Range|52|29|2004|-23
One Hundred and One Dalmatians|98|76|1961|-22
For those interested here's the full data set
Film|Tomatometer|Audience|Year|Difference
---|--:|--:|--:|--:
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs|97|78|1937|-19
Pinnochio|100|73|1940|-27
Fantasia|95|83|1940|-12
Dumbo|95|70|1941|-25
Bambi|91|73|1942|-18
Make Mine Music|58|41|1946|-17
Fun and Fancy Free|70|59|1947|-11
Melody Time|75|48|1948|-27
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad|88|71|1949|-17
Cinderella|98|80|1950|-18
Alice in Wonderland|84|78|1951|-6
Peter Pan|77|80|1953|3
Lady and the Tramp|93|80|1955|-13
Sleeping Beauty|89|80|1959|-9
One Hundred and One Dalmatians|98|76|1961|-22
The Sword in the Stone|68|73|1963|5
The Jungle Book|88|82|1967|-6
The Aristocats|64|70|1970|6
Robin Hood|58|81|1973|23
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh|100|87|1977|-13
The Rescuers|79|68|1977|-11
The Fox and the Hound|75|78|1981|3
The Black Cauldron|57|48|1985|-9
The Great Mouse Detective|76|79|1986|3
Oliver & Company|54|62|1988|8
The Little Mermaid|91|88|1989|-3
DuckTales, The Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp|100|69|1990|-31
The Rescuers Down Under|71|68|1990|-3
Beauty and the Beast|93|92|1991|-1
Aladdin|95|92|1992|-3
The Lion King|93|93|1994|0
A Goofy Movie|59|71|1995|12
Pocahontas|54|64|1995|10
The Hunchback of Notre Dame|71|70|1996|-1
Hercules|82|76|1997|-6
Mulan|86|85|1998|-1
Tarzan|89|75|1999|-14
Fantasia 2000|81|75|1999|-6
Doug's 1st movie|28|28|1999|0
The Emperor's New Groove|86|84|2000|-2
Dinosaur|65|48|2000|-17
The Tigger Movie|62|62|2000|0
Recess: School's Out|60|56|2001|-4
Atlantis: The Lost Empire|49|54|2001|5
Lilo & Stitch|87|77|2002|-10
Treasure Planet|69|72|2002|3
Return to Neverland|45|39|2002|-6
Piglet's Big Movie|70|64|2003|-6
Brother Bear|37|65|2003|28
Jungle Book 2|18|30|2003|12
Disney's Teacher's Pet|76|48|2004|-28
Home on the Range|52|29|2004|-23
Pooh's Heffalump Movie|80|68|2005|-12
Chicken Little|37|47|2005|10
Bambi II|44|60|2006|16
Meet the Robinsons|67|74|2007|7
Bolt|90|74|2008|-16
The Princess and the Frog|85|74|2009|-11
Tangled|89|87|2010|-2
Winnie the Pooh|90|80|2011|-10
Wreck-It Ralph|87|86|2012|-1
Frozen II|90|85|2013|-5
Planes|25|49|2013|24
Big Hero 6|90|91|2014|1
Planes: Fire & Rescue|44|56|2014|12
Zootopia|98|92|2016|-6
Moana|95|89|2016|-6
Ralph Breaks the Internet|88|64|2018|-24
Frozen II|77|92|2019|15
Raya and the Last Dragon|93|97|2021|4
Encanto|92|93|2021|1
Strange World|72|66|2022|-6
Wish|50|81|2023|31
They were thinking
> Disney desperately trying to copy Don Bluth and failing terribly
and
> The film that famously flopped so hard it put Disney's animation department in jeopardy for a short time, The Black Cauldron was a doomed project from the start
and
> I've never seen such a bad movie with such high quality source material. Major characters missing and the best material left on the cutting room floor. The villain is laughable. The whole thing strikes the viewer as a very 80s television product. If you liked the old Skelatar show, this would be for you.
What the fuck, how come Dinosaur has such a low audience score?? That movie is so damn good, it isn't afraid to show how gritty the prehistoric world can be..
Most recent review is
>This movie was boring I can't really remember anything about it.
And another begins
>The Disney Renaissance is definitely over after this movie. If you can get through the first hour, the last thirty minutes aren't too bad.
Audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are heavily curated and I don't trust them. They started "verifying" them in 2019 by demanding proof that the reviewer has bought a ticket - which effectively excludes anyone who doesn't use services like Fandango (which, surprise-surprise, isn't available in my country).
And the measure that they implemented strangely coincided with the release of "Captain Marvel". What a weird coincidence.
Lol right? I keep rewatching that movie, as a Star Wars fan I want to like it, so I keep giving it another chance, going in with a positive mindset, hoping this will be the time I actually find myself enjoying that movie.
But every time I just find something new about the plot/writing that is just laughably bad, and find myself disliking it even more.
Same boat. I really WANT to like the ST. I’m generally not the hard to please but I just cannot get behind episode 8 and especially episode 9. Those movies make no damn sense at ALL
To be fair that score is 100% rigged. It has stayed at a constant 86% ever since it had a few hundred reviews, to the many thousands it has now. That just doesn’t happen.
TLJ may be an abysmal Star Wars sequel but it's not a completely awful Sci-fantasy movie if analyzed in a vacuum, just a pretty mediocre one. But RoS, holy shit, it's unironically the worst movie I've ever seen (not counting movies that were so bad I stopped before they finished like whichever Transformer movie it was I last tried to watch)
I'd watch a Transformers marathon over TLJ and RotS anytime.
Mostly because I was a big Star Wars fan and those sequels were such god awful treatments of the original characters, that I really can't stand seeing that again.
Standalone...whatever, don't care. But they are part of franchise and using some of the biggest established characters of movie history.
The good thing is, that a big part of the fandom sees it that way and doesn't consume Disney Star Wars anymore.
Hitting them in the moneybags and in their personal legacy is where it hurts them.
Oh RoS was definitely more personally painful to me than Transformers because of how much I used to love Star Wars, but it isn't boring, which is a cardinal sin the Transformer franchise is repeatedly guilty of. A dumpster fire, yes. But a dumpster fire isn't boring, even if the interest is morbid fascination and disgust rather than enjoyment.
I can't comprehend how mind-bogglingly stupid it is to greenlight a sequel trilogy without even a basic outline of the plot for the 3 movies. How tf do you just make it up as you go along
Audience when the critic score is low and audience score is high: "Stupid critics don't know what they're talking about. I'd make a better critic than them"
Audience when the critic score is high and audience score is low: "Stupid critics don't know what they're talking about. I'd make a better critic than them"
Audience when the critic score and audience score are roughly even: "I knew I was right. I'd make a great critic"
Here is the method I use.
