Support NeoGAF

[Bobby Roberts]

The point is, that it's not a 100% movie. It didn't deserve that high of a score. Yet people were angry about it. Right now it's at 99%. Is it really that much better than other great movies who score from 80% and up? In my opinion, no. That's where I think the problem lies.

I think you think there's an ulterior motive behind all this that isn't really there, and that a lot of people are being disingenuous and false about something as trivial as movie opinions when the simpler answer is that people are actually saying what they think because that's actually what they think, and not because they got peer-pressured into it.

I also think you're fundamentally misunderstanding, despite the multiple explanations in the thread, what the RT score represents, and building your thesis about "groupthink" off that misunderstanding.

 

[Catdaddy]

Wonder what he was think of the days of “Siskel and Ebert” who every week reviewed the movies released in the coming week. Those were two guys who wielded a lot of power and so now taking the aggregate of hundred reviews and averaging the result is bad?

 

[dantevsninjas]

The point is, that it's not a 100% movie. It didn't deserve that high of a score. Yet people were angry about it. Right now it's at 99%. Is it really that much better than other great movies who score from 80% and up? In my opinion, no. That's where I think the problem lies.

I know that the guy is a troll. The point is that it's not as amazing as a movie as people, including critics make it out to be. It's a good movie, but better than almost every other movie ever made? There's a very small list of movies with a 100% of 99% RT score. I think that rating is a little higher than it should be and groupthink and the RT culture is the reason it's so high.

Again, it doesn't need to be an amazing movie to score 100%. All that means is that all the critics who submit their reviews, or have their reviews submitted, to RT think that it is good and worth seeing. An entirely average movie could be 100% on RT if everyone who saw it thought it was worthwhile.

 

[Swig_]

I give up. I know what an RT score means. The point is that it is used as an indicator of how good a movie is. If a score is 100, people see that and think "Wow, that must be the best movie ever.", whether or not that's what the score is actually indicative of. I have friends who do this exact thing. They're the type that see an 80 and think that it's probably not that great of a movie because it has a lower (to them) score. You may understand exactly how RT works, but the majority of people don't. They see it as a rating of the movie and base their opinions off of that. If a movie has an 80 and another has a 99, they automatically assume that the 80 is a much worse move than the 99.

My point isn't that hard to understand and I've seen evidence of it in my own life by talking to people. Whatever. I'm done, I figured people would jump on me when I wrote my original post.

 

[Swig_]

Again, it doesn't need to be an amazing movie to score 100%. All that means is that all the critics who submit their reviews, or have their reviews submitted, to RT think that it is good and worth seeing. An entirely average movie could be 100% on RT if everyone who saw it thought it was worthwhile.

Yes. I understand that and have for quite some time. The point is that the majority of people out there do not understand this, and use the rating as an indicator of how good a movie it is. This leads to negative opinions, or more positive opinions, of movies that may not deserve the rating that it actually receives. That is my entire point, and I've seen evidence of that in real life. If people would stop trying to convince me that I don't know what an RT score is (when I do) and actually listen to what I'm saying, they might begin to understand my original point about groupthink and how I think, and have evidence, that it affects how people view movies. Maybe I wasn't clear that I wasn't discussing my personal views, but society in general.

 

[Stinkles]

Netflix is changing from stars to thumbs up/down.

I wonder what that will do to "fancy" films and difficult subject documentaries which often get poor scores from audiences they weren't really intended for.

Especially bad on Amazon Prime stuff.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Whatever. I'm done, I figured people would jump on me when I wrote my original post.

Yeah, that confirmation bias thing you got going isn't serving you too well.

Look, here's a safe rule of thumb for most things: If BRETT RATNER is advocating for something—ANYTHING—regarding the health of the film industry, it's a good bet the OPPOSITE is true.

 

[SoCoRoBo]

I give up. I know what an RT score means. The point is that it is used as an indicator of how good a movie is. If a score is 100, people see that and think "Wow, that must be the best movie ever.", whether or not that's what the score is actually indicative of. I have friends who do this exact thing. They're the type that see an 80 and think that it's probably not that great of a movie because it has a lower (to them) score. You may understand exactly how RT works, but the majority of people don't. They see it as a rating of the movie and base their opinions off of that. If a movie has an 80 and another has a 99, they automatically assume that the 80 is a much worse move than the 99.

My point isn't that hard to understand and I've seen evidence of it in my own life by talking to people. Whatever. I'm done, I figured people would jump on me when I wrote my original post.

