› ›

SKYFALL vs. CASINO ROYALE on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic & IMDB [update 23.8.2016, with QOS & SP]

124»

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Also, "Casino Royale" is the first Bond film to hit a full 8.0 on IMDB. Not even "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger" managed to do that.
    More proof that Rotten Tomatoes is...rotten... :-?

    Huh? Why do you say that. On RT Casino Royale gets even higher ratings among audiences, an 8.9. That's considerably higher than the audience rating on IMDB.
    I think @chrisisall is referring to the fact FRWL and GF get less than 8.0. It shows the people who vote on these things are idiots.

    You need to see things in perspective here I think. Nowadays, in the era of social media and internet, people simply tend to vote more online. The people who voted for GF and FRWL are mostly fans, whereas the newer Bond films, CR, QOS, and SF, have been rated heavily by every kind of movie lovers on the internet....non-Bond fans included. And those general movie audiences tend to vote much more with their hearts. Given that fact, it is even more remarkable that audiences vote CR and SF so high.

    Well that would prove the point that websites like these are reliable in terms as statistics as there are several influences at play that have nothing to do with the film's quality. IMDb, in particular, has a serious studio plant problem that has yet to be addressed.

    All you need to do is look at the voting for Interstellar, which has a 9.2 rating yesterday with nearly 30,000 votes despite the fact it only came out today. If they're voting with their heart, then their heart is in the wrong place.

    Exactly. These sites tell us absolutely nothing about the quality of a film and @Gustav_Graves's arguments would come over much stronger if he didn't keep on making reference to them.

    Wowow, easy now. You are twisting my words here a bit. I have not said that these rating sites tell us a lot about quality of the film. Those are your words.

    I just said that they are what they are: "RATINGS". People rate them. That's it. And certain people rate it high, certain people rate it lower. Directly it does off course not tell us about the quality. But it does tell us something about "what percentage of voters liked the film". And INDIRECTLY you can draw some mild conclusions on that. Even arguments that are about the subjective "quality".

    But please...be careful in what I'm saying @Getafix ;-). If my arguments come across as black-and-white justifications for quality, then I'm sorry to say but that's not the case.

    In your opening post @Gustav you state:

    'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' have very similar ratings now on Rotten Tomatoes now. It is quite hard to say IMO that 'Casino Royale' is better than 'Skyfall'.

    This would make it seem as though you're basing the quality of the films, in a black and white way, solely from these sites. If that's not the case, could you clarify what exactly your argument is?

    I agree with that the two films are closer in quality than a lot of other Bonds, but for me, CR is head and shoulders above SF in a lot of areas. Why they're so close in ratings, I'm not so sure. CR's popularity is mainly due to its undeniable quality across most areas, and the fact it bounced back after a dud film and brought Bond into a period where heroes were shown as part of darker tales. SF had massive hype due to the anniversary and a number of factors that ensured its popularity before it was even released, namely the title song. All it needed to do was be a solid film, and it was.

    As Bond fans I think we'd just be better off talking about the films themselves rather than the ratings that accompany them on the internet. No offence intended towards you, @Gustav.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,399
    (deleted)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    HASEROT wrote: »
    but SF might turn out to be Craig's TB
    I could see that. Imperfect but involving nonetheless.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Casino Royale was ranked the #1 on-foot chase by WatchMojo recently. No Skyfall, or even Bourne, which surprised me.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Another update, since the last update dates from 2013 (Monday August 26th 2013!!). This time I include the figures of "SPECTRE" and "Quantum Of Solace" as well, so you can better compare with "Casino Royale" and "Skyfall". The ratings on RottenTomatoes for "SPECTRE" and "Skyfall" went up 0.1% as opposed to two months earlier. "SPECTRE" from 64% to 65%. "Skyfall" from 92% to 93%. Rates as of August 23rd 2016:

    CASINO ROYALE:
    Tomatometer:
    95% out of 100%
    7.9 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    246
    > Reviews counted
    233
    > Rated Fresh
    013
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    89% liked it
    3.9 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    701,071
    > Number of user ratings counted