Scores | Audience Low Score (Entertainment) | Audience High Score (Entertainment)
---|---|----
**Critic Low Score (Craft)** | Skip the movie - Not entertaining, poorly crafted | See it if you appreciate the genre - Strongly entertaining, poorly crafted
**Critic High Score (Craft)** | See if it if you appreciate the craft/art of cinema - Not entertaining, very well crafted | Do not miss - Strongly entertaining and very well crafted
Yeah I feel like the "high critic, low audience" section needs an asterisk. If it's an indie film, it's probably some sort of beautifully crafted, yet super boring art piece that's good to watch and appreciate. If it has that score on a Marvel movie....the critics were probably paid off or RT is suppressing low scores in the name of "stopping review bombing" or some shit
I don't think RT has measures like ‘stopping review bombing’ for critics—after all, the whole promise of the site is to deliver critics' ratings as they are, and RT has a specific pool of critics that they use.
Don't forget that one of those guys trolled the ratings for ages by watching what assessment the others gave, and then giving the opposite opinion. Some films might have 99% rating solely because of that guy. Can't remember the name, though—Armond White seems to have done the same thing, but I seem to recall a more literally white dude.
Those kinds of movies can also end up with low audience scores because the movie gets a bunch of rave reviews and people who have no idea what they're going to see, go see it purely because of the rave reviews.
They go in expecting a mainstream movie experience and get something much more niche - so, they hate it because it wasn't what they were after in the first place.
Which makes their panning of the film worthless because those films aren't made to try and please as many people as possible like mainstream movies.
Both can have good stuff, but hardly anyone would enjoy being shown a completely different kind of movie than what you expected.
I think that may have happened to "Drive"
It has a good score now, since it's become a cult classic and absolute meme
But before then, audiences were upset that Drive didn't have more driving in it
They went in expecting The Fast and the Furious and ended up with a Nicolas Winding Refn movie
Someone even tried to sue for misleading marketing
Yeah, there are a lot of potential asterisks with this system. Average movie watchers' "reviews" don't always make sense and are rarely trying to be objective.
If it's a slower paced movie, it's getting a lower review score even if it's an amazing film that's entertaining. If there's anything political in it at all, the score will be lower because of review bombing. If it has a black or female lead, the score will be lower because of review bombing.
I've seen people give franchise movies 0s just because they have some outrage nitpick with how the movie was made or something the director said about the source material. Or just because they don't like the lead actor because of something they did unrelated to the movie.
Low audience high critic could also mean, "This isn't well crafted, but the movie is about the importance and meaning behind the craft/art of cinema and therefore the critics furiously masturbate to it."
Critic score is basically up/down vote. It's the proportion of critics who gave the film a positive score. It's not the average rating given by critics.
Irony?
The critic score is not "1-10". RT curators read and interpret reviews to determine if they are positive or negative.
The audience score is the percentage of people who gave it a positive (3.5 star or higher) review.
Both the audience and critics are crammed full of complete morons, I don't know why anyone would really trust either of the scores beyond using them as an indicator for "this movie is complete crap"
That being said, in my experience and I'm sure most others too, the audience score is far more likely to align with my own opinions about the movie after I've watched it.
audience score changed after a couple of years ago. now you need to be like a verified account or some crap. but “verified audience score” is completely different and way morw biased than the original audience score was
Exactly, “Verified audience score” is gonna get stuck at the same rating once the movie is no longer in theater and there’s no other way to prove you watched it other than having a ticket. It’s bullshit and not reliable whatsoever, cause hardcore fans of an IP will go watch it on day one and leave positive reviews regardless of quality to give it a positive head start, and even with more reviews coming in, the verified score will still remain higher than the “all audience score” and thus making it looks like “good audience score means it must be enjoyable to the audience.” This shit is what happened to the RoS, that shit fest has a 86% verified audience score.
Probably an over correction. Most audience movie reviews are always a 1/10 or a 10/10 because people don’t realize how to actually correctly rate things for some reason. So they saw that the movie had bad critic scores and thought it was better than that so they reviewed 10/10.
Rotten Tomatoes actually goes off of the percentage of people who said they liked the movie, rather than them giving it a score out of something and averaging that
I saw a series once that I thought was meh to ok, was shocked to see it had 100% from critics. Turns out it had received four 6.5/10s, which counted as 100% positive reviews. It's a good indicator on roughly what your experience will be, but obviously nothing will predict your level of enjoyment besides actually watching it.
Ye the problem is with many projects they're all just good.
Production is easier than ever, amazing location shots are no longer tied to a helicopter, but a drone.
So when something even has 100% well, RT never tells me jack shit.
Like it takes a fair amount for me to dislike a movie or give it below a 5 if 5 is purely average.
Which also really highlights the importance of giving some sort of template for your reviewers and audience.
To some people, 5/10 might mean "Average". Right down the middle. Other people equate it to school grades, in which 50% would be an abysmal failure, and something like 75%-80% might be more "average".
Stars suffer from a similar flaw. 3 stars on a movie could mean it's pretty good, but not great. Others might equate it to a product review, where if you don't have 4 stars or higher, your product sucks and shouldn't be purchased.
It's just hard to quantify how good a thing _actually_ is with a numerical rating in a way that people agree on.
Escapist Magazine used to have a rule about not giving out numbered scores, because it's impossible to reduce a complex opinion into a number. Then they started, because a lot of audiences just want (or the industry believes they want) a yay or nay.
And like you say, with customers/industry considering anything less than an 8 to be flawed in some way, there's point inflation to the point that none of it means anything. Fire Emblem Three Houses is a game that I would equally give 8/10 and 10/10 (I loved everything about it and it did some interesting things with the story, but there's definite flaws), whereas I would give FE: Engage a 6/10 (a generally positive experience, even if there were areas with significant drawbacks), but if I did people would ask why I dislike it so much.
YouTuber JelloApocalypse did some film ratings and his score system went like this, which if you're going to grade media, is how it should be:
1. A Garbage Movie. Don’t ever see
2. Slightly less terrible. Might have been one thing I liked.
3. Pretty much the same, but it doesn’t hurt to watch it
4. Mediocre
5. Average movie. It was fine. Feel like you could have done something better with your time.
6. Film you enjoyed but don’t have any interest in seeing it again
7. You enjoyed, would re-watch but not actively seeking it out. Most really good but have some note worthy flaws.
8. Solid entertaining movie. Maybe even great
9. An awesome movie. A movie you need a sequel for.
10. Everyone should go see it. It does something with its story or film making that every needs to see it. Not a perfect movie but is a must see for one reason or another.
I tend to think 5/10 or 6/10 is average but my family is always somewhat shocked when I give an average movie that score. They basically always give movies 7/10 or higher unless it was actually bad.
On metacritic I always go straight for the 4-7 score reviews, for people who don't kneejerk one way or the other. I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who gives it a 10 and writes the words "it's not perfect", or gives it a 1 and says "the music isn't bad"
>Most audience movie reviews are always a 1/10 or a 10/10 because people don’t realize how to actually correctly rate things for some reason.
That's why I don't rate movies on any websites. It's either something I hated or really loved and I know my reviews won't help anyone and only mess the rating.
Please for the love of god stop treating rotten tomatoes and similar resources like they're even remotely accurate at actually gauging the quality of a film. If you're gong to use them for anything, use them as an estimate for the average opinion of a given film
Yeah everything I’ve heard about this movie is that it’s as mid as it gets. Nothing to write home about. Completely forgettable but if it’s on you can probably watch it and be somewhat entertained. It’s not unwatchable.
