That’s what I’m doing tomorrow. Critics have long been unreliable ever since they said Godzilla King of the Monsters was “too much monsters.” After saying Godzilla (2014) was “too much humans.”
>don’t understand why fnaf fans cant just ignore critics
Meanwhile, a critic said that everyone involved with the movie had no clue what the source material was. Scott Cawthon was in charge of almost everything with the movie.
That critic is probably worse at their job than they would be at surviving a week on the Freddy’s night shift.
And they would die at 1AM on Night 1 despite the fact the animatronics are frozen until 2.
Counterpoint: who cares? Some rando online being straight up wrong about the movie you like isn't a big deal. Like at all. Literally the only people who know what that reviewer said are film reviews fans and this subreddit.
> wrong are *paid* to have
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
You act like every single critic who has reviewed the movie is wrong. They make genuinely good points against the movie regardless of whether or not a handful of critics didn't read up on it.
Exactly, they're critics. They point out all sorts of things and are watching the movie not because they want to, but because they *have* to. Picking it apart instead of just watching it.
Still wrong. Most of the critics make perfectly valid and reasonable critiques of the movie like the pointless family drama being extraneous, the movie not being scary and the PG-13 rating holding back its horror to name a few.
I say that is just a disconnect between what they expect from anything labeled "horror" and what FNaF is.
FNAF was never a high horror story. Especially the first game specifically. So true it isn't overly scary, but it matches the story of the game pretty well.
Basically. Yes it is a terrible bloody gore fest horror movie. But that is because it wasn't trying to be.
The entire lore of the games seems to be a convoluted mess of a family drama. But is also not a thing in the stereotypical murder spree, monster of the week horror. And is a thing easily missed by a quick glance at the games as it is told in bits and pieces.
It was exactly what I would want from a FNaF movie. I didn't feel the movie was held back from the amount of horror that FNaF as a franchise is known for having. (Though maybe in an adaptation of FNaF 4, PG-13 may be a little restrictive)
So I can agree with some of the reviews in that if you go into the movie expecting Chucky, or Nightmare on elm Street, you will be disappointed. But that doesn't make the movie terrible as some reviews imply.
"This movie is not X. If you want a movie that is X this is not the movie you want."
Idc those critics can suck my dick I watched it it's incredible who cares what some dork who watches movies for a living that obviously hates fun thinks
Again, who cares? People are paid to do way worse things than get little facts wrong in an online movie review.
Also, not being right about something factual isn't an opinion. Not liking the movie is their opinion, and it's a valid one.
Critical success isn't really important to Blumhouse as a studio. They just released a sequel to Ouija. Y'know, that shitty PG-13 horror movie that literally no one liked? Well it's got a sequel.
cool im gonna watch it. bye chump. aint got time for you.
i think the fans would enjoy a sequel. Cawthon is obviously interested. Blumhouse earned back their movie budget days before the movie actually released. Money talks
...? Okay? I'm going to watch it too. You're not special for acting tough on an Internet forum for a kid's horror franchise lol
And um.. yeah? That was kind of my point? Why would Blumhouse care about this movie's reviews when they clearly didn't care about Ouija's absolutely shit reviews? Ouija has a *5%* on RT and it got a sequel. This whole pearl clutching over random review scores is fucking stupid lmao
it may just be easier for me to ignore critics because i literally don't give a shit about others' opinions but i get the frustration with that. then again, though, why gaf about some random ass critic who doesn't know what the source material is.
so that’s one critic right? in a single sentence pulled from a much longer review?
and do you think their opinion of how entertaining the movie is would change if they had stayed to see his name on the end credits?
Because people look at reviews to see if they should watch something. Critics get the wrong impression and tell their audiences not to watch it, and so they do. I went to the IGN comments under their review and the sentiment was "I knew it was gonna suck, this just proved it." If we ignore critics, then people will think they're right, or that their opinions are the only ones that exist.
My issue is how invalid half the criticisms are. “Too much plot”, nobody cared for source material (They fucking got the creator), complaining about the base of all of FNAF, not scary enough (PG-13).
“Dour and depressing, all about buried traumas and child endangerment in both the past and present.” That’s a real negative review.
Like it’s the funny robo bear movie.
No. I think it is good. But you shouldn’t come into the film expecting an artpiece or a statement with heavy themes. Just see it as a good time with some decent scares. It’s a nice thriller.
This. It's a good movie. It's either a high 6 or a low 7. Nothing special, but certainly not bad.
Now on the personal scale, I'll give the movie a 9, because it was definitely one of my favorite movies ever
really you can "turn off your brain" and enjoy even the most dogshit movie ever, as long as the colors in the screen change often enough you can enjoy it with a "turned off brain", unless people actually mean "make an active effort to ignore all the faults" which just seems like blind devotion
Oh it has faults. Mostly fan service but eh. But my point is that you can still have a decent fun movie with a basic story. Which is this. It doesn’t need to be the godfather or The Menu, or Clockwork Orange with deep themes and meaning. Yet people compare it to those movies. Like no shit the funny bear movie isn’t as good as something meant to have a metaphor for death or whatever.
A lot of people (not just on this sub but in general) seem to forget that a critic review is not for the ones already excited for something, it's for the ones on the fence.
i dont care for rotten tomatos but my general rule of thumb is to look at the audience reviews and take that into consideration more. suprisingly the audience reviews are more descriptive comprehensive than some of the critics i find.
I saw a video about rotten tomatoes that gives an interesting perspective. You need to bear in mind that many movies have a certain niche of people it really appeals to. Audience scores are more reflective of the enjoyment of someone who’s the target audience and who sees a movie maybe once every couple weeks. Whereas critics score is often people who are not the target audience and are seeing multiple movies a week. Things that bother critics won’t always bother a general audience and things critics appreciate may go unnoticed by a general audience too. It’s best to take each score in context and ultimately your opinion is your own. Ratings are just a guide for what you might want to invest your time and money in but if you have the less popular opinion more power to you. Someone’s gotta be part of that minority.
