>Review embargoes for the film were lifted midday July 27,

>>94448088
If it was built for people under 18 then having a reasonable review embargo isn't going to hurt them. they made a completely shit movie, knew it, and wanted to hustle everyone into it.

Embargo policy is BS, critics always view the movie first with many days of anticipation, remember how Roger Ebert publish his review one day before the premiere?...Sorry for my english

>reviews are bullshit and scores mean nothing
>unless it supports my narrative
>/v/


https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_emoji_movie
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016
quality critics reviews

File: 1410677911901.gif (982KB, 390x259px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 390x259px

>>94448088
>(((Greenstein)))

I had hoped sony were turning over a new page, maybe they put too much money into this damn emoji movie that scrapping it would have looked bad.

>>94448088
Why would Rotten Tomatoes be a factor in the Emoji Movie's profit? It's a children's movie, and kids don't give a shit about RT.

>>94451483
>put too much money into this damn emoji movie

It was just $50 million, that's a third of what Moana cost. I'm sure they made a good bit of that back just with product placement.

>>94448088
What with this nation that Rotten Tomatoes is some powerful entity?

It's a website where shitheads post their opinions.

>>94451335
Need more eberts today to be honest, not these cucked "journalists"

File: 1355546879322.png (178KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 480x480px

>>94451561
>$50 million
Those are self reported figures, that anyone with an understanding of the movie business and current financial state of Sony Pictures would realize is severely and deliberately underestimated.

That's not even including the marketing budget, which is even higher than regular movies, since Sony was hoping to start a Minions style billion dollar franchise, and the key to making those movies big hit is media supersaturation at costs far excessive than the price of making the movie.

Sony Pictures is going to have to 'restructure' or file for bankruptcy, and people are going to point directly to the Emoji movie as the gamble that pushed them over the edge.

>>94451447
Admittedly both are pretty shitty films, one was harping on the nostalgia factor, the other on the contemporary trend.

>>94448088
It's amazing to me that Sony is so aware of how bad they are, but refuse to change.

This is more TV's thing but I imagine RT has a natural counter. If there's an embargo, they can put in BIG BOLD LETTERS that reviews will be delayed an unusual amount for the movie or something.

>>94453873
I thought hollywood budgets were routinely over inflated for tax reasons, and to screw people out of profit sharing.

>>94451504
Parents that have to sit through it care. Although if the brats beg and plead enough you might take them anyway.

>>94448088
>What other wide release with a score under 8 percent has opened north of $20 million? I don't think there is one
This pretty much encapsulates Sony's problem. It's a studio that is driven by its marketing department. They're proud of and probably prefer bad movies, so they can take credit for any piddling success.

This is the only explanation for the cancellation of Popeye and Medusa. I don't even particularly care to see either of those, but one is by the guy that directed Sony's biggest franchise, and the other is by a lady who authored the biggest cartoon reboot of the last decade. Deferring to experience and proven track records would be the obvious and sane thing to do.

>>94453873
>underestimated
Overestimated most likely. They scam investors and the IRS that way

>>94454658
>>94454065
>>94453873
It could easily go either way, both are believable. The question is, is Sony pictures in a state where they have to lie to the government, or lie to their investors? Is $50 mil generally enough to make a movie like this, coupled with the ad campaigns?

>>94454102

In particularly dire examples, reviews may even warn parents that not even kids will like it. "It's ponderously slow and boring," that sort of thing.

Not saying that's true in this case, but if I knew I'd sunk millions of dollars into an utter disaster, I'd err on the side of caution.

>>94448088
Didn't BvS did something similar?

>>94453873
Even putting all that aside, it's general rule of thumb that the movie needs to make double it's initial budget to be considered profitable just considering advertising costs alone for regular movies. So even if we put Emoji Movie up to the regular standard, it's still doing horribly

Not only has it not covered it's 50 million budget in two weeks, which should be easy really, it's not going to get to that 100 million. This is a failure on every conceivable level

>>94453873
Considering Sony will sell off it's animated movie division, how much would it cost and who would buy it?

>>94451483
>I had hoped sony were turning over a new page
Why?

>>94448088
Sony doing a review embargo is nothing new. They did it last year for Ghostbusters

I find it funny that RT is the scapegoat for this when it's bad reviews in general, not just RT, that the studios are worried about.

>>94455627

Who bought dreamworks recently?

>>94455674
RT is the most popular one.