And for that, it get a “fresh” from the reviewer. All it says is whether or not you would recommend watching it. Not if it was great or mediocre.
This movie is a failure because this is Disney’s flagship animated film representing their 100 year anniversary. And it’s just “meh”. But “meh” is still going to be a thumbs up from most people.
The script needed a couple more drafts, the movie has serious pacing issues and dead ends. Ultimately it was just okay at best, a couple good songs and gags in there
>If you're gong to use them for anything, use them as an estimate for the average opinion of a given film
This is literally what people use them for already though. It's their whole purpose.
> gauging the quality
> average opinion
I mean... how else are you gonna do it? That is literally how people gauge the quality of a film they haven't seen.
If only the people who don't mind watching turd, watched the turd, and leaving a glowingly good review, that's still a turd
And considering the main audience is children, anything that isn't offensive for the parents is considered a good thing. Even if it's a turd
True, but if the quality of storytelling has been on the decline for years, it doesn't matter what the marketing campaign looks like. We all have an expectation of subpar content, thus less and less people are going to watch what they're putting out.
That still doesn’t reflect on the quality of this individual movie, maybe the movie industry in general. It doesn’t negate the validity of the 81% audience score.
Audience scores are skewed towards positive because people usually don't leave reviews for movies they didn't enjoy. The audience score is usually only low if there's a reason to really hate the movie.
But also, 99% of professional critic reviews are just them saying meaningless words and trying to sound smart, so they're not a very good source either.
Try to use your own intuition to determine if a movie is worth seeing.
The reverse of this is the reason I don't trust restaurant reviews. No one ever takes the time to praise a restaurant for being what they're billed as, but people will DEFINITELY leave a negative review for the most minor of inconveniences.
>but people will DEFINITELY leave a negative review for the most minor of inconveniences.
look buddy, the chef taking off his pants and taking a shit in my fettucini alfredo with extra mushrooms and extra sauce while standing on the table in front of all his patrons is not minor. Some of the sauce even splashed onto my suit and ruined my jacket.
Ugh, he's the one that's freaking out over something minor. Just because he caught me having sex with his dying married mom and then hooking up with his dad after doesn't mean he has the right to under salt my food.
And for that reason, I left a negative review. You can't just under salt the food like that.
You deserved it for asking for extra shit. Let the chef bring his vision to the table.
If you didn't ask for extra mushrooms and extra sauce I'd be on board.
Slight disagreement. People LOVE giving bad reviews to movies they don't enjoy. But thanks to hyperspecialized marketing, people don't even know about movies unless the algorithm is sure relatively sure they'll like it.
I was gonna say, I don’t think that man has ever been online before people love to review bomb shit they’ve never seen and/or are mad at for some reason.
The biggest influencer of audience scores on RT in particular is whether the critics opinions match or contradict a given audience member's opinion.
A person is far more likely to leave a review if the critics don't seem to agree with them, their audience review serving to "set the record straight". Meanwhile, people who see their views validated by the critics don't feel the need to say anything. That's why there is nearly always a difference in the critics and the audience scores; it has nothing to do with things like people's vs critic's tastes or critics being "out of touch" or whatever.
Well that’s just straight not accurate at all lmao. People love to review stuff they hate, they also love to review bomb stuff they’re mad at. Look at anything Star Wars, recent marvel stuff, anything with diversity or women.
I saw it. It was a fun little movie and had a lot of nice nods to Disney's past. I know a lot of people didn't but I liked the animation style. My major criticisms are that the music was pretty forgettable, and that overall the movie felt very paint by numbers. It wasn't bad, but it was very very safe. It's not going to be anyone's favorite Disney movie, but it's not the garbage a lot of people are treating it is.
I have a child who hasn't reached double digits yet. I'd watch this mediocre Disney film back to back all day long before some of the garbage they like if I could convince them to do so. They have this one movie about a dragon and an ice princess fighting a snowman and it makes me want to gouge my eyes out. That movie is garbage. This movie was just a bit lackluster.
Friend of mine knows the entire script of Cars 1 and 2 off by heart because it's basically the only thing their kid will watch without crying. They save Cars 3 for special occasions because they've seen it less than 10 times, so it still feels fresh.
I was hanging out at theirs a few weeks ago, and they put on some kids shows that *were* pure garbage - just low budget and bright colours. Disney isn't always my cup of tea, but at least their stuff is generally enjoyable to look at compared to other kids content out there.
The difference between kid's TV shows and kid's films is that parents purchase the tickets to watch the film, so they're generally going to be at least a bit better. No parent really watches kid's TV with them though.
There are obvious exceptions to this. Anyway, parents should be watching/vetting the TV their kids are watching, though. Honestly it is not hard, kids are happy to watch the same show ad nauseum, so you don't have to review a huge amount of content.
Hey buddy, how old are you? Do you think this movie is for you? It's a children's movie. For children. Everything they described sounds like a solid children's movies.
Again, as they said, it's not gonna be anyone's favorite Disney feature, but maybe they aren't always going for the next cult classic? It's great that their movies are often good enough for us to love too, but it *is* ok for Disney to occasionally make kids movies for kids! That's like, their actual thing, remember.
I feel like it could have been a good movie they had it set up to be. The idea that the ruling class steals dreams from the working class and gets the veto dreams that would threaten them is such a ballsy idea for a Disney movie. Especially the part where her friend betrays her and turns into a fascist to get his wish. I was waiting for the wizard to blame the new immigrants for stealing the real citizens wishes. They don't stick the landing though. It was so close to being this generation's Animal Farm. Edit: I meant Animal Farm not 1984
I think using an aggregator site at all is a fruitless endeavor. You're either trusting the opinions of hundreds of critics who you likely don't know, or you're putting blind faith into an audience score that often skews overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative, since audiences don't tend to review movies unless they really love or really hate them. The real trick is to follow specific reviewers whose interests align with your own. If they love or hate a movie, and are able to explain their reasons why, you'll have a better gauge for whether or not you'll like the movie they're talking about.
Watch all the Disney haters who used to hate on critics and applaud the audience score, now turn around and say the critics are the ones to follow lol. I aint seen the movie so I have no opinion on it. Will probably watch it on Disney+ when it comes out.
I hate to say it, but Disney and Pixar films have been reliably trending downward since Lasseter was excused from his position.
Starting with Toy Story 4, you can see chronologically each movie gradually slipping into mediocrity.
Wish wasn’t a terrible movie, but go back and compare it to Tangled and Toy Story 3. Both of those movies came out in the same year and Lasseter was EP on both.
The guy presided over the greatest run of animated films we’ve ever seen. There’s a strong argument to be made that he was a better chief creative than Walt in terms of movies.
Today’s Disney/Pixar studios are a hollow shell of their former selves.
You know disney is bad when DreamWorks is making better films than them.
