Forum for Geeks

So, I'm looking at this weekend's numbers (box office, Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic) and wondering what people use as a guide when going to the movies. This weekend is a great example of the discrepancy between what the critics felt and what won at the box office. Many times, those two things coincide, but other times they are worlds apart.

Now, let's say these numbers were to determine what you would see next week (pretending of course you didn't already see Expendables or Scott Pilgrim). What is going to influence you more, box office take, or aggregate scores based on critics reviews?

And a secondary question. Based on the scores below, why do you think the movie with the highest score performed so poorly?

This weekend's estimated box office take:

The Expendables $35,030,000
Eat Pray Love $23,700,000
The Other Guys $18,000,000
Inception $11,370,000
Scott Pilgrim $10,500,000

Rotten Tomatoes:
42% The Expendables
80% Scott Pilgrim vs. the Wor...
38% Eat, Pray, Love

MetaCritic:

Scott Pilgrim- 68
Eat, Pray, Love- 51
Expendables- 45

I would say neither I will see a movie based on the trailer or a reccomendation from a a friend. I don't care how much money a movie made or what the critics think

Don't care about Box Office numbers. If I'm on the fence I do sometimes check out RT and Metacritic. My go-to review sites are chud.com and AICN. I have come to trust them.

Expendables and a Julia Roberts movie are critic proof; no one is going to The Expendables expecting an Oscar-quality flick and Julia has a cult following like Oprah.

I read reviews at CHUD, AICN and then browse the collected reviews at MetaCritic if I am on the fence. Some movies I will see no matter what the reviews say though. Like the Expendables.

Numbers are irrelevant. Show me a trailer that looks interesting and I'll go if it looks like something that is in my wheelhouse.

Depends on where you're coming from. If I had stock in Lionsgate, I'd call the Expendables a success, If I was on the board at Universal, I'd be fearing for my job right now. As a moviegoer, there was no chance of me seeing either Eat Pray Love or Scott Pilgrim, and wild horses wouldn't have kept me away from Expendables. Reviews are irrelevant as well, film taste is subjective. No amount of hair pulling or extolling the virtues of the latest Sly actioner is going to get someone to see it if its not their thing.

Never answered the original question about the highest critically rated movie doing the poorest in the BO. Simple fact is, I'm 30(So I guess I'm the supposed target audience for this?), and I think Scott Pilgrim looks absolutely stupid, and I loved Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. If your marketing isn't connecting with the people your trying to sell to, you're toast.

I also don't pay any attention to numbers. 9 times out of 10, when I go to see a movie it's within the first weekend of release and box office numbers aren't available. If I'm on the fence I'll see what the negative criticisms are. If it's a movie like the Expendables, then criticisms of plot holes and cheesy dialogue mean nothing. If it's a serious drama and the same criticism is handed out it would make me think twice.

That being said most of the time I make decisions based on the material itself, the cast and the crew.

I think perhaps this past weekend is a good example and bad example at the same time. Good because it illustrates the discrepancy between critical acclaim and box office take. Bad example because the films in question had their built in audiences from the go. People were going to see Expendables and Eat, Pray, Love no matter what.

I can't think of a better example, but I guess what I'm getting at is for the people that wait to see a film, what causes them to decide "I'll see it in its second week" vs. "I'll wait for DVD or cable"? At some point something veered people who were on the fence either towards or away from a film.

When a first run movie averages $10 a ticket(not counting a date, snacks, etc.), it needs to be a must see for people. If you're on the fence, you're going to wait for a cheaper option. Also most of the country of the age to run off and see any movie they want when they want have jobs, lives, etc. Movies aren't the only form of diversion in the world today. When a budget priced videogame can give you 30 hours of entertainment, that 10 bucks for 120 minutes starts to look like a bad deal. Also, look at who you're asking on this forum. We are not the average moviegoers. I'm a sucker for movies, love them, would spend all day in a theater if I could, but the few times I've hit up double features of first run flicks, the strain on your wallet is measurable. I'm not going to even get into the fact that piracy is an increasingly larger factor in terms of now you don't even have to chance your 10 bucks if your savvy and corrupt enough to steal a film.

Yea, show me a trailer and I'll tell you if I want to see it or not. Or if someone here says "hey check out ....." but I don't read reviews or look at numbers.

Just about every film I see is in the first week, so I pretty much have the trailer to go on. By the time box office numbers come out, I've already contributed. Every now and again, I'll look at the numbers on Rotten Tomatoes, but not if I'm watching it for the podcast or blog. I don't like being influenced as I set out to see the film.

I'm honestly surprised how many people have seen or want to see The Expendables. I know everyone has their own tastes, but you'd have to pay me a LOT of money to see that one.

But if it's your thing, it's your thing.

The number of dollars it takes to get in and the number of seats available in the theatre. Perhaps even the number of dollars necessary for concession food.