YO, HO...HEAVE HO??!?!?

Originally posted by GTAHater767 So we should wait until May 20 before upgrading this to an official forum. I can't say if the reviews will descend, but as usual, if they do... *falters*

The question is should this be upgraded to an official forum? It currently seems to be in the 60's on RT, It will probably descent to the low 50's or somewere in the 40's. Is that bad enough to give it a forum?

The reason why this movie would be Razzie worthy is because of descending quality of the series in the past. The original movie was great, with a developed story, likable characters, and clever dialogue, but then the sequels were painful because all they did was rely on rehashing scenes and lines from the first movie ... and also using a metric-ton of CGI. If they were already falling back on the original movie by the time of the FIRST sequel, what are they going to do with this THIRD sequel? Plus, there's the ever haunting "curse of the fourth installment of the movie series", usually resulting with the worst installment of the series, ie. "Batman & Robin", "Star Wars: Phantom Menace", "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", "Indiana Jones 4", etc. In my opinion, this movie is worthy of its own forum. The worst that can happen is that we're proven wrong, it'll be among the 1 out of 10 times that the Razzies are wrong in choosing a Worst Movie of the Weak. 

You're jumping a little ahead of us, GTAHater. I only said "On Stranger Tides" should get its own forum ... not that it should be a shoe-in for Worst Picture (although maybe Worst Sequel).

Originally posted by Vits The original STAR WARS trilogy and the prequel trilogy are often considered separate series.The same with the X-MEN trilogy and the ORIGINS movies.But yeah,you're right.

First of all, as much as I would like to cosider them separate series, the truth of the matter is that they are prequels, and they are part of the chronological events of the overall series, unlike reboots like Nolan's Batman movies or the upcoming Spider-Man reboot. Secondly, based on the order that they were filmed and released, they are the fourth installments of the series. And finally ... they just plan sucked!

I wasn't at all angry at the "Ghosts Of Girlfriends' Past" over "Origins: Wolverine" thing, mostly because I saw "GOGP" as just another rehashing of "A Christmas Carol", and we all know how much Hollywood LOVES public domain material (they can rehash it every ten years ... or every 6 months!). I'll take a bad comic book movie over Hollywood reaching into it's bag of public domain tricks for the millionth time. For example: this year, I'd gladly see "X-Men: First Class" over the 10 billionth adaptation of "The Three Musketeers", but that's just me.

Originally posted by GTAHater767 Why 50% instead of 35%? There are enough movies below 35% to take up all the nominations every year. If you would want a movie with 46% (merely below average) to get nominations, especially in lieu of a movie with maybe 26% (putting it generously), why? I'm asking because I've always been confused about that.

I don't know. I just see 50% as not good or bad, it's the half way point. So anything below 50% should be considered bad, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Vheid GTAhater, It has now dropped to 40%, If it were to near the 35% (by having something like 36/37%) would you agree with it getting a forum?

It has a little over 40 reviews so far, almost 30 saying it's rotten. If this trend keeps up, I think it's safe to say that it's one of ours.