Honestly, Puss in Boots TLW was the best animated film I've seen in a very, very long time. Spiderverse is up there too and I appreciate the spiderverse animators so much for pushing the medium forward, but something about TLW was fantastic. Every character had a well thought out and completed arc. Animation was gorgeous. Villains were great. I seriously can't think of anything wrong with it. I guess my only complaint is the "just right" jokes, but that's it
Now that spiderverse and puss in boots have shown that you can make bright, colorful, stylish animations with also a good story and characters, critic's are going to be much harsher in disney, and rightfully so.
It's very average, the music is super forgettable. The animation's kind of nice but it just feels like Disney dipping their toes into spider-verse's style.
Almost every mainstream movie that comes out has a 70%+ audience score every single time, probably the worst possible metric to judge a film’s quality.
>The percentage of users who made a verified movie ticket purchase rating this 3.5 stars or higher
So 81% said "OK". Also there are top critics - 31%, and All audience - 72%
That system is confusing
It’s a very generic and forgettable movie. I saw it over the weekend with some family members and pretty much you forget what happened in the movie the moment you step out of the theater.
I wouldn’t say it’s horrible but just aggressively average
Too many people act like of score actually matter. The whole score system isnt working but we keep using it because people dont want to read reviews from critic while the audience generally put a number and show extremely fast their bias by putting high rating when they enjoyed the movie and 0 just to follow the hates train.
That why if I actually want to watch a movie I go see him by himself instead of following a group of people.
I love how with the fnaf movie and Mario movie people raved on "the critics are wrong!! They don't know anything, don't listen to them!!" Then this movie comes out with low critic score and suddenly its "see? The critics don't like it!! Therefore it's bad!!"
When I see a lower critic score and a higher audience score it generally tells me the movie does nothing really interesting / is cliche driven kind of thing, but is not bad, but not great either.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle, but the critics are almost always more correct. This is the opposite of what I look for. If you disagree, have you looked at the user reviews on these websites? Dunkey made a funny video on the topic.
Haven’t seen it, but at least it isn’t a remake. Wish it didn’t have the uninspired Kroger commercial animation like every other damn movie now of days.
Unfortunately Disney is dying.
I wouldn't say that this movie is bad. It's just... Mediocre at best.
Animation is not best (I mean Illumination has better).
And one of worst disappointment was that:
1. Villain is not really a villain
2. Hero is not really a hero because she ends up doing literally the same
3. Songs are not holding up to Disney standards.
What was the premice? That she does things better because she is female?
So far I like Elementary much more.
But then you look at the audience score on IMDB and Metacritic and they are not so high so now I can't help but think why are they so high on Rotten Tomatoes but not on IMDB and Metacritic...but at the end of the day, the most important opinion is your own. It doesn't matter everyone else likes the movie or not, what really matters is do you like the movie or not
Does any Disney movie get a very bad audience score?
Chicken Little got a 47%
Those BASTARDS
how could it even BE that low? It deserves 95% MINIMUM
Matthew Perry lives on
*Chanandler Bong
Actually, it's Ms. Chanandler Bong.
I knew that! We steal that TV Guide every week! Use your head!
a little score for a little bird
The disrespect shown to Stuart Little’s cousin never ceases to amaze me. Absolutely appalling
Probably lucky they never met. . Stuart would be killed in any chicken coop and eaten. I, don't even think a modern civilization of chickens could withstand the urge.
That’s how Stuart ended up an orphan. His parents didn’t abandon him. They were saving him from Chicken Little and his dad. I knew his dad had that bloodthirsty look about him
Chicken Little cinematic universe?
I don't think I could resist the urge, tbh.
How the fuck?!
Okay what the fuck
justice for the Zach Braff chicken movie
Chicken Little spoke the TRUTH and they keeping him down!!!
What? But that's a classic
Apparently a lot of people think it's one of the worst animated movies out there
Huh, strange. I always really liked it, never would’ve imagined it was a controversial movie. Why is that anyway?
Chicken little not chicken run
The man knows what he said
And it's still higher than the critics score at 37%. What this tells us is that both the critic and audience scores are utter shit.
I've lost my faith in humanity
how barbaric
Poor Zach Braff.
How is this movie an 81% when Chicken Little way 47%?? That’s insane to me
Idk if your joking but chicken little is ass
What?? I love that movie what’s the big idea
Here's all the Disney films with an audiencescore under 50 Film|Tomatometer|Audience|Year|Difference ---|--:|--:|--:|--: Doug's 1st movie|28|28|1999|0 Home on the Range|52|29|2004|-23 Jungle Book 2|18|30|2003|12 Return to Neverland|45|39|2002|-6 Make Mine Music|58|41|1946|-17 Chicken Little|37|47|2005|10 The Black Cauldron|57|48|1985|-9 Dinosaur|65|48|2000|-17 Melody Time|75|48|1948|-27 Disney's Teacher's Pet|76|48|2004|-28 Planes|25|49|2013|24 Here's the ones where the Audience is at least 20% below the critic Film|Tomatometer|Audience|Year|Difference ---|--:|--:|--:|--: DuckTales, The Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp|100|69|1990|-31 Disney's Teacher's Pet|76|48|2004|-28 Melody Time|75|48|1948|-27 Pinnochio|100|73|1940|-27 Dumbo|95|70|1941|-25 Ralph Breaks the Internet|88|64|2018|-24 Home on the Range|52|29|2004|-23 One Hundred and One Dalmatians|98|76|1961|-22
For those interested here's the full data set Film|Tomatometer|Audience|Year|Difference ---|--:|--:|--:|--: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs|97|78|1937|-19 Pinnochio|100|73|1940|-27 Fantasia|95|83|1940|-12 Dumbo|95|70|1941|-25 Bambi|91|73|1942|-18 Make Mine Music|58|41|1946|-17 Fun and Fancy Free|70|59|1947|-11 Melody Time|75|48|1948|-27 The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad|88|71|1949|-17 Cinderella|98|80|1950|-18 Alice in Wonderland|84|78|1951|-6 Peter Pan|77|80|1953|3 Lady and the Tramp|93|80|1955|-13 Sleeping Beauty|89|80|1959|-9 One Hundred and One Dalmatians|98|76|1961|-22 The Sword in the Stone|68|73|1963|5 The Jungle Book|88|82|1967|-6 The Aristocats|64|70|1970|6 Robin Hood|58|81|1973|23 The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh|100|87|1977|-13 The Rescuers|79|68|1977|-11 The Fox and the Hound|75|78|1981|3 The Black Cauldron|57|48|1985|-9 The Great Mouse Detective|76|79|1986|3 Oliver & Company|54|62|1988|8 The Little Mermaid|91|88|1989|-3 DuckTales, The Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp|100|69|1990|-31 The Rescuers Down Under|71|68|1990|-3 Beauty and the Beast|93|92|1991|-1 Aladdin|95|92|1992|-3 The Lion King|93|93|1994|0 A Goofy Movie|59|71|1995|12 Pocahontas|54|64|1995|10 The Hunchback of Notre Dame|71|70|1996|-1 Hercules|82|76|1997|-6 Mulan|86|85|1998|-1 Tarzan|89|75|1999|-14 Fantasia 2000|81|75|1999|-6 Doug's 1st movie|28|28|1999|0 The Emperor's New Groove|86|84|2000|-2 Dinosaur|65|48|2000|-17 The Tigger Movie|62|62|2000|0 Recess: School's Out|60|56|2001|-4 Atlantis: The Lost Empire|49|54|2001|5 Lilo & Stitch|87|77|2002|-10 Treasure Planet|69|72|2002|3 Return to Neverland|45|39|2002|-6 Piglet's Big Movie|70|64|2003|-6 Brother Bear|37|65|2003|28 Jungle Book 2|18|30|2003|12 Disney's Teacher's Pet|76|48|2004|-28 Home on the Range|52|29|2004|-23 Pooh's Heffalump Movie|80|68|2005|-12 Chicken Little|37|47|2005|10 Bambi II|44|60|2006|16 Meet the Robinsons|67|74|2007|7 Bolt|90|74|2008|-16 The Princess and the Frog|85|74|2009|-11 Tangled|89|87|2010|-2 Winnie the Pooh|90|80|2011|-10 Wreck-It Ralph|87|86|2012|-1 Frozen II|90|85|2013|-5 Planes|25|49|2013|24 Big Hero 6|90|91|2014|1 Planes: Fire & Rescue|44|56|2014|12 Zootopia|98|92|2016|-6 Moana|95|89|2016|-6 Ralph Breaks the Internet|88|64|2018|-24 Frozen II|77|92|2019|15 Raya and the Last Dragon|93|97|2021|4 Encanto|92|93|2021|1 Strange World|72|66|2022|-6 Wish|50|81|2023|31
Black Cauldron deserves better lol
Song of the South conspicuously missing.