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE:
    Tomatometer:
    65% out of 100%
    6.1 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    280
    > Reviews counted
    182
    > Rated Fresh
    098
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    58% liked it
    3.4 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    430,895
    > Number of user ratings counted

    SKYFALL
    Tomatometer:
    93% out of 100%
    8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    347
    > Reviews counted
    321
    > Rated Fresh
    026
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    86% liked it
    4.1 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    371,569
    > Number of user ratings counted

    SPECTRE
    Tomatometer:
    65% out of 100%
    6.4 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    307
    > Reviews counted
    199
    > Rated Fresh
    108
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    62% liked it
    3.5 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    104,483
    > Number of user ratings counted


    Also interesting are the ratings on MetaCritic as of August 23rd 2016 (last time measured was December 4th 2012). Really makes it harder to say which of these two is better no?:

    CASINO ROYALE
    Metascore:
    80 out of 100, based on 46 critics
    43 ----> Positive reviews
    03 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    8.5, based on 1,214 ratings
    1,062 ----> Positive
    0,063 ----> Mixed
    0,089 ----> Negative

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE
    Metascore:
    58 out of 100, based on 48 critics
    24 ----> Positive reviews
    22 ----> Mixed reviews
    01 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    6.3, based on 582 ratings
    292 ----> Positive
    209 ----> Mixed
    081 ----> Negative

    SKYFALL
    Metascore:
    81 out of 100, based on 49 critics
    42 ----> Positive reviews
    07 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    7.6, based on 1,627 ratings
    1,274 ----> Positive
    0,211 ----> Mixed
    0,142 ----> Negative

    SPECTRE
    Metascore:
    60 out of 100, based on 48 critics
    28 ----> Positive reviews
    16 ----> Mixed reviews
    04 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    6.9, based on 1,035 ratings
    636 ----> Positive
    293 ----> Mixed
    106 ----> Negative


    And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:

    CASINO ROYALE
    8.0 out of 10.0 from 471,542 users

    QUANTUM OF SOLACE
    6.7 out of 10.0 from 331,542 users

    SKYFALL:
    7.8 out of 10.0 from 523,117 users

    SPECTRE
    6.9 out of 10.0 from 277,545 users
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    The ratings hold pretty steady across the three aggregators. Taken in total, I daresay they provide a pretty accurate indicator of the films' quality.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    The ratings hold pretty steady across the three aggregators. Taken in total, I daresay they provide a pretty accurate indicator of the films' quality.

    Indeed:

    --> SP slightlyyyy better than QOS
    --> CR slightlyyyy better than SF
    --> On average the Craig-trilogy has way better ratings than the four Brozzies
    --> Critics can't decide which Bond film is better: CR or SF
    --> Public like SP more than QOS, with more clearer numbers
    --> There's a obvious rating gap between CR & SF on one hand, and SP & QOS on the other
    --> Ratings of GE (both critics and publics) are only tiny bit higher than SP
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2016 Posts: 9,020
    The order is pretty clear: CR - SF - SP - QOS

    but if I look at my surroundings and this forum and other forums it's clearly only CR that is generally looked upon as the best in the Craig tenure.

    for the other three there are clearly groups of people that dislike SF or QOS or SP for one or the other reason.

    The Brosnan era and the Craig era are quite similar actually. Because if you look at critics ratings when the Brosnan era was going, all 4 movies received good reviews, even very good ones.

    So in 10 to 15 years movies like QOS, SP may be in the same ratings area as are now the three Brosnan movies after GE.
    Only CR seems to become a true classic. SF probably too, but that is too early to tell, SF may live on its reputation for some time but then lose it's appeal to a lot of "new" Bond fans that may find Bond actor No 7 the best so far.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    In the end it's about what the general audience -not forummembers- think of the James Bond films. Yes, there's a tendency in here, in the forum bubble, that criticize SF heavily. But outside this 'nerdy fan bubble', both CR and SF have it to become classic evergreens that can even outperform GE on the 'legacy level'.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    In the end it's about what the general audience -not forummembers- think of the James Bond films. Yes, there's a tendency in here, in the forum bubble, that criticize SF heavily. But outside this 'nerdy fan bubble', both CR and SF have it to become classic evergreens that can even outperform GE on the 'legacy level'.

