Why are the Pirates of the Caribbean poorly rated?

Watch
username1726117
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Given how popular they are among cinema-goers, amount of money / time that goes into keeping this franchise alive, and the fact these films aren't that bad, I'm genuinely surprised they get very low ratings.

Curse of the Black Pearl - 79%
Dead Man's Chest - 54%
At World's End - 45%
On Stranger Tide's - 32%
Dead Men Tell No Tales - 29%

Don't get me wrong; I wasn't a fan of the strung-out plot of the second and third nor did I think At World's End was particularly well-written or presented, but overall I think the series has enough laughs, seriousness and decent action sequences to be rated much higher than they are (but yes, the first was definitely the best).

Curious to know what others thing of the films and/or their ratings?
0
reply
cbreef
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Yeah, critics in particular hate that stuff. They're proper movie snobs.
0
reply
NobleLeather
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
I think they're oscar worthy compared to the absolute generic lame boring trash that Marvel makes.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
On thing people overlook is that the rotten tomatoes percentages are not scores out of 100, they're the percentage of critics who gave the film a positive review. Rotten Tomatoes also generates an average of the actual score those critics gave, which currently stand at 6, 5.5, 5 and 4.7 for Pirates 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. So mediocre scores, which is about all the sequels are worth. It's a played out idea that's hanging on by a thread, with that thread being Jonny Depp's funny voice. I love the original Pirates, as most people do, but the series is at least two films too long.
0
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
They are poorly scripted and poorly acted films. Johnny Depp is ludicrously hammy, and Bloom and Knightley are so wooden it is "like watching two chairs trying to mate" (to quote Mark Kermode).
0
reply
Ladymusiclover
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
I watched POC 5. I really liked it. Very comical and great for all ages. The effects were amazing. Is it because it's Disney??
0
reply
username3079870
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
You do all realise Rotten Tomatoes was owned by Warner Brothers for 6 years, and is now owned by Comcast (who own Universal Studios and NBC)? There is no discernible methodology for the reviews RT selects for each film. Heck, you could find 50 journalists and bloggers who probably hate, say, LOTR:Return of the King. If you include all 50 and ROTK gets 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, does that make it a bad movie? Or is there a fault with the methodology used to select the reviews?

Personally I've stopped looking at Rotten Tomatoes as they have made no attempt to demonstrate they are taking an unbiased sample of reviews, and to say their parent company (past and present) has a "conflict of interest" is a real understatement.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by jestersnow)
Personally I've stopped looking at Rotten Tomatoes as they have made no attempt to demonstrate they are taking an unbiased sample of reviews, and to say their parent company (past and present) has a "conflict of interest" is a real understatement.
I'm not saying RT is a good barometer for gauging movie quality, but I'm really struggling to find any evidence of studio bias or at very least unjustified favouring of Universal properties since the Comcast takeover. Looking through Universal's filmography since that time for films that have been received negatively by critics, there doesn't seem to be any desire to pad the numbers (I'll leave those results in a spoiler below) and it would be far easier to get away with massaging their own scores than sabotaging anyone else's. People are more than welcome to have their issues with review aggregates, but I think the "bias" argument is pretty flimsy and gives studios an excuse for their poorly received films.

Spoiler:
Show
My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2: 29%, 154 reviews
The Boss: 22%, 170 reviews
Huntsman Winter's War: 17%, 191 reviews
Warcraft: 28%, 196 reviews
Fifty Shades Darker: 10%, 162 reviews
The Great Wall: 35%, 188 reviews
The Mummy: 16%, 225 reviews
1
reply
Kraggor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Tbh i never read critic reviews, I much prefer imdb for the user scores.

I dont want to go on a huge debate but lets use the latest pirates film. It got a 39 metacritic but got a 7/10 (70%) for user reviews.

Users always reate the film on their own enjoyment rather than how the film was actually done.

This was definitely the case for the Warcraft movie which got such a low critic score and even before seeing I was like oh maybe it wont be so good cos its got such horiffic scores but then me and my mates watched it and it was amazing!! (as a warcraft fan maybe more amazing than non fans xD)

End of the day, does it really matter what score a film gets, it is all subjective anyway. If I want to watch a film I'll watch it, if it's bad then oh well 2 hrs wasted and never again, if I loved it then add to the list
0
reply
username3079870
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Gofre)
I'm not saying RT is a good barometer for gauging movie quality, but I'm really struggling to find any evidence of studio bias or at very least unjustified favouring of Universal properties since the Comcast takeover. Looking through Universal's filmography since that time for films that have been received negatively by critics, there doesn't seem to be any desire to pad the numbers (I'll leave those results in a spoiler below) and it would be far easier to get away with massaging their own scores than sabotaging anyone else's. People are more than welcome to have their issues with review aggregates, but I think the "bias" argument is pretty flimsy and gives studios an excuse for their poorly received films.