Song of the South Tomatoscore is 50% with 16 reviews and AudienceScore is 72% with 5000+ reviews.
This is the best hidden comment here. What the actual fuck lol.
Black Cauldron is amazing! What were the audience thinking!
They were thinking > Disney desperately trying to copy Don Bluth and failing terribly and > The film that famously flopped so hard it put Disney's animation department in jeopardy for a short time, The Black Cauldron was a doomed project from the start and > I've never seen such a bad movie with such high quality source material. Major characters missing and the best material left on the cutting room floor. The villain is laughable. The whole thing strikes the viewer as a very 80s television product. If you liked the old Skelatar show, this would be for you.
Outside of those 3 minor points though, it is a great film haha. I remember watching it as a kid and having a great time, it was so scary.
I only listened to the audio version on casette as a kid and still loved it. I'm beginning to think that little kids are stupid or something.
I wouldn't call it amazing, but I definitely enjoyed it. I also thought dinosaur was pretty good, so I guess I'm just not "with it" on movies.
What the fuck, how come Dinosaur has such a low audience score?? That movie is so damn good, it isn't afraid to show how gritty the prehistoric world can be..
Most recent review is >This movie was boring I can't really remember anything about it. And another begins >The Disney Renaissance is definitely over after this movie. If you can get through the first hour, the last thirty minutes aren't too bad.
Damn broo 😭 this movie was my safe place as a child...
It's still great you can enjoy it, most people just dont agree
there was a sequel of peterpan???
The 90s and 2000s were a wild place of direct to video animated Disney sequels. There are like 4 Aladdin movies. edit: 3 movies and a TV show.
That is too high a score for Home on the Range
The Country Bears has a 34% audience rating.
The country bears deserve better. I still quote it lol
Disney pays for reviews/bots it must do
Audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are heavily curated and I don't trust them. They started "verifying" them in 2019 by demanding proof that the reviewer has bought a ticket - which effectively excludes anyone who doesn't use services like Fandango (which, surprise-surprise, isn't available in my country). And the measure that they implemented strangely coincided with the release of "Captain Marvel". What a weird coincidence.
Captain Marvel was getting brigaded by misogynists so that's not terribly surprising.
TLJ got like 50% Edit: to be clear, it deserved a 90+%%
The Last Jedi? 90+? Did we see the same movie?
Lol right? I keep rewatching that movie, as a Star Wars fan I want to like it, so I keep giving it another chance, going in with a positive mindset, hoping this will be the time I actually find myself enjoying that movie. But every time I just find something new about the plot/writing that is just laughably bad, and find myself disliking it even more.
Same boat. I really WANT to like the ST. I’m generally not the hard to please but I just cannot get behind episode 8 and especially episode 9. Those movies make no damn sense at ALL
Even 50% is generous for that madcap comedy masquerading as a space opera.
That’s very generous. Still fun to watch but generous
RoS got like 86%. Now *that's* generous.
That’s not generous. That’s a god damn bank bailout. And that movie isn’t tolerable at all
To be fair that score is 100% rigged. It has stayed at a constant 86% ever since it had a few hundred reviews, to the many thousands it has now. That just doesn’t happen.
TLJ may be an abysmal Star Wars sequel but it's not a completely awful Sci-fantasy movie if analyzed in a vacuum, just a pretty mediocre one. But RoS, holy shit, it's unironically the worst movie I've ever seen (not counting movies that were so bad I stopped before they finished like whichever Transformer movie it was I last tried to watch)
I dont even *like* TLJ and even I know that its a considerably better movie than RoS
I'd watch a Transformers marathon over TLJ and RotS anytime. Mostly because I was a big Star Wars fan and those sequels were such god awful treatments of the original characters, that I really can't stand seeing that again. Standalone...whatever, don't care. But they are part of franchise and using some of the biggest established characters of movie history. The good thing is, that a big part of the fandom sees it that way and doesn't consume Disney Star Wars anymore. Hitting them in the moneybags and in their personal legacy is where it hurts them.
Oh RoS was definitely more personally painful to me than Transformers because of how much I used to love Star Wars, but it isn't boring, which is a cardinal sin the Transformer franchise is repeatedly guilty of. A dumpster fire, yes. But a dumpster fire isn't boring, even if the interest is morbid fascination and disgust rather than enjoyment.
I can't comprehend how mind-bogglingly stupid it is to greenlight a sequel trilogy without even a basic outline of the plot for the 3 movies. How tf do you just make it up as you go along
Wdym generous? Revenge of the sith deserves better!
Rise of Skywalker, in case you're not joking
Ah, you're in character for the subreddit
42% 😎
I mean, even if it’s the worst Disney movie it’s still a good movie most of the time
Heh, you.. wish!!
🗣️🗣️✍️✍️✍️🔥🔥🔥
And then King Magnificent said IT'S WISHING TIME 📄✍️🔥🔥🔥😭💢😛😫😉🫠😱🥵🤯💦
So whats it like writing for Disney?