Fwiw, I think you're correct. Review aggregators are largely useless, often harmful. They efface any idiosyncrasy of taste or discernment, the art of the critic, leaving a bland assessment of palatability to the broadest taste possible.

Can't prove any correlation but I'd imagine that it has something to do with the preponderance of idiotic movies for children made on a conveyor belt occupying such a prominent place in the culture.

 

[Dalek]

I like the idea that a film critic has written out a positive review for a movie and is about to publish it-they see negative reviews for the same film online and stop in their tracks. "Ok-time to change this to a negative review!"

 

[-griffy-]

I give up. I know what an RT score means. The point is that it is used as an indicator of how good a movie is. If a score is 100, people see that and think "Wow, that must be the best movie ever.", whether or not that's what the score is actually indicative of. I have friends who do this exact thing. They're the type that see an 80 and think that it's probably not that great of a movie because it has a lower (to them) score. You may understand exactly how RT works, but the majority of people don't. They see it as a rating of the movie and base their opinions off of that. If a movie has an 80 and another has a 99, they automatically assume that the 80 is a much worse move than the 99.

My point isn't that hard to understand and I've seen evidence of it in my own life by talking to people. Whatever. I'm done, I figured people would jump on me when I wrote my original post.

I don't think this is really a thing that has happened with Get Out though. I think what actually happens is people see 99% and say "Damn, I should see this movie!" And people they know see the movie and say "Damn, you should see this movie!" And they go see the movie and say "Damn, I'm glad I saw that movie!" and tell others.

I think the same goes for other movies too. If anything, the RT score just pushes people to see a movie quicker or hold off, but I don't think it sways an entire populace's actual opinion of the movie once they've seen it. You've got plenty of people who think BvS is fucking amazing, and people who hate Mad Max: Fury Road.

 

[d00d3n]

I would argue that Brett Ratner is the worst thing in movie culture.

Why wasn't this the first reply?

 

[Zen Aku]

Honestly, I think he got lucky with Rush Hour 1 and 2, because the rest of his work is just...

Yeah he's lucky that Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker turned out to have amazing chemistry, even in Rush Hour 3.

If it wasn't for that the paper thin plots never would have made those movies good.

 

[Imperfected]

Maybe the starting point for the debate should be an actually good movie with an unfairly bad Rotten Tomatoes score due to quirks of the algorithm, rather than a legitimately bad movie which should probably be lower if not for certain generosities of the calculation, if anything.

 

[Oersted]

It underperformed relative to its budget, but making over $800 million at the box office is still pretty impressive.

Two of the most iconic brands in existence barely beat Deadpool, a Rated R movie with 1/5 of the budget.

 

[Monocle]

RT correctly informed people that BvS is a seriously flawed movie, so...

 

[ryan13ts]

Somehow I think if it was sitting at a 96%, I'm sure he'd feel oh so different.

 

[Very Berry Sunday]

I don't have a lot of money, so I watch movies that are critically acclaimed.
Plus, I don't want to pay to watch mediocore movies.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Oh noes, MC might be 10 points off in its assessment of a review!

 

[kswiston]

Oh noes, MC might be 10 points off in its assessment of a review!

If there is no functional difference between a 65 or 75 on metacritic, and if that spread of reviews has several that could be shifted up or down 10+ points (and several more that use a scoring system that doesn't mesh well with the author's own system), what is the point?

The only pattern I notice is that some people like that Metacritic tends to deflate blockbusters and inflate smaller prestige films relative to the non-weighted, non-inferred average review score on Rotten Tomatoes. Therefore Metacritic is better.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If there is no functional difference between a 65 or 75 on metacritic, and if that spread of reviews has several that could be shifted up or down 10+ points (and several more that use a scoring system that doesn't mesh well with the author's own system), what is the point?

The only pattern I notice is that some people like that Metacritic tends to deflate blockbusters and inflate smaller prestige films relative to the non-weighted, non-inferred average review score on Rotten Tomatoes. Therefore Metacritic is better.

A difference of 10 points isn't much.

The difference between a movie that almost everyone gave a 7 to, versus one that got lots of 9s and 5, is huge.

I get that either site can get you that info, but it's very clear in the Metacritic summary like the one I posted.

I don't really care much about the final average, just the relative spread and concentration of views (and to some degree, who voted where).

Blockbusters aim for the widest possible audience, therefore are going to be shooting for a non-controversial result, which RT skews higher with the "fresh" rating.

I can usually tell what blockbusters I want to see without reviews.