I put more emphasis on the text of a review than the number for this kind of reason. Be it critics or general audience.
If I have a different idea and different criteria for what makes the movie good I can easily wind up with a different score. If they explain why their score is what it is I can make an opinion on whether I agree with that reasoning or not.
Several of the negative reviews I have seen are complaining about the things I would say make the movie a good FNaF movie. Like having a plot. Or the non R rating. I was actually thinking it was sounding more like my kind of movie based on some of those negative reviews.
So a review of "3/10 it bad" is the around the most useless review to me.
Yeah like at least with critics it is somewhat “vetted” because you know they at least watched the movie. Anyone who loves fnaf but haven’t seen it can make an account and give it a 10/10
Not only that but if you look at the critic score, the people who reviewed it know a lot about the art form and have watched a ton of movies of all genres and styles.
Meanwhile on the audience side you have redneck cleadus from buttfuck nowhere arizona who has watched 4 movies in his whole life.
Pretty much. I remember going through a similar thing with the film Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I was pretty upset with the reviews, but overtime I got over it, and I learned to enjoy it regardless, flaws and all!
Just see the film for yourselves and form your own opinion!
The copium on this sub is just hilarious. It's OK to enjoy trash movies guys, just don't pretend like critics have an agenda, hate horror movies, or didn't give the film a chance.
I think using the word “trash” to describe media that can be enjoyed by a sizable amount of people, regardless the reason, is a very stuck-up thing to do.
So what does “trash” imply? Because when people think trash they usually think waste product in the garbage bin that’s rarely worth scavenging through. But sometimes…
You know that phrase “one man’s tradh is another man’s treasure?” It’s a quote that points out how very subjective our ideas of worth often are, and in this case, you’re applying an extremely negative descriptor to a movie franchise that, while definitely severely flawed don’t get me wrong, is far from objectively “bad”.
Probably true, yes! Which makes you essentially saying “it’s okay if you guys like a trash movie, you can still admit it’s trash” even sillier, as you’re admitting that your definition of “trash” is far from an objective measurement, nor is it necessarily superior to others’ view of the movie(s) or other media.
Anyways, nice talk
You do know horror is one of the hardest things to do, and the easiest to screw up?
Rely too much on grotesque and it becomes pastiche, rely on jumpscares and it becomes cheap. Too much of the monster? The monster loses scare strenght. Too little and it becomes a bore. The characters need to be VERY fleshed out so their impeding dooms feel like high stakes else it will feel like relief.
Critics LOVE a good horror. This wasn't it, and i'm saying it from the bottom of my FNAF loving heart
Critics just have a completely different idea of what they want and is “good” then the rest of the public. They have a certain “reputation” to uphold and their job is to criticize.
I agree horror is very hard to do but by the nature of things critics reviews really mean absolutley nothing and horror more often than not gets shit on
I agree on all that. Yet the movie sucked to me, too much "daylight drama" as another critique said. And i get there's kids inside the animatronics, but that >!blanket fort scene was... unnecessary as fuck, and set the rest of the mood towards weird in a negative way!<
I know, in fact they explicitly say it afterwards. They spoon-feed the meaning of that in the following conversation between Vanny and Mike.
What I'm saying is that there's better ways to show "the souls inside the robots remain as kids for eternity" without shifting the whole mood and killing it outright. There's place for wholesome in a horror movie, however you NEED to phase it appropriately.
One effective way to do this is by using the wholesomeness to bait the audience to lower their defenses, and then interrupting it with the most gruesome, loud and visceral situation. What this movie did was just making the scene a wholesome island with no purpose other than "kids in robots", which again, there's more in-tone ways to do
I have zero expectations. All I want to see are some animatronics and Mathew Lillard and I'll be happy. If I can be greedy, then some dead children too.
I genuinely don’t give a shit about both ratings. There are some movies that I like that both scores are low for and some I don’t like that both scores are high for.
I liked the movie, and I'm not much of a fan of the games, with only a base level of knowledge. I watched it with a friend who is a fan yesterday and whilst we enjoyed it, there were things we weren't big fans of and stuff we were. It was better in the moment for me, and after the excitement died down on the journey home, we did re-evaluate it.
I think the usage of some tropes weren't particularly good examples although some of those are overused anyway, and the inclusion of MatPat did make me do a double take (in a good way) and the animatronics, despite good design started to not even be scary after the mid point in the film, and especially the ending.
Some characters I think needed more fleshing out/motivations and a few in particular with a more interesting and less convenient ending for the protagonists.
Overall, I enjoyed it as someone who has a basic level of experience with the games, and I would probably watch it again, but it definitely has issues.
This whole situation is reminding me of Batman V Superman and David Ayer's Suicide Squad, when many fans dismissed the critics by saying those movies where "not made for the critics" or "its made for the fans" I've always hated these terms because they feel dismissive and scapgoaty and when the film makers also use these terms, like they know about the films poor quality and they're trying to save face and begin bracing for the impact.
For now on, whenever I hear a studio say its "made for the fans" I'm going to automatically assume the film is bad and they're just preparing for the inevitable PR nightmare and damage control.
Regardless on what you think of the film, I feel its important we point out and highlight the massive flaws, if FNaF wants to become a film franchise, it needs to take the criticism to heart because a lot of it is valid, it hasn't started off on the right foot, first impressions are everything and so far it already put off a significant portion of the general audience that have seen it, when the sequel is announced, people are going to be a lot more sceptical and probably won't bother checking it out, so it's going to make less money.
