Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
Yah, it does demonstrate that flaw. But at least sites like Rotten Tomatoes allow the viewer easy access to actual reviews by individual critics. So if there is a critic who tends to line up with your individual views, you can ignore the aggregate, go directly to that person's review and see how a movie fared.
.
As already said, its now about the meat. not the bones.

RT numbers mean so little now, people do now want to know what the critics are saying more. I had a bad experience with Ant Man 2 last year. very high rt score but when I was actually reading the reviews it all felt mixed, some even negative, although they were all rated fresh.
Abrams is a name draw, known for being able to put together a coherent movie with a certain feel to it. He has a decent feel for how to do action sequences and he's not afraid to make his stamp on something, like adding lens flare to a starship. But his entry into Star Trek and Star Wars, to me, smacked of desperation. It seemed that the producers decided to play it safe rather than pursue a real vision anymore
Is Abrams really a draw? star wars 7 was always going to be highest grossing movie ever in the USA.

A good star trek reboot was bound to have a strong box office

Mission Impossible 3 did okay numbers but that was blamed on tom cruise wacky behavior

His box office track record is alright if you look at his original movies like Super 8 and Colverfield.