It’s just missing the response, usually an outdated meme or over-exaggerated reaction
Nah, I'd wish.
you could never ever ever be that bitch
I want some of that weed the audience is smoking
Audience when the critic score is low and audience score is high: "Stupid critics don't know what they're talking about. I'd make a better critic than them" Audience when the critic score is high and audience score is low: "Stupid critics don't know what they're talking about. I'd make a better critic than them" Audience when the critic score and audience score are roughly even: "I knew I was right. I'd make a great critic"
Here is the method I use. Scores | Audience Low Score (Entertainment) | Audience High Score (Entertainment) ---|---|---- **Critic Low Score (Craft)** | Skip the movie - Not entertaining, poorly crafted | See it if you appreciate the genre - Strongly entertaining, poorly crafted **Critic High Score (Craft)** | See if it if you appreciate the craft/art of cinema - Not entertaining, very well crafted | Do not miss - Strongly entertaining and very well crafted
This is a usefull way of viewing it. I shall use this from now on
Thanks! It isn't without flaws but it is a decent measure.
Critics on RT love entertainment, and were simping for superhero movies for a decade. But they indeed hate badly-made films.
Yeah I feel like the "high critic, low audience" section needs an asterisk. If it's an indie film, it's probably some sort of beautifully crafted, yet super boring art piece that's good to watch and appreciate. If it has that score on a Marvel movie....the critics were probably paid off or RT is suppressing low scores in the name of "stopping review bombing" or some shit
I don't think RT has measures like ‘stopping review bombing’ for critics—after all, the whole promise of the site is to deliver critics' ratings as they are, and RT has a specific pool of critics that they use. Don't forget that one of those guys trolled the ratings for ages by watching what assessment the others gave, and then giving the opposite opinion. Some films might have 99% rating solely because of that guy. Can't remember the name, though—Armond White seems to have done the same thing, but I seem to recall a more literally white dude.
Armond white isnt trolling tho. That is his terrible but honest opinion.
Those kinds of movies can also end up with low audience scores because the movie gets a bunch of rave reviews and people who have no idea what they're going to see, go see it purely because of the rave reviews. They go in expecting a mainstream movie experience and get something much more niche - so, they hate it because it wasn't what they were after in the first place. Which makes their panning of the film worthless because those films aren't made to try and please as many people as possible like mainstream movies. Both can have good stuff, but hardly anyone would enjoy being shown a completely different kind of movie than what you expected.
I think that may have happened to "Drive" It has a good score now, since it's become a cult classic and absolute meme But before then, audiences were upset that Drive didn't have more driving in it They went in expecting The Fast and the Furious and ended up with a Nicolas Winding Refn movie Someone even tried to sue for misleading marketing
Yeah, there are a lot of potential asterisks with this system. Average movie watchers' "reviews" don't always make sense and are rarely trying to be objective. If it's a slower paced movie, it's getting a lower review score even if it's an amazing film that's entertaining. If there's anything political in it at all, the score will be lower because of review bombing. If it has a black or female lead, the score will be lower because of review bombing. I've seen people give franchise movies 0s just because they have some outrage nitpick with how the movie was made or something the director said about the source material. Or just because they don't like the lead actor because of something they did unrelated to the movie.
Low audience high critic could also mean, "This isn't well crafted, but the movie is about the importance and meaning behind the craft/art of cinema and therefore the critics furiously masturbate to it."
I would categorize that as craft or aspects of the craft that critical love. What I posted is just a framework that helps me set my expectations.
this was insightful thank you
https://imgur.com/a/lq4uJWG
[удалено]
Critic score is basically up/down vote. It's the proportion of critics who gave the film a positive score. It's not the average rating given by critics.
Other way around, 9 critics with a 4/10 and 1 critic with a 6/10 is closer to 10% than 40%
Irony? The critic score is not "1-10". RT curators read and interpret reviews to determine if they are positive or negative. The audience score is the percentage of people who gave it a positive (3.5 star or higher) review.
[удалено]
Both the audience and critics are crammed full of complete morons, I don't know why anyone would really trust either of the scores beyond using them as an indicator for "this movie is complete crap" That being said, in my experience and I'm sure most others too, the audience score is far more likely to align with my own opinions about the movie after I've watched it.
audience score changed after a couple of years ago. now you need to be like a verified account or some crap. but “verified audience score” is completely different and way morw biased than the original audience score was
Exactly, “Verified audience score” is gonna get stuck at the same rating once the movie is no longer in theater and there’s no other way to prove you watched it other than having a ticket. It’s bullshit and not reliable whatsoever, cause hardcore fans of an IP will go watch it on day one and leave positive reviews regardless of quality to give it a positive head start, and even with more reviews coming in, the verified score will still remain higher than the “all audience score” and thus making it looks like “good audience score means it must be enjoyable to the audience.” This shit is what happened to the RoS, that shit fest has a 86% verified audience score.
Well the audience is a bunch of kids and their parents. My daughter is 3 and loved it. Very predictable, but great for kids. The rally song was dope.
Many Disney movies have suspiciously high audience scores.
Paw Patrol has 97 right now, and that reaffirms my stance that kids’ taste in movies is very different from mine.
Probably an over correction. Most audience movie reviews are always a 1/10 or a 10/10 because people don’t realize how to actually correctly rate things for some reason. So they saw that the movie had bad critic scores and thought it was better than that so they reviewed 10/10.
Rotten Tomatoes actually goes off of the percentage of people who said they liked the movie, rather than them giving it a score out of something and averaging that
I saw a series once that I thought was meh to ok, was shocked to see it had 100% from critics. Turns out it had received four 6.5/10s, which counted as 100% positive reviews. It's a good indicator on roughly what your experience will be, but obviously nothing will predict your level of enjoyment besides actually watching it.
Ye the problem is with many projects they're all just good. Production is easier than ever, amazing location shots are no longer tied to a helicopter, but a drone. So when something even has 100% well, RT never tells me jack shit. Like it takes a fair amount for me to dislike a movie or give it below a 5 if 5 is purely average.
Which also really highlights the importance of giving some sort of template for your reviewers and audience. To some people, 5/10 might mean "Average". Right down the middle. Other people equate it to school grades, in which 50% would be an abysmal failure, and something like 75%-80% might be more "average". Stars suffer from a similar flaw. 3 stars on a movie could mean it's pretty good, but not great. Others might equate it to a product review, where if you don't have 4 stars or higher, your product sucks and shouldn't be purchased. It's just hard to quantify how good a thing _actually_ is with a numerical rating in a way that people agree on.
Escapist Magazine used to have a rule about not giving out numbered scores, because it's impossible to reduce a complex opinion into a number. Then they started, because a lot of audiences just want (or the industry believes they want) a yay or nay. And like you say, with customers/industry considering anything less than an 8 to be flawed in some way, there's point inflation to the point that none of it means anything. Fire Emblem Three Houses is a game that I would equally give 8/10 and 10/10 (I loved everything about it and it did some interesting things with the story, but there's definite flaws), whereas I would give FE: Engage a 6/10 (a generally positive experience, even if there were areas with significant drawbacks), but if I did people would ask why I dislike it so much. YouTuber JelloApocalypse did some film ratings and his score system went like this, which if you're going to grade media, is how it should be: 1. A Garbage Movie. Don’t ever see 2. Slightly less terrible. Might have been one thing I liked. 3. Pretty much the same, but it doesn’t hurt to watch it 4. Mediocre 5. Average movie. It was fine. Feel like you could have done something better with your time. 6. Film you enjoyed but don’t have any interest in seeing it again 7. You enjoyed, would re-watch but not actively seeking it out. Most really good but have some note worthy flaws. 8. Solid entertaining movie. Maybe even great 9. An awesome movie. A movie you need a sequel for. 10. Everyone should go see it. It does something with its story or film making that every needs to see it. Not a perfect movie but is a must see for one reason or another.