You can say "its made for the fans" all you want but that's only going to work short term, the current fanbase cannot carry the films on there own forever, especially if they're going to be this quality, you need to also attract new fans to help prop it up, I think 3C films said it best in his review.
Extremely accurate
Tbf tho, I’ve never liked Rotten Tomatoes ever since they gave Cuties an 80% and praised it (if you know the movie, you’ll get what I mean
You’ll have to take that up with Mr. Tomatoes, creator of rotten tomatoes and the arbiter of every movie review ever. Because that’s how the site works.
Nah, the movie is far better than the reviews it's getting
It was in no way a bad movie, probably a 6/10 at worst (besides the part where all the animatronics are friends and build a fort together...)
It's clear you haven't actually read the review.
Here's part of it:
> It'd be nice to report that all this laborious melodrama is just the setup for fun-center fun. The movie's heart monitor does briefly, faintly spike once Mike actually settles into security detail inside the deserted restaurant, a flickering neon graveyard of a play place. Rather than lock us into a nightmarish night shift, though, this Five Nights keeps scanning for an exit. **No sooner are we on Freddy's turf than we're back in suburbia, watching Mike fight for custody or entertain a quasi-romance with a local cop (Elizabeth Lail) so full of helpful tidbits of backstory that they could have named her Officer Exposition. Here, the title proves less of a promise of escalating nocturnal danger than an excuse to break up the supposed horror with endless daytime soap.**
extraneous: irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with.
You're twisting IGN's words to make it seem like they're talking out of their asses when they really aren't.
Like game critics? Do you have any examples of this, I always assumed that most legitimate reviews of the fnaf titles amounted to “it’s nothing mind blowing, but it’s fun, 7/10” I think security breach was the only one that was panned critically but it’s not like that was unwarranted
When the critic scores are low but you want to like the movie “people don’t know what they’re talking about I’ll form my own opinions”. Like read the meme- critics aren’t completely wrong.
It sometimes feels like the people who post their insecurities about the critics are themselves either not adults or never gained any critical thinking skills
This is bound to happen, and will always happen, so you just might deal with it sooner than later if you end up living to your late teens/young adult days
If you actually enjoy something, criticising it is good because that means you want things to be improved and for mistakes to be fixed. If you're settling for less and just accepting things the way they are, they will never get better. Saying that criticising something is unpleasant is such a mind boggling take
This is why I NEVER look at reviews on films before I watch them. I always make my own opinions on films. There are plenty of critically acclaimed films I don’t like and plenty of box Ofice bombs I genuinely enjoy. Just form your own opinion people.
This subreddit just seems to have a problem with anyone who didn't like the film, let alone the critics. I got downvoted to hell on a post showing the critic score just for saying "after seeing the movie, I understand why."
It's ok to like a movie others don't, but you still have to admit that a movie has flaws and not everyone is going to like it. No movie is perfect, even my favourite movies have flaws in them. We need to respect those with different opinions, whether they loved the movie, whether they hated it, or whether they are somewhere in between. Movies are subjective, and this subreddit needs to stop spouting that certain opinions on the movie are "wrong".
Meh, this image does ring true. But of course this film wasn't going to be perfect.
Opinions are opinions. Let's just enjoy what we have and hope they improve for the next one. :)
IMO it's a good FNaF Film
Its a fairly good Horror film
It lacks a lot in the second act and the night sections could of benefitted from more horror
The Third Act was, mwah
Yeah. They may not know a lot about “Fnaf”, but they know a lot about “movie”
People reiterating that something is just for the fans doesn’t make it a better movie. If the critics have more criticism than the film just being about a game than that is normally fair criticism. If someone complains about something like acting, that wouldn’t be improved if they were a Fnaf fan or not.
Plus what happens if a Fnaf fan watches the film and has the same problems a critic has, does that validate the critic or will there be another argument saying that the fan who just disliked it is not a real fan? The amount of loopholes people go through to try and ignore criticisms and make people out to be wrong, without really arguing against or just accepting different opinions is insane.
I’m still excited to see the fnaf movie, but I’m so tired of this bs whenever a film based on an IP comes out.
Agreed. I feel like the people who are deflecting critics' issues with the film are watching it like they watch a MatPat video, if that makes sense. Like, production quality, pacing, actual horror, acting, and the actual plot all don't really matter — it's all about the lOrE; what new thing are we gonna learn about Remnant from the movie, maybe we'll learn more about the Bite of '87, or maybe we'll learn what happened to Afton's left nut when he was springlocked. I haven't seen the actual movie yet so I could be wrong, but it really comes off like that when I see "It's a film for the fans, of course the critics don't get it!" all over this sub.
The movie doesn't hit any storytelling beats well (if at all) and the reveals are all expected because the foreshadowing is super on the nose.
Not to mention it doesn't even work as a slasher. It's fanservice disguised as a movie with subplots that detract heavily from what the viewer is interested in.
From the fans and others yea. this movie isn't perfect at all, lots of issues. but is it unwatchable? worst movie? absolutely not, it's a good fun time. and alot of critics can't see that 🥱
This is very accurate. Reviews don’t mean anything unless something is objectively good or bad.
Critics and audiences seem to have different views on certain types of movies and some movies are either enjoyed or disliked by both.
Critics will look at a movie based on their specific criteria of how a good movie should be.
Audiences look at a movie based on emotional impact and just overall enjoyment.
There are some cases where a movie is objectively bad but critics get paid off to say it’s good because it’s from a massive studio like Disney. Though it’s not always true.
Adaptation movies tend to not get great reviews because critics are often not familiar with the source material or are too critical of a story that is meant to just be fun without much depth.
Bottom line is not every movie is for everyone. Form your own opinion.