    I agree with that. No one will ever agree ...we don't on here lol..

    Only thing we do agree on is that we are all Bond fans. Doesn't always sound it though but I believe we all are.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    CR should be 9/10. SF 8/10. For me GE is average in the canon so 6.5/10.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    And now some ratings compared with "GoldenEye":


    SKYFALL
    Tomatometer:
    93% out of 100%
    8.2 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    347
    > Reviews counted
    321
    > Rated Fresh
    026
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    86% liked it
    4.1 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    371,569
    > Number of user ratings counted

    SPECTRE
    Tomatometer:
    65% out of 100%
    6.4 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    307
    > Reviews counted
    199
    > Rated Fresh
    108
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    62% liked it
    3.5 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    104,483
    > Number of user ratings counted

    GOLDENEYE
    Tomatometer:
    78% out of 100%
    7.0 out of 10.0 ----> Average rating
    072
    > Reviews counted
    056
    > Rated Fresh
    016
    > Rated Rotten
    Audience:
    83% liked it
    3.4 out of 5.0 ----> Average rating
    284,836
    > Number of user ratings counted


    Also interesting are the ratings on MetaCritic as of August 23rd 2016 (last time measured was December 4th 2012). Really makes it harder to say which of these two is better no?:

    SKYFALL
    Metascore:
    81 out of 100, based on 49 critics
    42 ----> Positive reviews
    07 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    7.6, based on 1,627 ratings
    1,274 ----> Positive
    0,211 ----> Mixed
    0,142 ----> Negative

    SPECTRE
    Metascore:
    60 out of 100, based on 48 critics
    28 ----> Positive reviews
    16 ----> Mixed reviews
    04 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    6.9, based on 1,035 ratings
    636 ----> Positive
    293 ----> Mixed
    106 ----> Negative

    GOLDENEYE
    Metascore:
    65 out of 100, based on 18 critics
    12 ----> Positive reviews
    06 ----> Mixed reviews
    00 ----> Negative reviews
    User Score:
    6.6, based on 0,158 ratings
    110 ----> Positive
    018 ----> Mixed
    030 ----> Negative


    And lastly, the ratings on IMDB:

    SKYFALL:
    7.8 out of 10.0 from 523,117 users

    SPECTRE
    6.9 out of 10.0 from 277,545 users

    GOLDENEYE
    7.2 out of 10.0 from 199,316 users
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Why are these films being compared to GE? Have I missed something?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Aaah, I saw @SuaveJMF coming up with his rating of GE as opposed to CR and SF :-). Thought might well post the ratings for GE. It's a bit empty-headed posting :-).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    It's no use comparing the Craig era to the older eras as Craig's movies undoubtably will get lower too with time. The Imdb system is very imperfect.

    If you are a member you can break down the individual ratings into age groups, now there is the real interesting stuff to read!
    Also you will see how many people just gave the movies a silly 1 rating or a 10 rating. And there are quite a lot of those, if you omit them the result also looks rather different for some movies.

    But @Gustav_Graves good work here anyway!
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    RC7 wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    Conclusion: It is damnnn hard to say IMO which of these excellent (!!) Bond films is better :O !!

    Do you need ratings to determine this? Surely you know in your own mind which you think is better?

    No. I think it's not that black and white as you portray here. I think 'Skyfall' and 'Casino Royale' are equally good....just in different ways. Certain aspects in SF are slightly better than in CR. And the other way around.

    Moreover, as the boxoffice topic is quite popular for us Bond geeks......this topic doesn't mind either ;-).


    I don't need Rotten Tomatoes to tell me which Bond movie is better. To be honest, I don't need anyone to tell me. I rather judge for myself. And as I have made it clear on many other threads, I have a low opinion of "SKYFALL" period.

Sign In or Register to comment.