Spoiler:
Show


My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2: 29%, 154 reviews
The Boss: 22%, 170 reviews
Huntsman Winter's War: 17%, 191 reviews
Warcraft: 28%, 196 reviews
Fifty Shades Darker: 10%, 162 reviews
The Great Wall: 35%, 188 reviews
The Mummy: 16%, 225 reviews

Point taken but you have to admit there is the potential for a conflict of interest when the company that is making movies also owns the company that aggregates movie reviews. For example, what if a blockbuster is released at the same time as a Universal movie and the non-Universal movie gets a worse rating on RT? Even if there is no evidence of anything shady, it still creates the perception of a conflict of interest.

As additional point, Natural Language Processing is still in it's infancy so I highly doubt RT have mastered the art of deducing whether a critic hated a movie by language analysis. What if a critic thinks a movie has some bad parts, some good parts, and some okay parts, but RT assigns their review as negative as it merely considered the synopsis. By reducing complex (in terms of a computer understanding the sentimnent) reviews in to Boolean values of negative or positive, RT may be misrepresenting the actual views of the critics.
0
reply
ward47
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
I never really considered the franchise to be good films. theyre ok for if u want something fairly mindless for an hour and a half but i wouldnt have said any of them were particulaly good films really.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by jestersnow)
Point taken but you have to admit there is the potential for a conflict of interest when the company that is making movies also owns the company that aggregates movie reviews.
Potential? Yes. But until there's some meaningful evidence of tampering or bias I don't think it should be used as a reason to preemptively dismiss RT. I don't pay any mind to any review aggregate, I deliberately avoid looking at them (and reviews in general) for films I plan to see and really only value the opinion of a few reviewers whose opinions align with mine or whom I simply respect. But to say RT is lesser because of bias is simply unfounded.
0
reply
TheDuo
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
apart from Jack Sparrow's personality, the POTC franchise hasn't got much in it. the villains and supporting characters are quite weak tbh. they make a lot of cash tho.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
The PoC films are badly made, badly acted, the story is poorly.constructed and they ade quite blatantly serve no purpose other than making Disney a fat wod of cash every year or so.

(Original post by Kraggor)
Tbh i never read critic reviews, I much prefer imdb for the user scores.

I dont want to go on a huge debate but lets use the latest pirates film. It got a 39 metacritic but got a 7/10 (70%) for user reviews.

Users always reate the film on their own enjoyment rather than how the film was actually done.

This was definitely the case for the Warcraft movie which got such a low critic score and even before seeing I was like oh maybe it wont be so good cos its got such horiffic scores but then me and my mates watched it and it was amazing!! (as a warcraft fan maybe more amazing than non fans xD)

End of the day, does it really matter what score a film gets, it is all subjective anyway. If I want to watch a film I'll watch it, if it's bad then oh well 2 hrs wasted and never again, if I loved it then add to the list
As a Warcraft fan ( have played the game since a few months after launch) I hated the Warcraft film, absolutely hated it.
0
reply
Kraggor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by mojojojo101)
The PoC films are badly made, badly acted, the story is poorly.constructed and they ade quite blatantly serve no purpose other than making Disney a fat wod of cash every year or so.



As a Warcraft fan ( have played the game since a few months after launch) I hated the Warcraft film, absolutely hated it.
for me I have never been a fan of the pirate films but I dont really take notice of bad acting or construction as such I just didnt like the film for its content.

Like yes the warcraft film may have been done badly but just having the world being brought to life and well basically just seeing magic is great to me ahaha, sometimes I just want an easy to watch film with not much to pay attention to xD but everyone to their own

I have seen plenty of really well made filsm that critics go crazy over but I just think meh.