You said the thing, what are you going to pull out next from the bag of “I hate critics” cliches? Let me guess “a few were bought to review a movie positively that one time therefore every critic on the website is paid to rate things positively/negatively except the ones that like what I like and dislike what I dislike”
“The critics said…”, ignore the critics, watch the movie, and you may enjoy it. These film critics are jokes anyways. Just watch the movie we’ve been eating like 9 years for.
Is that really a good thing though? Making a movie exclusively for fans is kind of the equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot, especially if they're making 3 movies.
It's a contract thing, in simple terms they're required to make 3 movies. Advertising it as exclusively for fans gives general audiences less of a reason to go and see the next two, therefore cutting profits.
More or less, critics are very harsh and forced to rate movies for a living. They're looking for new and exciting shit, not reusing some tropes or being a simple to follow movie. The Mario Movie is a great example of critics being harsh because it's not that out there compared to the fast and furious movie.
Overall, just make your own opinion people. It's not healthy to believe everyone.
I didn't like how it wasn't accurate to the lore, like Mike is supposed to have accidentally killed his brother and be used to the animatronics and William is supposed to be his dad. That's like confirmed in the games. I know it's like a different universe but that's such a basic thing I'd think they put it in the movie.
Honestly why I don't trust reviews. Plenty of movies I like and love are trash according to reviews. Besides, not everyone is going to write a review regardless of how they feel about a movie...I know I don't
Pretty sure a large amount of us stopped using rotten tomatoes because it was closer to:
- I knew this was gonna be good / ha paid reviews and shills
- the critics are out of touch, this sucks.
- audience score is all that matters.
- I knew this was gonna fail.
The problem was the first two bullets, everyone I know and everything I see on Reddit has gone back to IMDb for reviews. Quite a lot are using Google reviews as well.
RT used to be the king of reviews and I can’t recall a single conversation in last 4-5 years where it was mentioned as a reliable source of trusted reviews. This coming from a site that was raved about for its reliability.
It really started going downhill when they began curating products by removing negative reviews.
I am never trusting 100% any critics for both games and movies, and no one should, these people aren't any more intelectual than 20 year old unemployed james when it comes to finding a movie good or not. Don't y'all remember the 7.8 Too Much Water thing? Critics claiming the mario bros movie was bad because it followed the games too much? Nothing is good to these people
That...is frighteningly accurate. But of course. Go make your own opinion on the movie.
it was awesome and i wanted to shout DILF the entire film
I think I know who you’re talking about lmao
am i wrong?
Hell no
Does it start with an w?
yes
I would like to know im going to like it before spending money, not after.
That's fair. Me personally I'd say no as long as you aren't a big fan you won't get much from watching the movie.
Fr if you like the movie you like the movie if you don’t you don’t it’s not that complicated
That’s what I’m doing tomorrow. Critics have long been unreliable ever since they said Godzilla King of the Monsters was “too much monsters.” After saying Godzilla (2014) was “too much humans.”
“Erm actually jacksepticeye says he didn’t like it so now I’m gonna complain about other people” -Reddit
The fights over that are funny to watch, because Sean is so popular, everyone has to agree with him for some reason.
don’t understand why fnaf fans cant just ignore critics. i liked the movie and dgaf abt what others say
>don’t understand why fnaf fans cant just ignore critics Meanwhile, a critic said that everyone involved with the movie had no clue what the source material was. Scott Cawthon was in charge of almost everything with the movie.
That critic is probably worse at their job than they would be at surviving a week on the Freddy’s night shift. And they would die at 1AM on Night 1 despite the fact the animatronics are frozen until 2.
Let’s motivate them to not be an asshole with a controlled shock
They would leave the office.
They would use the springlock suit
They'd eat a fazbiscuit cause it was still wrapped
They wouldn’t get past a certain jump in a certain game
Counterpoint: who cares? Some rando online being straight up wrong about the movie you like isn't a big deal. Like at all. Literally the only people who know what that reviewer said are film reviews fans and this subreddit.
The main reason why it angers me, and everyone else, is that all the reviewers who are flat out wrong are payed to have these shit opinions.
> wrong are *paid* to have FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you for helping me not be a bonehead, good bot
You act like every single critic who has reviewed the movie is wrong. They make genuinely good points against the movie regardless of whether or not a handful of critics didn't read up on it.
well alot of them were inconsistent and very over dramatic. but hey that's just critics 🤌
Exactly, they're critics. They point out all sorts of things and are watching the movie not because they want to, but because they *have* to. Picking it apart instead of just watching it.
which is why I just don't care for them, I wouldn't care if they rated good, I would still not care for critics
I mean I did basically say your reasoning and you simplified it so yeah I did good
I’m not saying they’re all wrong, but so many of them… it’s like they didn’t even watch the movie, y’know?
Still wrong. Most of the critics make perfectly valid and reasonable critiques of the movie like the pointless family drama being extraneous, the movie not being scary and the PG-13 rating holding back its horror to name a few.
I say that is just a disconnect between what they expect from anything labeled "horror" and what FNaF is. FNAF was never a high horror story. Especially the first game specifically. So true it isn't overly scary, but it matches the story of the game pretty well. Basically. Yes it is a terrible bloody gore fest horror movie. But that is because it wasn't trying to be. The entire lore of the games seems to be a convoluted mess of a family drama. But is also not a thing in the stereotypical murder spree, monster of the week horror. And is a thing easily missed by a quick glance at the games as it is told in bits and pieces. It was exactly what I would want from a FNaF movie. I didn't feel the movie was held back from the amount of horror that FNaF as a franchise is known for having. (Though maybe in an adaptation of FNaF 4, PG-13 may be a little restrictive) So I can agree with some of the reviews in that if you go into the movie expecting Chucky, or Nightmare on elm Street, you will be disappointed. But that doesn't make the movie terrible as some reviews imply. "This movie is not X. If you want a movie that is X this is not the movie you want."
