That should have read "on" Rotten Tomatoes, and should mean "better" rating (fresher).
You have scored a point, Scott. The Expendables is rated R and my examples (Hogs/Die 4) are not. I wonder if that will make a difference. Lots of R-rated action movies do very well, of course, but...the Expendables does look like warmed-over garbage. Hmmmm. Not changing my vote, and I don't think the olds look at ratings too much, but if early word is that it's too scary for them, it might hurt the back end of the vote. The opening will still CRUSH Pilgrim, though! Crush! Salmon -----Original Message----- From: BossHog <[email protected]> To: The Unique Geek <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jul 30, 2010 7:29 am Subject: [The Unique Geek] Re: The Expendables Call to Arms Trailer I will play your game, but first I need clarification: What does this mean?: Which one will have a higher score of Rotten Tomatoes? Do you mean which movie will have more "Rotten Tomatoes"? OR which one will have a "Better" rating (certified "fresher")? Jon On Jul 30, 1:42 pm, [email protected] wrote: > There you go, that's a good reference-point. Pilgrim has a much much higher profile than Kick Ass did, and it's got a star (Cera), so it should do better. It's also not rated as restrictively. > > I certainly think it will do better than Kick-Ass (but that's not saying much). The fact is, our dad's still rule the world, and they will leave their lazy-boys for The Expendables. > > The writing in Kick-Ass was TERRIBLE, btw. Talk about warmed-over wax > museum. It was like someone's uncle did the script-treatment. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cary Preston <[email protected]> > To: theuniquegeek <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Jul 30, 2010 6:22 am > Subject: Re: [The Unique Geek] The Expendables Call to Arms Trailer > > I have no interest in the Retreadables. Scott Pilgrim could completely flop like Kick Ass did, but I'll still be queuing up for it over a huge cast of tired action heroes. > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Scott Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Scott Pilgrim will not do well. I say under an under $30 open! It's not kid-friendly and looks annoying to adults. > > You mean like Twilight? Yeah, you're right, how will a movie aimed at teens based on a graphic novel that currently holds 6 of the 10 slots on the NYT GN best sellers list possibly do well? > > I'll take all your bets, especially the RT and three weeks out ones. Even if Scott Pilgrim doesn't resonate with mainstream reviewers they'll like it better than the Expendables, if only because SP isn't a wax museum exhibit. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Unique Geek" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Unique Geek" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek?hl=en.
