explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:929: Speculation

2025-11-06T05:05:28Z

Thathuman:

I love the comics like this that work on multiple levels. They really lend to the legitimacy of xkcd as a thinking man's webcomic, and they're great comics to link to when I'm trying to make a point. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a bolt. Longbows fire arrows, crossbows fire bolts. 'K?
:That bolt looks maighte like an arrow to me... but let's not quarrel about this. --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
::Crossbows do fire bolts, so the only reason you wouldn't want to quarrel about it is because you would be wrong.
::However, the word "arrow" comes from the official transcript, so YOU don't want to quarrel about it either, 'K? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 07:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

::Quarrel? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarrel]--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.9|141.101.99.9]] 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::: Please check your adds on the preview before committing it here. Everything you do save here is viewable to everyone; that's just annoying. I just want to see your primary intention, because THAT'S IMPORTANT, if that doesn't work fix it at PREVIEW before we get a mess here. I'm just happy if I can understand what you are talking about. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The explanation states that it is Black Hat speaking in the title text. It makes much more sense if it is Randall speaking, but just demonstrating a slightly black-hat tendency. In my opinion. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 17:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, but in the original comic's title text, it uses the single-quotes--that wasn't just added by explainxkcd as a formatting thing. When Randall is supposed to be the one speaking, there are no quotation marks in the title text... that implies this one is a quote from Black Hat. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.171|108.162.216.171]] 04:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There's another joke not mentioned in the explanation. Cueball said "You're not really the '''catch''' type, are you." since Black Hat shot the basketball instead of '''catching''' it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.246|108.162.219.246]] 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the Category:Multiple Cueballs. I switched which Cueball is called Cueball in the transcript so now the one named Cueball has all the interesting comments of this comic and also he is the one shooting at the hoop and passing to Black-Hat. Also made a note that the other guy also looks like Cueball. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Where'd Black Hat get that crossbow? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 08:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
:From the all-you-can-eat crossbow store. We're regular customers. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 00:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
::Psst— answering six-year-old comments ain't cool. [[User:BlackHat|BlackHat]] ([[User talk:BlackHat|talk]] 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC
:::How else could I have answered? (And that was a month-old comment...) [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]])) 15:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC))
:::Why the fuck not? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.88|162.158.155.88]] 17:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) (please sign your comments with four ~s)
::::Sarah, regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:929:_Speculation&diff=prev&oldid=344243 your edits], just letting you know that:
::::*You can use {{template|unsigned ip}} (or {{template|unsigned}}, for named accounts).
::::**Simply enter <code><nowiki>{{unsigned ip|<the ip>|<the timestamp>}}</nowiki></code> - the timestamp is optional, but useful.
::::**In this case, <code><nowiki>{{unsigned ip|162.158.155.88|17:35, 31 May 2023}}</nowiki></code> would have been Ok (I don't usually add the UTC bit, from the bare timestamp that I tend to copy).
::::*To quote something markup-like such as "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>", literally, you need the <code><nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></code> tag. Plus the <code></nowiki></code> closer, naturally. But the above template does that for you.
::::FYI. On the offchance you'll read this reply, as you don't have a Talk page yet.  [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.124|172.69.195.124]] 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But as OF NEARLY 2023, I can say with certainty that Facebook’s “meta” project has failed miserably. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|SilverTheTerribleMathematician]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 11:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Very unrelated, but a kinda funny coincidence: social network BlueSky has somewhat controversially and by no means universally adopted the word "Skeet" as the word for posts akin to Tweets for to Twitter [[User:Thathuman|Thathuman]] ([[User talk:Thathuman|talk]]) 05:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

549: Westley's a Dick

2025-11-06T04:51:01Z

Thathuman:

{{comic
| number =549
| date =February 27, 2009
| title =Westley's a Dick
| image =westleys_a_dick.png
| titletext =Inigo/Buttercup 4eva <3
}}

==Explanation==
This is an alternate take on the 1973 fantasy romance novel ''{{w|The Princess Bride (novel)|The Princess Bride}}'' written by {{w|William Goldman}} which became a {{w|The Princess Bride (film)|film in 1987}}.