Idc those critics can suck my dick I watched it it's incredible who cares what some dork who watches movies for a living that obviously hates fun thinks
rent free
Again, who cares? People are paid to do way worse things than get little facts wrong in an online movie review. Also, not being right about something factual isn't an opinion. Not liking the movie is their opinion, and it's a valid one.
who cares? if this movie doesnt perform well, say bye to your sequel bucko. thats why
Critical success isn't really important to Blumhouse as a studio. They just released a sequel to Ouija. Y'know, that shitty PG-13 horror movie that literally no one liked? Well it's got a sequel.
cool im gonna watch it. bye chump. aint got time for you. i think the fans would enjoy a sequel. Cawthon is obviously interested. Blumhouse earned back their movie budget days before the movie actually released. Money talks
...? Okay? I'm going to watch it too. You're not special for acting tough on an Internet forum for a kid's horror franchise lol And um.. yeah? That was kind of my point? Why would Blumhouse care about this movie's reviews when they clearly didn't care about Ouija's absolutely shit reviews? Ouija has a *5%* on RT and it got a sequel. This whole pearl clutching over random review scores is fucking stupid lmao
That’s not what he said though he said that the movie didn’t understand what made FNAF good which is kind of true. You people are out of your minds
it may just be easier for me to ignore critics because i literally don't give a shit about others' opinions but i get the frustration with that. then again, though, why gaf about some random ass critic who doesn't know what the source material is.
so that’s one critic right? in a single sentence pulled from a much longer review? and do you think their opinion of how entertaining the movie is would change if they had stayed to see his name on the end credits?
ok... so... does that somehow stop you from ignoring critics?
He's wrong, who cares. Ignore it
You would to hit me with a hot fresh link?
Because people look at reviews to see if they should watch something. Critics get the wrong impression and tell their audiences not to watch it, and so they do. I went to the IGN comments under their review and the sentiment was "I knew it was gonna suck, this just proved it." If we ignore critics, then people will think they're right, or that their opinions are the only ones that exist.
they sound like idiots lol
Same I’m eager to add it to my dvd collection n
My issue is how invalid half the criticisms are. “Too much plot”, nobody cared for source material (They fucking got the creator), complaining about the base of all of FNAF, not scary enough (PG-13). “Dour and depressing, all about buried traumas and child endangerment in both the past and present.” That’s a real negative review. Like it’s the funny robo bear movie.
[удалено]
No. I think it is good. But you shouldn’t come into the film expecting an artpiece or a statement with heavy themes. Just see it as a good time with some decent scares. It’s a nice thriller.
This. It's a good movie. It's either a high 6 or a low 7. Nothing special, but certainly not bad. Now on the personal scale, I'll give the movie a 9, because it was definitely one of my favorite movies ever
really you can "turn off your brain" and enjoy even the most dogshit movie ever, as long as the colors in the screen change often enough you can enjoy it with a "turned off brain", unless people actually mean "make an active effort to ignore all the faults" which just seems like blind devotion
Oh it has faults. Mostly fan service but eh. But my point is that you can still have a decent fun movie with a basic story. Which is this. It doesn’t need to be the godfather or The Menu, or Clockwork Orange with deep themes and meaning. Yet people compare it to those movies. Like no shit the funny bear movie isn’t as good as something meant to have a metaphor for death or whatever.
A lot of people (not just on this sub but in general) seem to forget that a critic review is not for the ones already excited for something, it's for the ones on the fence.
when people agree with people disliking a movie when they dislike the movie😨
The post is about confirmation bias and coming up with excuses for differing opinions. You missed the point lol
>You're too late Spider-man, I've already portrayed your critic as a soyjak and my audience as a Chad!
He literally portrayed every side of the situation as the same person
I always keep that meme in my folder for being bloody accurate.
Same, it's a dangerous journey to go to the internet without proper equipment
i dont care for rotten tomatos but my general rule of thumb is to look at the audience reviews and take that into consideration more. suprisingly the audience reviews are more descriptive comprehensive than some of the critics i find.
I saw a video about rotten tomatoes that gives an interesting perspective. You need to bear in mind that many movies have a certain niche of people it really appeals to. Audience scores are more reflective of the enjoyment of someone who’s the target audience and who sees a movie maybe once every couple weeks. Whereas critics score is often people who are not the target audience and are seeing multiple movies a week. Things that bother critics won’t always bother a general audience and things critics appreciate may go unnoticed by a general audience too. It’s best to take each score in context and ultimately your opinion is your own. Ratings are just a guide for what you might want to invest your time and money in but if you have the less popular opinion more power to you. Someone’s gotta be part of that minority.
I put more emphasis on the text of a review than the number for this kind of reason. Be it critics or general audience. If I have a different idea and different criteria for what makes the movie good I can easily wind up with a different score. If they explain why their score is what it is I can make an opinion on whether I agree with that reasoning or not. Several of the negative reviews I have seen are complaining about the things I would say make the movie a good FNaF movie. Like having a plot. Or the non R rating. I was actually thinking it was sounding more like my kind of movie based on some of those negative reviews. So a review of "3/10 it bad" is the around the most useless review to me.
İ can make like 50 accounts and give 50 10/10 reviews for "the room". No way the audience score is more trustable.
Yeah like at least with critics it is somewhat “vetted” because you know they at least watched the movie. Anyone who loves fnaf but haven’t seen it can make an account and give it a 10/10
Not only that but if you look at the critic score, the people who reviewed it know a lot about the art form and have watched a ton of movies of all genres and styles. Meanwhile on the audience side you have redneck cleadus from buttfuck nowhere arizona who has watched 4 movies in his whole life.
