Well fuck him and his stupid movie. The movie deserved to be a John Carter flop.
No film deserves that.
For me this is a two-pronged problem. Every film should make boatloads of money because that's what keeps the business going. I try not to specify which movie deserves money because I'm not paying for one particular movie. I'm paying
to go to the movies. I realize each time it's a gamble whether I get a good return on my investment, but I believe in investing in the system because I want more chances. I like the experience, and it's being killed. And that kills me.
What also kills me is agreeing with Ratner, but I do. Film criticism used to delve into the tangible lushness of what films can do and should do. They inspired reactions from the filmmaking community and bolstered the artistic side of a mass produced product.
When criticism is reduced to a number, it ruins the state of filmmaking.
Movie studios in turn won't know what works. We get subjected to all the things we've been complaining about: too many reboots/rehashes, oversaturation of one genre, dependence on and therefore catering to foreign markets. Without us to tell them what works and what doesn't, and why, we're locked in a downward spiral where actual films are competing against WorldStar ratchet videos for viewership. People won't pay for shitty movies, but the Howbowdah Girl is signing endorsement deals. We don't take responsibility for our priorities, so shit gets pushed to the forefront.
I'm not saying that movie goers act according to a Rotten Tomato score, but movie investors do. It's really easy for them to look at a low score and say, "Newp, we're not paying for another one of those, whatever it was. I'm not even sure." They go by what we tell them; it's entirely symbiotic.
