Upcoming
August 27
August 29
Disaster Movie
My Mexican Shivah
September 3
The Pool
September 5
August Evening
Bangkok Dangerous
Save Me
Reorder Your Thinking
The gist of Eric Lundegaard's 7.1 Slate piece (""Why We Need Movie Reviewers") is that critics are more in synch with moviegoer tastes than you might think. The key is to look at how critical favorites have done on a per-screen basis. If you look at things this way, the fog lifts and the blinders come off!
Going by Rotten Tomato ratings, Lundegaard notes that "while there were fewer 'fresh' films (i.e., pics that critics liked) that showed on fewer screens and took in less overall box office, they tended to make almost $1,000 more per screen than 'rotten' movies (i.e., pics critics didn't like). So, on a per-screen-basis, more people are following critics into theaters than not."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM
comment #1
EDouglas
says ...
Yeah, that's a load of crap. This is some of the most warped logic I've ever seen disguised as journalism. Maybe if they just took the wide releases, they'll find this is completely not the case. Of course, the small independent and foreign films and docs that open in two theaters will have great reviews and higher per-theater averages, because they ONLY PLAY IN TWO THEATERS. This writer should have taken just the wide releases and you can probably take them and immediately see that few of the ones that only a few that open over $20 million have fresh ratings.
Posted by EDouglas
at July 1, 2008 8:44 PM
comment #2
Midwest Doug
says ...
EDouglas is right. An interesting analysis would be to look at the proportion of the tail (anything after opening week) to the total gross of the film. Any relationship there to critics' ratings? I'd also be curious as to how the Rotten stuff splits out -- e.g. the performance of truly rotten vs. mildly rotten. But even then, is that evidence that critics matter? Or just the movie quality has an effect on grosses -- and do we need reviewers to communicate that quality? Or just some kind of social network?
Posted by Midwest Doug
at July 1, 2008 8:56 PM
comment #3
Midwest Doug
says ...
OK, I just read the piece. Lundegaard does later look at deciles of RT ratings. And basically seems to show that 40% is the magical cut-off -- above it, success, and below it, less success.
The whole subject is tricky. Lundegaard treats the number of screens as an exogenous variable -- but it seems that screen numbers are, in part, a function of perceived movie quality. Dang it, if my brain could work there could be a pretty neat statistical model there.
But the main issue still stands -- an association between RT ratings and per screen averages in no way means that RT ratings cause those per screen averages. Maybe good movies cause both good RT ratings and good per screen averages -- but even if RT ratings didn't exist, a good movie would still boost per screen averages.
Posted by Midwest Doug
at July 1, 2008 9:03 PM
comment #4
Richardson
says ...
The problem is, he's using this to justify "Film critics", but most of the stuff on 'Rotten Tomatoes' is on-line blogger crap which is included in order to boost the scores of popular movies so that it looks as if the critics (or, at least, the Rotten Tomatoes scores) are more in line with the viewing public than they would otherwise be likely to be.
Posted by Richardson
at July 2, 2008 10:22 AM
comment #5
Valerie Cherish
says ...
Why has AUNT SASSY been BANNED???
I miss her insightful comments on film, and her bitchy commentary. She added a refreshing viewpoint to this site.
FREE AUNT SASSY!!!
Posted by Valerie Cherish
at July 2, 2008 4:48 PM
comment #6
Jay T.
says ...
That's some fuzzy math right there.
Posted by Jay T.
at July 3, 2008 9:44 AM
comment #7
jenyamato
says ...
Richardson, as an editor at Rotten Tomatoes, I am offended. Yes, we accredit many online critics; no, they're not "included to boost the scores of popular movies" but to give readers a varied body of reviews to read.
Posted by jenyamato
at July 3, 2008 11:47 AM
Post a comment