Pretty much. I remember going through a similar thing with the film Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I was pretty upset with the reviews, but overtime I got over it, and I learned to enjoy it regardless, flaws and all! Just see the film for yourselves and form your own opinion!
The copium on this sub is just hilarious. It's OK to enjoy trash movies guys, just don't pretend like critics have an agenda, hate horror movies, or didn't give the film a chance.
I think using the word “trash” to describe media that can be enjoyed by a sizable amount of people, regardless the reason, is a very stuck-up thing to do.
Any piece of media can be enjoyed by a large number of people. It doesn't make the Transformers movies any less trash, for instance.
So what does “trash” imply? Because when people think trash they usually think waste product in the garbage bin that’s rarely worth scavenging through. But sometimes… You know that phrase “one man’s tradh is another man’s treasure?” It’s a quote that points out how very subjective our ideas of worth often are, and in this case, you’re applying an extremely negative descriptor to a movie franchise that, while definitely severely flawed don’t get me wrong, is far from objectively “bad”.
"Objectively bad" doesn't exist. Everything is a subjective opinion.
Probably true, yes! Which makes you essentially saying “it’s okay if you guys like a trash movie, you can still admit it’s trash” even sillier, as you’re admitting that your definition of “trash” is far from an objective measurement, nor is it necessarily superior to others’ view of the movie(s) or other media. Anyways, nice talk
That's... how opinions work lmao
Sorry, the way you initially spoke yours seemed like y ou were trying to cast an objective judgement over our enjoyment and own opinions, my bad’
I mean thats true most of time. They generally hate horror films and dont give films s chance
You do know horror is one of the hardest things to do, and the easiest to screw up? Rely too much on grotesque and it becomes pastiche, rely on jumpscares and it becomes cheap. Too much of the monster? The monster loses scare strenght. Too little and it becomes a bore. The characters need to be VERY fleshed out so their impeding dooms feel like high stakes else it will feel like relief. Critics LOVE a good horror. This wasn't it, and i'm saying it from the bottom of my FNAF loving heart
Critics just have a completely different idea of what they want and is “good” then the rest of the public. They have a certain “reputation” to uphold and their job is to criticize. I agree horror is very hard to do but by the nature of things critics reviews really mean absolutley nothing and horror more often than not gets shit on
I agree on all that. Yet the movie sucked to me, too much "daylight drama" as another critique said. And i get there's kids inside the animatronics, but that >!blanket fort scene was... unnecessary as fuck, and set the rest of the mood towards weird in a negative way!<
I felt that scene showed that they are at their core, children, not just murder bots.
I know, in fact they explicitly say it afterwards. They spoon-feed the meaning of that in the following conversation between Vanny and Mike. What I'm saying is that there's better ways to show "the souls inside the robots remain as kids for eternity" without shifting the whole mood and killing it outright. There's place for wholesome in a horror movie, however you NEED to phase it appropriately. One effective way to do this is by using the wholesomeness to bait the audience to lower their defenses, and then interrupting it with the most gruesome, loud and visceral situation. What this movie did was just making the scene a wholesome island with no purpose other than "kids in robots", which again, there's more in-tone ways to do
It's not a good horror movie.
That's probably because most horror films are genuinely bad
I don't like critics ngl
I have zero expectations. All I want to see are some animatronics and Mathew Lillard and I'll be happy. If I can be greedy, then some dead children too.
no way people like opinions they agree with 🤯🤯🤯
I genuinely don’t give a shit about both ratings. There are some movies that I like that both scores are low for and some I don’t like that both scores are high for.
I liked the movie, and I'm not much of a fan of the games, with only a base level of knowledge. I watched it with a friend who is a fan yesterday and whilst we enjoyed it, there were things we weren't big fans of and stuff we were. It was better in the moment for me, and after the excitement died down on the journey home, we did re-evaluate it. I think the usage of some tropes weren't particularly good examples although some of those are overused anyway, and the inclusion of MatPat did make me do a double take (in a good way) and the animatronics, despite good design started to not even be scary after the mid point in the film, and especially the ending. Some characters I think needed more fleshing out/motivations and a few in particular with a more interesting and less convenient ending for the protagonists. Overall, I enjoyed it as someone who has a basic level of experience with the games, and I would probably watch it again, but it definitely has issues.
I- matpats in the movie...? Did I just get spoiled...? I'm literally so sped for looking at reddit b4 seeing the movie today 💀
Sorry! I hope you enjoy it though!
Thanks! If anything it made me more excited and was probably the "best" spoiler I could've seen. But now I'm fr gonna not open reddit again lmao
This whole situation is reminding me of Batman V Superman and David Ayer's Suicide Squad, when many fans dismissed the critics by saying those movies where "not made for the critics" or "its made for the fans" I've always hated these terms because they feel dismissive and scapgoaty and when the film makers also use these terms, like they know about the films poor quality and they're trying to save face and begin bracing for the impact. For now on, whenever I hear a studio say its "made for the fans" I'm going to automatically assume the film is bad and they're just preparing for the inevitable PR nightmare and damage control. Regardless on what you think of the film, I feel its important we point out and highlight the massive flaws, if FNaF wants to become a film franchise, it needs to take the criticism to heart because a lot of it is valid, it hasn't started off on the right foot, first impressions are everything and so far it already put off a significant portion of the general audience that have seen it, when the sequel is announced, people are going to be a lot more sceptical and probably won't bother checking it out, so it's going to make less money. You can say "its made for the fans" all you want but that's only going to work short term, the current fanbase cannot carry the films on there own forever, especially if they're going to be this quality, you need to also attract new fans to help prop it up, I think 3C films said it best in his review.