In the movie the main character, Buttercup, believes she has lost her first love to the Dread Pirate Roberts years ago. In the present she is considered one of the most beautiful women of the land and so is being married off to a prince. To provoke a war she has been kidnapped by mercenaries, one of whom is a very honorable Spanish swordsman named Inigo Montoya. A man claiming to be the Dread Pirate Roberts rescues her. On verifying his identity as Roberts, she attacks him by pushing him down a hill. While tumbling down the hill he shouts back "as you wish" identifying him as her first love. She tumbles after, landing on top of him as in the start of this comic.

There are, however, several "dick moves" Westley must have made in order for the film's narrative to make sense.
# He took over as the Dread Pirate Roberts becoming a pirate and therefore not respectable, killing people, sacking ports, and looting ships for a living.
# Over the last five years, Westley has allowed Buttercup to believe that he'd been murdered, apparently cutting off their burgeoning relationship of mutual attraction.

Westley breaks the fourth wall and claims he did all of these things for the sake of the {{w|narrative}}. In other words, he did it to make the story better.
In the comic Buttercup realizes that Westley has behaved like a dick and chooses to give her love to Inigo Montoya. But in the movie, Westley and Buttercup end up together in spite of this behavior!

The title text shows what looks like a message she and Inigo have written together, for instance in a heart on a tree. Inigo is the Spaniard referred to by Buttercup. Their names, then forever (4eva) and a heart (smiley heart = "<3"), implying they did end up together according to this version of the story. Alternatively, it could simply be the narrator expressing his wish that this will come to pass.

It is not the first time [[Randall]] has referenced this movie, as the Dread Pirate was referenced in [[345: 1337: Part 5]], and a quote from this movie is in the title text of [[1427: iOS Keyboard]]. So it seems like a film that has some meaning for Randall.

Note: It's quite possible Westley hasn't been killing people as a pirate at all. People had been surrendering to The Dread Pirate Roberts without a fight for years before he took over the role, due to the terror of his name. Of course, there may be a few people who needed to be killed, over the years, but the implication in the book (and movie) is that at least most surrender without a fight and are presumably unharmed.

If you haven't seen the movie or read the book, you should definitely go watch it (if nothing else to be in on many of the films iconic jokes).

==Transcript==
:[A girl (Buttercup) with long hair and a man (Westley) looking like Cueball but with a bandana lies at the foot of a high cliff. There is a forest in the background]
:Buttercup: Oh, my sweet Westley!

:[Buttercup sits on her knees, Westley takes off his bandana.]
:Buttercup: Why did you let me think you were dead?
:Westley: You shacked up with the prince!
:Buttercup: After years of mourning! The worst pain of my life!

:[Buttercup stands up looking down on Westley who still sits with the bandana in his hand.]
:Buttercup: And now you ... kill people?
:Westley: I'd hardly be a dread pirate if I didn't.
:Buttercup: How lovable.

:[Westley stands with the bandana in hand while Buttercup walks away from him.]

:Westley: It was for the sake of the narrative!
:Buttercup: Fuck the narrative. I'm going to go see if that Spaniard's single.
:Westley: ...As you wish.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Romance]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]

875: 2009 Called

2025-11-01T03:47:47Z

Thathuman:

{{comic
| number = 875
| date = March 21, 2011
| title = 2009 Called
| image = 2009 called.png
| titletext = 2017 called, but I couldn't understand what they were saying over all the screams.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic deconstructs a {{w|snowclone}} or common idiom - "X called, they want their Y back." In a common version, the "X" in this phrase is a year, or era, and "Y" is something that was common in that time, but is now unfashionable, or outright ridiculous.

Here, [[Megan]] notices a Three-Wolf Moon T-shirt that [[Cueball]] apparently owns. The {{w|Three Wolf Moon|Three-Wolf Moon}} is a shirt of three wolves howling at the moon that reached meme status when several people posted ironic reviews ascribing supernatural powers to it on {{w|Amazon}} around late 2008. Like many memes, it became popular for a short period, but rapidly became outdated.