I tend to think 5/10 or 6/10 is average but my family is always somewhat shocked when I give an average movie that score. They basically always give movies 7/10 or higher unless it was actually bad.
They do give an average, most people just don't use that.
"Wow this score should be lower, better rate it 1/10" "Damn this score should be higher, better rate it 10/10"
On metacritic I always go straight for the 4-7 score reviews, for people who don't kneejerk one way or the other. I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who gives it a 10 and writes the words "it's not perfect", or gives it a 1 and says "the music isn't bad"
Most people only rate stuff you have strong opinions on
>Most audience movie reviews are always a 1/10 or a 10/10 because people don’t realize how to actually correctly rate things for some reason. That's why I don't rate movies on any websites. It's either something I hated or really loved and I know my reviews won't help anyone and only mess the rating.
Please for the love of god stop treating rotten tomatoes and similar resources like they're even remotely accurate at actually gauging the quality of a film. If you're gong to use them for anything, use them as an estimate for the average opinion of a given film
Yeah everything I’ve heard about this movie is that it’s as mid as it gets. Nothing to write home about. Completely forgettable but if it’s on you can probably watch it and be somewhat entertained. It’s not unwatchable. And for that, it get a “fresh” from the reviewer. All it says is whether or not you would recommend watching it. Not if it was great or mediocre. This movie is a failure because this is Disney’s flagship animated film representing their 100 year anniversary. And it’s just “meh”. But “meh” is still going to be a thumbs up from most people.
The script needed a couple more drafts, the movie has serious pacing issues and dead ends. Ultimately it was just okay at best, a couple good songs and gags in there
>If you're gong to use them for anything, use them as an estimate for the average opinion of a given film This is literally what people use them for already though. It's their whole purpose.
A lot of people still treat 90% on RT as a 9/10 score on the film
> gauging the quality > average opinion I mean... how else are you gonna do it? That is literally how people gauge the quality of a film they haven't seen.
Dedicate your life to watching every movie
I"M GONNA GO SEE IT AND MAKE UP MY OWN MIND. HOW ABOUT THAT DUMBASS CRITICS!!!
As if the critics are desperately trying to make you not enjoy it
You broke the Matrix!
And you fell for Disneys trap. Again. Almost a decade of average movies, guarantee this one is “yeah it was ok”
Not really. The audience score could be high because only a few people went since they were the only ones interested.
That…still only reflects the quality of the movie, and not the marketing.
If only the people who don't mind watching turd, watched the turd, and leaving a glowingly good review, that's still a turd And considering the main audience is children, anything that isn't offensive for the parents is considered a good thing. Even if it's a turd
True, but if the quality of storytelling has been on the decline for years, it doesn't matter what the marketing campaign looks like. We all have an expectation of subpar content, thus less and less people are going to watch what they're putting out.
That still doesn’t reflect on the quality of this individual movie, maybe the movie industry in general. It doesn’t negate the validity of the 81% audience score.
Audience scores are skewed towards positive because people usually don't leave reviews for movies they didn't enjoy. The audience score is usually only low if there's a reason to really hate the movie. But also, 99% of professional critic reviews are just them saying meaningless words and trying to sound smart, so they're not a very good source either. Try to use your own intuition to determine if a movie is worth seeing.
The reverse of this is the reason I don't trust restaurant reviews. No one ever takes the time to praise a restaurant for being what they're billed as, but people will DEFINITELY leave a negative review for the most minor of inconveniences.
>but people will DEFINITELY leave a negative review for the most minor of inconveniences. look buddy, the chef taking off his pants and taking a shit in my fettucini alfredo with extra mushrooms and extra sauce while standing on the table in front of all his patrons is not minor. Some of the sauce even splashed onto my suit and ruined my jacket. Ugh, he's the one that's freaking out over something minor. Just because he caught me having sex with his dying married mom and then hooking up with his dad after doesn't mean he has the right to under salt my food. And for that reason, I left a negative review. You can't just under salt the food like that.
Very eloquently put. You have convinced me sir
You deserved it for asking for extra shit. Let the chef bring his vision to the table. If you didn't ask for extra mushrooms and extra sauce I'd be on board.
Slight disagreement. People LOVE giving bad reviews to movies they don't enjoy. But thanks to hyperspecialized marketing, people don't even know about movies unless the algorithm is sure relatively sure they'll like it.
I FUCKING LOVE MORBIUS!!!!!!! I WOULD DIE FOR MORBIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> people usually don't leave reviews for movies they didn't enjoy. Pretty sure it is the opposite.
I was gonna say, I don’t think that man has ever been online before people love to review bomb shit they’ve never seen and/or are mad at for some reason.
The biggest influencer of audience scores on RT in particular is whether the critics opinions match or contradict a given audience member's opinion. A person is far more likely to leave a review if the critics don't seem to agree with them, their audience review serving to "set the record straight". Meanwhile, people who see their views validated by the critics don't feel the need to say anything. That's why there is nearly always a difference in the critics and the audience scores; it has nothing to do with things like people's vs critic's tastes or critics being "out of touch" or whatever.
Well that’s just straight not accurate at all lmao. People love to review stuff they hate, they also love to review bomb stuff they’re mad at. Look at anything Star Wars, recent marvel stuff, anything with diversity or women.
This dude found words he didn't know in a review and now 99% of them are using nonsense words to sound smart
I saw it. It was a fun little movie and had a lot of nice nods to Disney's past. I know a lot of people didn't but I liked the animation style. My major criticisms are that the music was pretty forgettable, and that overall the movie felt very paint by numbers. It wasn't bad, but it was very very safe. It's not going to be anyone's favorite Disney movie, but it's not the garbage a lot of people are treating it is.
> it's not the garbage a lot of people are treating it is. But everything you listed sounds like complete garbage
I have a child who hasn't reached double digits yet. I'd watch this mediocre Disney film back to back all day long before some of the garbage they like if I could convince them to do so. They have this one movie about a dragon and an ice princess fighting a snowman and it makes me want to gouge my eyes out. That movie is garbage. This movie was just a bit lackluster.
Friend of mine knows the entire script of Cars 1 and 2 off by heart because it's basically the only thing their kid will watch without crying. They save Cars 3 for special occasions because they've seen it less than 10 times, so it still feels fresh. I was hanging out at theirs a few weeks ago, and they put on some kids shows that *were* pure garbage - just low budget and bright colours. Disney isn't always my cup of tea, but at least their stuff is generally enjoyable to look at compared to other kids content out there.
The difference between kid's TV shows and kid's films is that parents purchase the tickets to watch the film, so they're generally going to be at least a bit better. No parent really watches kid's TV with them though.