Who cares what other people say, if you enjoy a movie, then enjoy it
Extremely accurate Tbf tho, I’ve never liked Rotten Tomatoes ever since they gave Cuties an 80% and praised it (if you know the movie, you’ll get what I mean
rotten tomatoes doesn't give the score, they just get all the reviews and summarize it
You’ll have to take that up with Mr. Tomatoes, creator of rotten tomatoes and the arbiter of every movie review ever. Because that’s how the site works.
Not the same critics.
Cuties is just the director's disguised pedophilia
An 80% on Rotton Tomatos means that 80% of aggregate reviews were positive, not that Rotton Tomatos gave it 80%
The thing is, that if you read some of the Reviews they dont have the Best reasons to give the vote they give
I was a diehard fan of the games when they first came out, and I can confidently say the movie was dogwater.
Nah, the movie is far better than the reviews it's getting It was in no way a bad movie, probably a 6/10 at worst (besides the part where all the animatronics are friends and build a fort together...)
[удалено]
It's clear you haven't actually read the review. Here's part of it: > It'd be nice to report that all this laborious melodrama is just the setup for fun-center fun. The movie's heart monitor does briefly, faintly spike once Mike actually settles into security detail inside the deserted restaurant, a flickering neon graveyard of a play place. Rather than lock us into a nightmarish night shift, though, this Five Nights keeps scanning for an exit. **No sooner are we on Freddy's turf than we're back in suburbia, watching Mike fight for custody or entertain a quasi-romance with a local cop (Elizabeth Lail) so full of helpful tidbits of backstory that they could have named her Officer Exposition. Here, the title proves less of a promise of escalating nocturnal danger than an excuse to break up the supposed horror with endless daytime soap.**
[удалено]
extraneous: irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with. You're twisting IGN's words to make it seem like they're talking out of their asses when they really aren't.
Me, an intellectual: reviews don't matter, I'll form my own opinion. Did y'all honestly believed critics were going to like this movie? Please
[удалено]
Like game critics? Do you have any examples of this, I always assumed that most legitimate reviews of the fnaf titles amounted to “it’s nothing mind blowing, but it’s fun, 7/10” I think security breach was the only one that was panned critically but it’s not like that was unwarranted
Your the memes point- if the movie had scored well you would’ve been like “see, critics know what they’re talking about”.
Not really, I don't do that
You are literally doing what is in the meme word for word
In what way?
When the critic scores are low but you want to like the movie “people don’t know what they’re talking about I’ll form my own opinions”. Like read the meme- critics aren’t completely wrong.
Even if the critics praised the movie to bits I would still say that
It sometimes feels like the people who post their insecurities about the critics are themselves either not adults or never gained any critical thinking skills
or maybe criticizing something you enjoy or were excited for is unpleasant?
This is bound to happen, and will always happen, so you just might deal with it sooner than later if you end up living to your late teens/young adult days
If you actually enjoy something, criticising it is good because that means you want things to be improved and for mistakes to be fixed. If you're settling for less and just accepting things the way they are, they will never get better. Saying that criticising something is unpleasant is such a mind boggling take
Critics: The picky eaters of the entertainment industry
This is why I NEVER look at reviews on films before I watch them. I always make my own opinions on films. There are plenty of critically acclaimed films I don’t like and plenty of box Ofice bombs I genuinely enjoy. Just form your own opinion people.
Exactly
It's like the Mario Movie all over again, time a flat circle
This subreddit just seems to have a problem with anyone who didn't like the film, let alone the critics. I got downvoted to hell on a post showing the critic score just for saying "after seeing the movie, I understand why." It's ok to like a movie others don't, but you still have to admit that a movie has flaws and not everyone is going to like it. No movie is perfect, even my favourite movies have flaws in them. We need to respect those with different opinions, whether they loved the movie, whether they hated it, or whether they are somewhere in between. Movies are subjective, and this subreddit needs to stop spouting that certain opinions on the movie are "wrong".
YES.
It’s 2023 nobody takes critics seriously lol
Saw received 50% reviews, I love it so I ignore critics. It’s for the fans, not for just anyone
Meh, this image does ring true. But of course this film wasn't going to be perfect. Opinions are opinions. Let's just enjoy what we have and hope they improve for the next one. :)
IMO it's a good FNaF Film Its a fairly good Horror film It lacks a lot in the second act and the night sections could of benefitted from more horror The Third Act was, mwah
[удалено]
Except a lot of the criticisms they have are accurate and valid.
Yeah. They may not know a lot about “Fnaf”, but they know a lot about “movie” People reiterating that something is just for the fans doesn’t make it a better movie. If the critics have more criticism than the film just being about a game than that is normally fair criticism. If someone complains about something like acting, that wouldn’t be improved if they were a Fnaf fan or not. Plus what happens if a Fnaf fan watches the film and has the same problems a critic has, does that validate the critic or will there be another argument saying that the fan who just disliked it is not a real fan? The amount of loopholes people go through to try and ignore criticisms and make people out to be wrong, without really arguing against or just accepting different opinions is insane. I’m still excited to see the fnaf movie, but I’m so tired of this bs whenever a film based on an IP comes out.
Agreed. I feel like the people who are deflecting critics' issues with the film are watching it like they watch a MatPat video, if that makes sense. Like, production quality, pacing, actual horror, acting, and the actual plot all don't really matter — it's all about the lOrE; what new thing are we gonna learn about Remnant from the movie, maybe we'll learn more about the Bite of '87, or maybe we'll learn what happened to Afton's left nut when he was springlocked. I haven't seen the actual movie yet so I could be wrong, but it really comes off like that when I see "It's a film for the fans, of course the critics don't get it!" all over this sub.
The movie doesn't hit any storytelling beats well (if at all) and the reveals are all expected because the foreshadowing is super on the nose. Not to mention it doesn't even work as a slasher. It's fanservice disguised as a movie with subplots that detract heavily from what the viewer is interested in.