Presumably, Megan is trying to say "2009 called, they want their shirt back", mocking Cueball for still owning something so outdated. Before she can finish, though, Cueball appears to take her literally, and responds as if she'd actually received a call from the year 2009. If she'd actually had the opportunity to communicate across time, that would be a golden opportunity to warn the people of the past about events that had not yet occurred. Specifically, he asks if she'd warned the people of the past about {{w|2010 Haiti earthquake|the February 2010 earthquake in Haiti}} and {{w|2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami|the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan}}, and admonishes her when she admits she didn't. Both of these were events in which huge amounts of human suffering and death likely could have been prevented with foreknowledge.

The comic was posted shortly after the latter disaster, so it is reasonable to assume that it was created as a specific response to what had occurred. It's not entirely clear whether Cueball is preempting Megan's attempt to mock him, or whether he actually thinks the past called.

The title text continues the snowclone by implying a terrible future awaits in 2017. Likewise, non-apocalyptic events, such as political protests, can generate "yelling and screaming". Given the public's general inclination to focus on the negative the prediction of a "bad future" may have worked with any date.

2017 has occurred, and the world hasn't exploded.{{Citation needed}} In hindsight, 2020 would work better for the joke.{{Citation needed}}

However, 2017 was actually one of the world's most devastating years in terms of natural disasters, for starters, there were Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Maria: all particularly devastating, for that particular corner of the world. In addition, the election of [[Donald Trump]] was upsetting for many people, especially people who did not agree with his controversial nature. There was no proof of [[Randall]] owning a time machine yet.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is at computer. Megan is standing behind him, looking at clothes on the floor.]
:Megan: Is this a three wolf moon shirt?
:Megan: Dude, 2009 called, and they-
:Cueball: ''OH MY GOD!''
:Cueball: ''DID YOU WARN THEM?''
:Cueball: ''ABOUT HAITI AND JAPAN?''
:Megan: What? No, I-
:Cueball: You ''ASSHOLE!''

==Trivia==
* In 2013, the webcomic "Bearato Comics" ran [https://nedroid.com/?601 a comic strip] with a joke very similar to the joke in this XKCD comic. After the creator was notified by XKCD fans that he had used a joke already done on XKCD just two years earlier in his comic, the [https://nedroid.com/?602 next comic strip] on "Beartato Comics" then parodied the incident.
See also:
*[[102: Back to the Future]]
*[[1072: Seventies]]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Time travel]]

800: Beautiful Dream

2025-11-01T03:34:36Z

Thathuman: Gregor Sampsa is not explicitly an insect, he is a nonspecific "monstrous vermin"

{{comic
| number = 800
| date = October 1, 2010
| title = Beautiful Dream
| image = beautiful_dream.png
| titletext = Lucky. In MY dream, all the people who grew up loving The Giving Tree paired up with all the students who had weird dreams after reading The Metamorphosis. That one was more confusing.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, Megan has just woken from a dream in which the girls who follow ''{{w|The Rules}}'' and the guys who play ''{{w|The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists|The Game}}'' have paired off and left everyone else alone.

"The Rules" refers to a book entitled "The Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right" which the authors describe as a self-help book for women seeking a man to marry. It's often decried for being formulaic and for reducing the women who follow it and the men they seek to outdated stereotypes about gender roles. The rules themselves amount to a complicated game of "hard to get", which is not exactly a new strategy, nor is it always the best approach to take.

"The Game" refers to a series of books entitled "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists", which is a purported exposé on the pickup artist community (which is not similar to a pick-up basketball game, see [[1178: Pickup Artists]]), and its follow-up "Rules of the Game", which describes the techniques used. Pickup artistry involves the use of psychological and emotional tricks intended to coerce women into casual sex. Practitioners of pickup are considered by many to be manipulative and creepy for reducing women to little more than objects for conquest.

It's clear that Megan has a low opinion of those who put stock in these works. The idea of removing the Rules Girls and the Game Players from social interaction by pair bonding them to each other is one that appeals to her. Cueball's response seems to indicate that he agrees with her.

The title text takes a surrealist step with [[Cueball]]'s response to [[Megan]]. ''{{w|The Giving Tree}}'' is a children's book by {{w|Shel Silverstein}} about the relationship between a tree and a young boy who grows to be an old man. ''{{w|The Metamorphosis}}'' is a work of fiction by {{w|Franz Kafka}} in which a traveling salesman wakes up after having strange dreams to find that he has been turned into a nondescript "monstrous vermin" which has in various translations been described as either an insect or a rodent. The implication could be that, in the dream, those who preferred the Giving Tree were treated as literal trees and crawled on by the ones who dreamt weirdly about the Metamorphosis acting as if they themselves were vermin - or perhaps in the logic of the dream the former became actual trees and the latter actual vermin.