Another film that people didn't like was 2012 but I just like seeing the crazy effects and to me that made it worth watching

tbh these days though if it's not marvel or lotr or hp or sw then netflix series are just flat out better anyway plus game of thrones

Last film I actually watched in the cinema was guardians of the galaxy 2 and the last one before that was the hobbit xD
0
reply
username3079870
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Gofre)
Potential? Yes. But until there's some meaningful evidence of tampering or bias I don't think it should be used as a reason to preemptively dismiss RT. I don't pay any mind to any review aggregate, I deliberately avoid looking at them (and reviews in general) for films I plan to see and really only value the opinion of a few reviewers whose opinions align with mine or whom I simply respect. But to say RT is lesser because of bias is simply unfounded.
The bias I originally referred to was the indiscriminate way reviewers are selected, and this alone can create bias in the sample of reviews used. For example, the latest POTC film has less reviews than The Mummy. Why does one movie have less reviews than another? What is the selection criteria of the reviewers who are picked? None of this is particularly clear with RT.

I would add that I did not word my original post well and I understand how it could appear I stated the bias existed because Universal were abusing RT for their advantage. As you say there is no proof of that and that is not what I meant to convey. I merely meant there is a conflict of interest, which has the potential for corruption. Apologies for not wording things better.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Kraggor)
for me I have never been a fan of the pirate films but I dont really take notice of bad acting or construction as such I just didnt like the film for its content.

Like yes the warcraft film may have been done badly but just having the world being brought to life and well basically just seeing magic is great to me ahaha, sometimes I just want an easy to watch film with not much to pay attention to xD but everyone to their own

I have seen plenty of really well made filsm that critics go crazy over but I just think meh.

Another film that people didn't like was 2012 but I just like seeing the crazy effects and to me that made it worth watching

tbh these days though if it's not marvel or lotr or hp or sw then netflix series are just flat out better anyway plus game of thrones

Last film I actually watched in the cinema was guardians of the galaxy 2 and the last one before that was the hobbit xD
I didn't like the Warcraft mainly from a plot point of view. It was changed significantly from the game and was made drastically worse. The pacing of the film is really bad as well, because of the way the film is constructed it is hard to tell where and when things are happening, a factor made worse when you are aware of the geography of the game world.

I guess its a matter of priorities, for me, film is a method of storytelling and that is the most important part, the visuals, while important must act to push the story and character development forward, many modern films fail to do this, or do it, then dump verbal exposition on top anyway.

To be fair though, I HATE going to the cinema, I tend to find films are almost always ruined by other people...
1
reply
Kraggor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by mojojojo101)
I didn't like the Warcraft mainly from a plot point of view. It was changed significantly from the game and was made drastically worse. The pacing of the film is really bad as well, because of the way the film is constructed it is hard to tell where and when things are happening, a factor made worse when you are aware of the geography of the game world.

I guess its a matter of priorities, for me, film is a method of storytelling and that is the most important part, the visuals, while important must act to push the story and character development forward, many modern films fail to do this, or do it, then dump verbal exposition on top anyway.

To be fair though, I HATE going to the cinema, I tend to find films are almost always ruined by other people...
Yeah I totally understand your point of view We just have different outcomes of what we want from a film ahaha. I never like to debate too much as I respect everyones opinions. To me films is just another way of art, I just like to let the artist to his/her work and then what they finish with is what they finish with.
Unless they want criticism then I'll give them a few pointers

And lucky for me being in the countryside as if I go to a cinema in the day, it will literally just be me and guests
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by jestersnow)
For example, the latest POTC film has less reviews than The Mummy. Why does one movie have less reviews than another?
Not every critic reviews every film. Mark Kermode, for example, is one of the UK's most respected film critics and has not published written reviews on a lot of the big summer blockbusters (he has reviewed Transformers and The Mummy on his radio show but not Pirates), and has instead published a review on the drastically smaller netflix title Okja.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/markkermode

Another thing to take into account is sequel fatigue- people care less about series that have dragged on for this long, especially when they're not doing well at the box office or critically, and less interest means less incentive to spend time reviewing it. Transformers is a good parallel- both released a summer blockbuster that's the fifth in the series, both had series-low box office openings, both received poor reviews and also fewer reviews than previous entries. Audiences are spending their money elsewhere and critics are investing their time elsewhere.
0
reply
GabyMac
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
I highly disagree with that. I'm a massive POtC fan my self, and an even bigger Marvel one. Those films are based off comic books that have been around for...basically forever. Both franchises are just as worthy as one another, though I still wonder why POtC has such low ratings.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (74)
17.66%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (121)
28.88%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (159)
37.95%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (52)
12.41%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (13)
3.1%

Watched Threads

View All