There are obvious exceptions to this. Anyway, parents should be watching/vetting the TV their kids are watching, though. Honestly it is not hard, kids are happy to watch the same show ad nauseum, so you don't have to review a huge amount of content.
Just told my mum about this comment. I also apparently subjected her to memorising the script of cars 1. Seems like a common occurrence.
LIFEE IS A HIGHWAYYYYY I WANNA RIDE IT ALL NIGHT LONG
Welcome to reddit, where everything needs to be Garbage or a Masterpiece, with no in-between
Hey buddy, how old are you? Do you think this movie is for you? It's a children's movie. For children. Everything they described sounds like a solid children's movies. Again, as they said, it's not gonna be anyone's favorite Disney feature, but maybe they aren't always going for the next cult classic? It's great that their movies are often good enough for us to love too, but it *is* ok for Disney to occasionally make kids movies for kids! That's like, their actual thing, remember.
I feel like it could have been a good movie they had it set up to be. The idea that the ruling class steals dreams from the working class and gets the veto dreams that would threaten them is such a ballsy idea for a Disney movie. Especially the part where her friend betrays her and turns into a fascist to get his wish. I was waiting for the wizard to blame the new immigrants for stealing the real citizens wishes. They don't stick the landing though. It was so close to being this generation's Animal Farm. Edit: I meant Animal Farm not 1984
Don't trust Rotten Tomatoes. It has numerous controversies surrounding manipulated scores.
that said, its really weird that the tomato meter is that low, disney would not be pleased.
I think using an aggregator site at all is a fruitless endeavor. You're either trusting the opinions of hundreds of critics who you likely don't know, or you're putting blind faith into an audience score that often skews overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative, since audiences don't tend to review movies unless they really love or really hate them. The real trick is to follow specific reviewers whose interests align with your own. If they love or hate a movie, and are able to explain their reasons why, you'll have a better gauge for whether or not you'll like the movie they're talking about.
How? They don’t do reviews, they’re just an aggregate. Unless they’re laying off numerous review sites that seems…ridiculous.
Didn't Rise of Skywalker get the same score?
Watch all the Disney haters who used to hate on critics and applaud the audience score, now turn around and say the critics are the ones to follow lol. I aint seen the movie so I have no opinion on it. Will probably watch it on Disney+ when it comes out.
I hate to say it, but Disney and Pixar films have been reliably trending downward since Lasseter was excused from his position. Starting with Toy Story 4, you can see chronologically each movie gradually slipping into mediocrity. Wish wasn’t a terrible movie, but go back and compare it to Tangled and Toy Story 3. Both of those movies came out in the same year and Lasseter was EP on both. The guy presided over the greatest run of animated films we’ve ever seen. There’s a strong argument to be made that he was a better chief creative than Walt in terms of movies. Today’s Disney/Pixar studios are a hollow shell of their former selves.
Shame he was a bit handsy with the staff, eh?
Quite the shame indeed.
You know disney is bad when DreamWorks is making better films than them. Honestly, Puss in Boots TLW was the best animated film I've seen in a very, very long time. Spiderverse is up there too and I appreciate the spiderverse animators so much for pushing the medium forward, but something about TLW was fantastic. Every character had a well thought out and completed arc. Animation was gorgeous. Villains were great. I seriously can't think of anything wrong with it. I guess my only complaint is the "just right" jokes, but that's it Now that spiderverse and puss in boots have shown that you can make bright, colorful, stylish animations with also a good story and characters, critic's are going to be much harsher in disney, and rightfully so.
It's very average, the music is super forgettable. The animation's kind of nice but it just feels like Disney dipping their toes into spider-verse's style.
If it’s a high critic score, it’s probably a good movie. If it’s a low critic score, it’s literally anyone’s guess
Almost every mainstream movie that comes out has a 70%+ audience score every single time, probably the worst possible metric to judge a film’s quality.
Remember when this sub wasn’t just boring opinion posts and mild takes?
Audience scores on rt are a joke, actually all scores on rt r jokes
Its also owned by Universal and Warner bros so it might be a bit biased sometimes.
>The percentage of users who made a verified movie ticket purchase rating this 3.5 stars or higher So 81% said "OK". Also there are top critics - 31%, and All audience - 72% That system is confusing
It’s a very generic and forgettable movie. I saw it over the weekend with some family members and pretty much you forget what happened in the movie the moment you step out of the theater. I wouldn’t say it’s horrible but just aggressively average
Ah yes because Rise of Skywalker is such a great film
[удалено]
It was kinda bland but more for the little kids that also enjoy frozen
I hope this is one of those ironic subs
I heard it is very forgettable and kind of uneventful. Haven't seen it myself.
How it usually works, if a critic finds a movie good, audience find a reason to hate it, if critics find a movie bad, audience find a way to like it.
Too many people act like of score actually matter. The whole score system isnt working but we keep using it because people dont want to read reviews from critic while the audience generally put a number and show extremely fast their bias by putting high rating when they enjoyed the movie and 0 just to follow the hates train. That why if I actually want to watch a movie I go see him by himself instead of following a group of people.
This sub has just devolved into rants and hot takes.
At this point, I just don't bother with reviews. Critics or audience. I'll like what I like, damn it.
I love how with the fnaf movie and Mario movie people raved on "the critics are wrong!! They don't know anything, don't listen to them!!" Then this movie comes out with low critic score and suddenly its "see? The critics don't like it!! Therefore it's bad!!"
I really enjoyed it and don't understand the low scores at all
When I see a lower critic score and a higher audience score it generally tells me the movie does nothing really interesting / is cliche driven kind of thing, but is not bad, but not great either.
I watched it with my niece. It’s plenty entertaining.
I don’t even think it is out yet in the UK i could be wrong tho cause my local cineworlds are all dogshit
Na it is, went out to Vue yesterday where it was on.
This is hilarious tbh. I avoid audience scores like the plague unless they’re in agreement with critics.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle, but the critics are almost always more correct. This is the opposite of what I look for. If you disagree, have you looked at the user reviews on these websites? Dunkey made a funny video on the topic.
Haven’t seen it, but at least it isn’t a remake. Wish it didn’t have the uninspired Kroger commercial animation like every other damn movie now of days.
Why are people treating this post seriously, when you're obviously making fun of the "Don't trust the critics" crowd
Shut my kid up for 90 minutes. 10/10 👍
Unfortunately Disney is dying. I wouldn't say that this movie is bad. It's just... Mediocre at best. Animation is not best (I mean Illumination has better). And one of worst disappointment was that: 1. Villain is not really a villain 2. Hero is not really a hero because she ends up doing literally the same 3. Songs are not holding up to Disney standards. What was the premice? That she does things better because she is female? So far I like Elementary much more.
But then you look at the audience score on IMDB and Metacritic and they are not so high so now I can't help but think why are they so high on Rotten Tomatoes but not on IMDB and Metacritic...but at the end of the day, the most important opinion is your own. It doesn't matter everyone else likes the movie or not, what really matters is do you like the movie or not
If a movie has this ratio for critics and audiences then it’s probably not a very good movie. Probably, they’re are exceptions I’m sure.