==Transcript==
:[Megan with disheveled hair stretches her arms. A sunburst indicating sleepiness is above her head.]
:''YAWN''
:Megan: I just woke up

:[Megan continues speaking from off panel, to Cueball who's sitting at a table with a laptop and cup. He's leaned his elbow on the chair, turning to face Megan.]
:Megan: from the most ''beautiful'' dream.
:Cueball: Which was?

:Megan: All the girls who read and follow ''The Rules'' and all the guys who swear by the techniques in ''The Game'' paired off with each other and left the rest of us alone forever.
:Cueball: ''Mmmmmm...''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Dreams]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Romance]]

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2025-10-17T02:16:46Z

Thathuman:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft. Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])
:It's almost like you totally misunderstood the point of the comic. [[User:A74xhx|A74xhx]] ([[User talk:A74xhx|talk]]) 09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.16|172.69.69.16]] 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I definitely came to this discussion thinking of this movie. It's properly interesting, but it's also easy to see why critics and half the audience hate it. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.64|162.158.34.64]] 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:No one hated Wonder Woman. It has 93%, and is arguably the best live action superhero movie that DC has released so far. Ghostbusters was a money grabbing remake that brought nothing new. It COULD have been great with almost no effort, by getting someone to write an original script that built on the things that came before that everyone loves, instead of trying to replace it with an inferior version. The only one to blame is the Hollywood studios that would rather throw money at something that already exists instead of taking a risk on an unknown. Then they add insult to injury and tell everyone that the reason they failed isn't because they made bad decisions, but because ''people don't like seeing women in leading roles'', which is not true in any form. No real people care if the lead is male or female. They care about a good story, good acting, and having a good time watching a movie they paid their money for. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately: Venom (29%) I like to pretend I like it for the "so bad it's good", but here in anonymous interwebzland, I can admit I just enjoyed it (despite expecting to hate it for the retcon). Does it matter that the RT audience score is 81%? I often find that my enjoyment of a movie is inversely proportional to how much critics didn't, and it seems I'm not alone.[[User:Daemonik|Daemonik]] ([[User talk:Daemonik|talk]]) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point here is that people feel more comfortable disliking something than liking it. It isn't that we don't all have movies that we like that other people hated, it's that many of us are afraid to say it. Also, t's not a movie, but I honestly enjoyed that one episode of ''Stranger Things''. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit a weakness for the Roland Emmerich movies ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012"). OK the science behind the events is pretty rubbish, but they are decent action movies nonetheless with a few enjoyable twists (like the USA having to beg Mexico to let them emigrate south in TDAT).

I'm shocked no one else has mentioned Jupiter Ascending yet; there was a decent amount of silliness in that movie, but I genuinely found it super compelling, and it deserves better than a 27%. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.90|172.68.65.90]] 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

300 got very mediocre reviews (52% on Metacritic), but I'ts absolutely one of my all-time favourite action movies. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Geostorm. Didn't even need the link for that. [[User:Conster|Conster]] ([[User talk:Conster|talk]]) 21:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like another user said, Roland Emmerich movies like TDAT and 2012 are ones I'll always be a sucker for. Also, The Book of Eli (2010) is actually a great movie IMO despite having a 48% on RT. I always put that as a classic. Meet the Fockers (2004) is funny, too.