These days, people advertise their movies with RT as part of them in commercials. Even some boxart will display a sticker saying "Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes"

Bad reviews don't stop people from watching movies.

If they did, movies like Fast and The Furious would have never gotten sequels. No one cares what some fuck who makes his or her living critiquing shit thinks anymore

>>94456428
X1 from Comcast even shows a movie's RT score when you're making selections on demand now.

Turns out a lot of movies I've enjoyed over the years had pretty bad scores

>>94451482
(((scary people dont share the same religion as me,have been historically forbidden to practice some jobs so massively went to jobs who accept them ,act fucking surprised when people who dont share the same religion as me are found in said job sector)))

>>94456567
>don't share the same religion

Most of us aren't religious, Cletus.

>>94452187
Because other shitheads listen to them you shithead. Couldn't have bothered waking up your other brain cell to figure that one out hmm?

>>94456693
Here's your reply.

>>94457543
>(banjo music playing)

GO BACK TO /TV/

FUCK THE JANITOR THIS IS BULLSHIT

>>94455165
Yeah but nobody will ever admit to it being a failure.

>>94454911
I've seen a lot of reviews with parents taking their kids to the movie in mind, with things like "if you have a very sensitive child, you should know there are some scary parts" or "if you don't like exposing your kids to X kind of humor, be warned there's a lot of it in this." I like to think that there are many responsible parents that do research and skim reviews first to decide if they really want to take their kids to see it, as opposed to shit parents that even ignore ratings and shit and then leave movies complaining their kids were traumatized.

Review embargo? Should have been a review boycot.

File: fedoraknow.jpg (25KB, 500x485px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x485px

>>94457735
It's funny because you're the only one using hillbilly-esque logic around here.

>>94455990
Comcast (I'm not kidding)

>>94455990
Comcast

Reminder sony pictures will continue to shit out garbage as long as Sony continues to win the console wars.


SONY WINS AGAIN BAYBEE

>>94451335
Poor Ebert, he loved movies...

>>94458189
Is this what me buying a PS4 for Bloodborne and Zodiac Age went towards?

>>94456693
>a quarter of the world is christian

>Another quarter is muslim

>The other quarter is made u of the other clusterfuck of beliefs

>Most of us aren't religious

Fedoras should kill themselves

>>94448088
What happens if someone breaks the embargo? Like, then what?

Somebody explain to me how review embargos work. How is it even fucking enforceable? Do they force everyone they invite to the movie to sign a contract telling them to keep their mouths shut? In which case, why even bother inviting critics to watch in the first place?

>>94459445
>cultist terrified that his fantasy world is shrinking

http://www.news.com.au/national/no-religion-tops-religion-question-in-census/news-story/a3b45e6b2e35df695932a83535078f51

>>94448088
Parenthesis were originally used to denote a fake name used by a Jewish guy like Jonah (((Hill))). There's no point using them around an actual Jewish sounding name.

>>94453873
Can one of you experts explain to me how this whole Hollywood accounting thing works and how underestimating budgets contribute?

Bah, let the whole damn studio burn. Amy Pascal is an idiot.

>>94459688

The basic thing to remember is that a movie needs to make at least twice its budget and marketing combined to be a hit. We just don't know how much they spent advertising this.

>>94459691

iirc she's opening her own studio or something

>>94459512
If you want to write a review of any piece of media or product before it's official release you have to receive an advance copy from the publisher/maker/distributor, before sending you an advance copy they make you sign their embargo. If you break the terms of an embargo you'll be blacklisted and never receive an advance copy again and that's the end of your reviewing career.

>>94459512
They sign NDA, yeah, and if they break embargo they won't get invited in early screenings in the future.
Not doing early screenings looks even worse than embargos.

>>94459722
Shut up Boco, that has nothing to do with my question.

>>94459759

I look forward to watching it fail.

>>94459512
>Do they force everyone they invite to the movie to sign a contract telling them to keep their mouths shut?
Pretty much yeah. And they invite critics because not doing that is a clear red flag. Invite critics, put them under embargo, and the waters are just murky enough for your piece of shit to flow down the river without anyone noticing till its in the water treatment plant
As for why the keep getting away with it, they can hold other movies hostage. You want to review literally anything Sony makes ever again? Sign on the dotted line, or forever be cast out. Most of the rags and sites critics work for can't afford a critic who is absolutely barred from entering a studio's previews

>>94459445
>only counts out three quarters

What's the fourth one?

>>94458724
I can only imagine the scathing review he'd give this movie.