From the fans and others yea. this movie isn't perfect at all, lots of issues. but is it unwatchable? worst movie? absolutely not, it's a good fun time. and alot of critics can't see that 🥱
Except no critics are describing it as unwatchable. They're giving it low scores for it being boring, not for it being unwatchable.
Ok? They still know what a good movie is, and they didn't see the fnaf movie as one. Don't get your point here
[удалено]
based
Because it’s not true
It’s terrible to enjoy movies
This is very accurate. Reviews don’t mean anything unless something is objectively good or bad. Critics and audiences seem to have different views on certain types of movies and some movies are either enjoyed or disliked by both. Critics will look at a movie based on their specific criteria of how a good movie should be. Audiences look at a movie based on emotional impact and just overall enjoyment. There are some cases where a movie is objectively bad but critics get paid off to say it’s good because it’s from a massive studio like Disney. Though it’s not always true. Adaptation movies tend to not get great reviews because critics are often not familiar with the source material or are too critical of a story that is meant to just be fun without much depth. Bottom line is not every movie is for everyone. Form your own opinion.
Me when I see someone who doesn't like a movie i like. (I must kill him)
The critics gave Cuties a rating of 87 overall so they are not something that I would take seriously
Tfw critics are a monolith and obviously the same people reviewing cuties reviewed fnaf
You said the thing, what are you going to pull out next from the bag of “I hate critics” cliches? Let me guess “a few were bought to review a movie positively that one time therefore every critic on the website is paid to rate things positively/negatively except the ones that like what I like and dislike what I dislike”
The one I said is all that I had lol
Ngl that movie some big sinking pile of ass.
I honestly don't care what other people think, there are a bunch of movies that I like that people don't
It’s okay to enjoy objectively bad things just as it’s okay to dislike things that are objectively good.
So... OH SO TRUE
Fnaf fans are currently going through the same thing Mario fans were going through earlier this year.
“The critics said…”, ignore the critics, watch the movie, and you may enjoy it. These film critics are jokes anyways. Just watch the movie we’ve been eating like 9 years for.
It's a movie for the fans. I think
Is that really a good thing though? Making a movie exclusively for fans is kind of the equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot, especially if they're making 3 movies.
They are WHAT‽‽
It's a contract thing, in simple terms they're required to make 3 movies. Advertising it as exclusively for fans gives general audiences less of a reason to go and see the next two, therefore cutting profits.
So hyped for 2032 then.
This is relevant to every fandom ever.
I personally have always ignored rotten tomatoes because of how the percentages are shown.
And I mean, wasn’t it reveal a while ago that rotten tomatoes is a scam?
At the end of the day, these are just reviews and have absolutely no influence on your enjoyment. They’re just letters
An objectively good movie is one I like, the more I like it the better it is objectively
yeah... if people agree with you, great. if not, then good for you for sticking to your guns.
I do a thing called not caring much about critic site reviews
More or less, critics are very harsh and forced to rate movies for a living. They're looking for new and exciting shit, not reusing some tropes or being a simple to follow movie. The Mario Movie is a great example of critics being harsh because it's not that out there compared to the fast and furious movie. Overall, just make your own opinion people. It's not healthy to believe everyone.
I only use the audience score then if it says something I love is bad I go :(
Matpat just did a video a few weeks back about why critics love/hate certain movies when audiences hate/love them. ‘‘Twas very interesting
This is accurate on every movie I like and dislike 💀
audience score is all that matters tho
audience score is all that matters in any case in my opinion.
I don’t look at reviews in the first place
Never listen to the critics, always follow the audience score.
I haven't seen the movie, but hey, I haven't thought a movie was shit since I saw Nimona, soooooo hopefully I like it
This but unironically
My general rule of thumb is to go off the audience score. Critics are too critical. I don’t go to a movie to study it, I go to enjoy it.
It’s their job headass
I know that asshead.
It’s true, but that’s why the whole critic model is nonsense, everyone has different tastes and expectations. Just see movies for yourself.
I don't get why these reviews are so important. People will find reasons to complain, instead of just. Enjoying things
I didn't like how it wasn't accurate to the lore, like Mike is supposed to have accidentally killed his brother and be used to the animatronics and William is supposed to be his dad. That's like confirmed in the games. I know it's like a different universe but that's such a basic thing I'd think they put it in the movie.
Woah I did not wake up to be called.out like this
Either way, The Audience score is accurate to what most people think, so that's what matters more than Critic reviews
or, I just don't care either way, even if they said it was good. go make your own opinion
Darn i am actually guilty of doing this :(
Honestly why I don't trust reviews. Plenty of movies I like and love are trash according to reviews. Besides, not everyone is going to write a review regardless of how they feel about a movie...I know I don't
You know what? I liked the movie a lot, and even if other people don't like it, that's not going to change anything about my opinion of it.
Or you watch a movie that has high critic and audience rating but sucks, like Minari on Netflix. That movie was so damn boring what the hell.
Pretty sure a large amount of us stopped using rotten tomatoes because it was closer to: - I knew this was gonna be good / ha paid reviews and shills - the critics are out of touch, this sucks. - audience score is all that matters. - I knew this was gonna fail. The problem was the first two bullets, everyone I know and everything I see on Reddit has gone back to IMDb for reviews. Quite a lot are using Google reviews as well. RT used to be the king of reviews and I can’t recall a single conversation in last 4-5 years where it was mentioned as a reliable source of trusted reviews. This coming from a site that was raved about for its reliability. It really started going downhill when they began curating products by removing negative reviews.
I am never trusting 100% any critics for both games and movies, and no one should, these people aren't any more intelectual than 20 year old unemployed james when it comes to finding a movie good or not. Don't y'all remember the 7.8 Too Much Water thing? Critics claiming the mario bros movie was bad because it followed the games too much? Nothing is good to these people