Side note: Armageddon is a pre-2000 movie (1998), but I think most would agree that it's a classic apocalyptic movie.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 14:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that the original Purge movie has a 39% on RT. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

How, by all that is holy, does The Human Centipede get a 49% Tomatometer rating? Give me a win for Mr Popper's Penguins, though. [[User:Observer of the Absurd|Observer of the Absurd]] ([[User talk:Observer of the Absurd|talk]]) 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragonball Evolution. If the Dragonball anime and Manga didn't exist, this would be a pretty okay and fun movie. Some parts of it were surprizing and the characters are fun. They just aren't the people from the manga, but rather just losely based on them, just like Frozen is losely based on the snow queen.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.70|162.158.92.70]] 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"We Built this City" (Starship) is an excellent song (yes I know it's supposed to be a movie and I'm breaking the rules, but I do that a lot, in case you haven't noticed). Anyone who disagrees is WOTI and leaves me no choice but to vehemently argue. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 17:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mission Impossible 2. The only bad thing is the romance. so... yeah, i'd give it a solid 70-80%. Defined the rest of the series in terms of action. [[User:Icil34|Icil34]] ([[User talk:Icil34|talk]]) 05:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Icil34

I was absolutely enamored with Vivarium when I saw it (If you plan to watch it, it's one of those "the less you know beforehand, the better"), but movie discussion fora I visited pour hate on it, and while it has 73% tomatometer, it only has 39% audience score, so I think it still counts.
It was clearly hit by the double-whammy of being way too sedately paced for the TikTok era and apparently many people having lived such charmed lives that they couldn't recognize a very clear metaphor for toxic families and emotional neglect.
Which is a bummer because it's a pretty cool "uncanny valley sci-fi" movie, and not many movies succeed at being good on both the metaphorical AND literal level. Endigo [[Special:Contributions/172.68.139.147|172.68.139.147]] 13:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's stated in the explanation: it is so that most respondents would choose a movie that they have seen in their adult life and avoid the "childhood nostalgia" bias where you have fond memories of a movie watched as a kid but that you wouldn't enjoy watching as an adult.

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Got one! I love The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Rotten Tomatoes scores it a 17% Tomatometer, 44% Audience score. Dunno why, I found it so cool, so enjoyable! I often wish there was a sequel or even a series. :)[[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My favorite bad movies Wild Wild West, The One, Returner, Equilibrium, The Warrior's Way [[User:Houligan|Houligan]] ([[User talk:Houligan|talk]]) 15:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I liked 50 First Dates. But for my really controversial opinion, I'm gonna say not only was Armageddon a terrific movie, but it got enough of the science right to earn our suspension of disbelief :D
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.245|172.68.142.245]] 21:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Is [[653: So Bad It's Worse]] related enough to be mentioned in the explaination or trivia? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I just came here to say, "Pandorum".

How to talk to girls at parties (2018) - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.113|172.68.46.113]] 20:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasure: ''The Sorcerer's Apprentice'' - [[User:Acrisius|Acrisius]] ([[User talk:Acrisius|talk]]) 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Think of a video-game based movie you actually like. It probably fits this. 2001's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and 2005's Doom have 47% and 34% audience rating, respectively, and I loved both of those (despite the fact that they had basically nothing to do with the games). A few game-based movies have over 50% audience rating, but even then, only 2-3 ever got above 50% with the critics. Heck, even the Pokemon movies got horrible critic ratings (the second movie came out in 2000, so you'd have to start with the third to adhere to that 'post-2000' rule)...

==My big, late comment==

So my three are
:''50 First Dates'' (I'm a sucker for hopeless romantic-type stuff and the gross out comedy didn't go too far to cancel it out),
:''Bruce Almighty'', because Morgan Freeman killed it as God, and
:''Book of Eli'', because that twist is awesome on the successive watch, and even on the first if you figure it out early

However, I take issue with a STRICT limitation of "post-2000", and I would just say if you're going to choose one pre-2000, it has to be a personal favorite, like personal top-50 or so movie, and for me, those would be
:''Hook'', because Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman did their duty to the script and deserve at least 50% on the tomato meter, no matter what balls the other characters or plot dropped,
:''Robin Hood: Men in Tights'', because the cast, characters, gags, and anachronisms are essentially timeless; from Broomhilda breaking the concrete when the horse dodged her; to Blinkin... idunno, everything Blinkin; to Achoo's added attitude and flavor; and all the character's breaking of the fourth wall... goodness... the critics missed this one
:''Boondock Saints'' - not for everyone, but dang, it's just a really interesting and slightly morbid romp of a story about vigilantes rising up against organized crime, mixing humor in with seriousness in just the right amounts and just about perfect pacing

