Assassin's Creed : Post deleted

But that suggests that the other Passengers was the film of the same name from 2008, which has a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009239-passengers/

So, where did the 90/100 come from.

The one that says it's in progress is the one that's in theatres next week. There was another movie called Passengers from 2008, though that apparently got generally negative reviews from critics according to Wikipedia. So I don't know where the 90/100 comes from.

We know. There was another thread about it a few days ago. Just that I'm still a bit worried because I've seen a few tweets from some critics suggesting that they didn't like it. I really hope that it does turn out to be the case that we finally got a good video game movie but we'll have to wait and see on Monday.

I want to ask something. How do those ratings actually work? Because I notice that there's both an out of 4 star rating and a number out of 100. So, is it like Rotten Tomatoes where the star rating is the actual average rating while the number out of 100 is the percentage of voters who actually liked it?

I know that too. I posted about it a while back.

I'm personally thinking this may be polarizing, especially with the Spanish

I definitely think it'll be polarizing, just like Macbeth was. I personally did not like Macbeth which is what's causing me to be less than optimistic about this one. Hopefully, though, there will be more people in the "love it" camp than the "hate it" one.

Still, Macbeth was an acclaimed movie, both by critics and by an audience. There was more people who loved it. I hope this becomes a case with Assassin's Creed as well.

---

Nolan, I love you forever!

---

I should've added "just like Macbeth" to the end of my last sentence to clarify that I knew that Macbeth had more in the "love it" camp.

It didn't make any money though. Yes, I know that movies based on Shakespeare's plays won't exactly be blockbusters but with a production budget of only $20 million at most, one would of thought that it should of at least been somewhat profitable.

After Weinstein ruined its US release, there were no chances, unfortunately.

---

Nolan, I love you forever!

---

Transformer 4 submitted for best pic category, and we know how awful the movie is

Age of extintion ain't a bad movie imo. It's the second best transfomers ( dark of the Moon is the best )

Its a piece of shtt, accept the truth

No it ain't

Well, "The best Transformers movie" is like "the tastiest turd".

---

Age of extintion ain't a bad movie imo. It's the second best transfomers ( dark of the Moon is the best )

---

Are you fvcking kidding me? That movie is atrociously bad.

Raging Bull = Best movie

That doesn't have anything to do with why Assassin's Creed was submitted. Transformers 4 was submitted because people apparently impressed by it's box office gross, not realising that a "bad" movie can do well at the box office for some reason, so they took a chance and got ballsy. Assassin's Creed is in a completely different category, it was submitted for the Best Screenplay category before it even opened in cinemas when there's absolutely no inherent reason to assume that it could do well or that people, least of all critics, would like it. So, it's logical to reason that they for some other reason, thought it was worthy consideration other than just being a "bad" movie that happens to be popular.

No, maybe you don't understand, studio submit every *beep* to oscar, it doesn't matter the quality, it just submit for the sake of submit

Sadly, I don't think it means anything. BvS also had around 90/100 on that same website, I believe.

BvS now has 62/100 (1 out of 4 stars) on there. That score can change dramatically depending on how many people voted.

In addition to that, 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' started at 100/100 while 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' started at something like 68/100.