Ok, so I also think there are a few that really don't deserve the low rating they got, even if they weren't the best or my "favorites" - my rubric for adding them here was if I thought they deserved at least 30% more on the tomato meter. If they're just a teeny bit low (like 10%) then that's too close to personal taste for me to add as an argument, so...
:I Think ''Crimes of Grindelwald'' should have gotten more like a 70%, mostly for the world building they continued from the first movie
:I really liked ''Jumper'' (just not QUITE enough to stick my neck out for the real list above) - really great concept that wasn't ruined by sub-par acting, even if it wasn't exactly enhanced - should have been more like 50%
:''The Day The Earth Stood Still'' - again, not the best movie in existence, but got a bad rap - just above 50% seems more appropriate to me
:''After Earth'' - far from either of the Smith's best works, but more deserving than 11% for the world and effects
:''Planes'' - maybe the sequel was too much, and of course it's largely a cash grab and targeted at kids, but it was a decent story and the characters were executed well above a 25% rating - I'd say it should even be just barely fresh, so 60%
:''Chappie'' - I think it was just really interesting, despite the stretches technologically speaking, giving a window (sort of) into a culture not well represented in the U.S. - basically I think it should be just barely fresh as well

And finally what I'm really glad nobody spoke up about are a few of my pet peeves - movies that deserved a low score and got it, but every once in a while I hear people saying they enjoyed it. I'm just glad nobody prior to this seems to have mentioned: Semi Pro and any of the Transformers travesties. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you all for that. -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

So personally, I'm trying to figure out if I can even make a list of all qualifying movies. Would make the game easier if we could have that, but I can't even figure out how to search Rotten Tomatoes for movies beyond what's currently out in theatres. Any advice or relevant links, anyone?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.83|108.162.246.83]] 02:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I loved the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes. Both the First In, Last Out and the "ape D.C." ending were atypical and unexpected. I think the reason that people hated this movie was for the same reason that they hated "The murder of Roger Ackroyd" by Agatha Christie. But both this movie and that novel were amazing because they "broke the rules." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.89|108.162.212.89]] 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

From looking at the [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=release%7CRotten link] in the explanation, I can name Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, and the entire Divergent trilogy as examples. Eagerly awaiting sequels to all of them. (And yes, a little bitter that Ascendant got canceled, though I've long since accepted that. Allegiant could have had a worse ending.) [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I like something that everyone else hates. Pokemon Sword & Shield.

==IMDb Search with all categories, 'cause Rotten Tomatoes is dumb==
Little late to the game, but My go to, and sorted better, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature,tv_movie,tv_special,documentary,short,video&release_date=2000-01-01,&user_rating=1.0,5.0&view=simple&sort=user_rating,desc&count=250

Mine would be Vanilla Sky. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.9|108.162.241.9]] 14:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Nafedalbi

Although it came out when I was 11, I recently became an adult and watched it again. I love After Earth! It got 11% on Rotten Tomatoes and came out in 2011. Jaden and Will Smith did not deserve the Razzie Awards "Worst Actor" (Jaden), "Worst Supporting Actor" (Will), and "Worst Acting Pair". -Dawson-

Very surprised nobody mentioned The Last Witch Hunter. It's got ratings of 18/44, and it's a totally fun urban fantasy, with Vin Diesel playing a character he imported from D&D. It's kinda confusing but also likeable and actually not bad IMO. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.62.16|172.68.62.16]] 07:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I liked Mortal Engines {{unsigned ip|172.71.146.37|23:49, 4 December 2023}}

Mine would be [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1838729/?ref_=ttrt_ov ''Varene iz sakury'']] - 4,5 points, called out as "illogical", de-facto it's easily understandeable if you can grasp some references to the culture of Japan (and know what a "crisis manager" does). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.10.117|172.68.10.117]] 05:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Released June 2001, Rotten Tomatoes rating is 48%) [[Special:Contributions/2601:41:C800:7DC0:7435:3DD2:FE49:D0F2|2601:41:C800:7DC0:7435:3DD2:FE49:D0F2]] 06:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I actually kinda liked The Core (2003), the bad science didn't bother me that much and it is actually kinda fun and charming --[[User:Thathuman|Thathuman]] ([[User talk:Thathuman|talk]]) 02:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)