 

[poppabk]

I dont understand some of your arguments about niche movies suffering more because of RT. Those movies have the svore they do because critics liked or didn't like them. If they like it more it'll have a higher RT. If it was just a review score aggregate it would be 5.5/10 or something, what's the difference? It's not like critics only started "niche" movies now.

Because how much they like it is irrelevant to the score. Just if they like it, sort of.
Like if above 5 is +ve, then if all reviewers gave it a 5.5, then it would be 100% fresh on RT. Niche movies are likely to be more polarizing and also get less reviews, so the RT score will tend to be more skewed.
If for example you get 5 meh 4/10 'I don't like horror movies' and 2 rave 10/10 'this is an amazing horror movie for fans' reviews - you get a 57% review score but a 28% on RT.

 

[a916]

I think the biggest problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that most people cite that RT score more and ignore the reviews and average score...

A 93 on RT with an average rating of 7/10 vs a 85 on RT with an average of 8.7/10. (BVS is 27/100 on RT, but an average score of 4.9/10)

They should both be taken into account if we're talking critically and referencing RT. With that said, I think listening/reading reviews is better than just coming down and looking at the number.

 

[jonezer4]

Brett Ratner complaining that Rotten Tomatoes is "the worst thing in movie culture" is like Cancer complaining that seasonal allergies "is the worst problem in the human body".

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Brett Ratner complaining that Rotten Tomatoes is "the worst thing in movie culture" is like Cancer complaining that seasonal allergies "is the worst problem in the human body".

This is good shit

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I think the biggest problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that most people cite that RT score more and ignore the reviews and average score...

A 93 on RT with an average rating of 7/10 vs a 85 on RT with an average of 8.7/10. (BVS is 27/100 on RT, but an average score of 4.9/10)

They should both be taken into account if we're talking critically and referencing RT. With that said, I think listening/reading reviews is better than just coming down and looking at the number.

So what your saying then is the problem is people. The numbers are there. The reviews are there. People are just running with the number instead of the whole. Like when folks enter a thread and start posting without even reading the OP. That's not RT's fault..the problem is the people that actually use out like that and run with it.

 

[BadAss2961]

So what your saying then is the problem is people. The numbers are there. The reviews are there. People are just running with the number instead of the whole. Like when folks enter a thread and start posting without even reading the OP. That's not RT's fault..the problem is the people that actually use out like that and run with it.

It's not just the people anymore, it's in the marketing for the films now. 90% on Rotten Tomatoes!

People are always going to skip to an end result and run with the most prominent feature. On RT, it's the percentage.

 

[Parch]

BvS denial is going to exist forever isn't it.

 

[harriet the spy]

My only problem with it is that it's a terrible metric as it encourages incredibly consensual movies - which is the reason why Pixar alwajd does so well. You get rewarded if lots of people kind of like it- but there is no bonus for being incredibly liked by some for instance.

For some reason it's the one I follow but metacritic is at least on paper better thought out.

A better metric would be something similar to the h-index (like 80% of people think it's at least a 8 -> score is at least 8)

 

[AndersK]

Maybe the starting point for the debate should be an actually good movie with an unfairly bad Rotten Tomatoes score due to quirks of the algorithm, rather than a legitimately bad movie which should probably be lower if not for certain generosities of the calculation, if anything.

I see you're here to talk about our Lord and Savior 'The Fountain'. 51 %. 51! Rabblerabblerabble

Spoiler

i'll never let that go

 

[border]

Prequel apologists: "Well at least they tried something original and new! They didn't just remake A New Hope!"

BvS apologists: "Well at least they tried something ambitious rather than all those cookie cutter Marvel movies!"

A this point it isn't even "denial". They admit the movies sucked. But they can't let go of this steadfast belief that an inventive failure is somehow better than a conventional success.

 

[Gattsu25]

I know that the guy is a troll. The point is that it's not as amazing as a movie as people, including critics make it out to be. It's a good movie, but better than almost every other movie ever made? There's a very small list of movies with a 100% of 99% RT score. I think that rating is a little higher than it should be and groupthink and the RT culture is the reason it's so high.

Again, that's not what Rotten Tomatoes is. You're thinking MetaCritic.

Rotten Tomatoes scores just tell you how many critics liked something, not how much each critic did like MetaCritic. This key difference between MC and RT is why I value RT yet don't give a shit about MC scores.

Basically, a ton of critics felt that Get Out was worth watching so the score is high.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Prequel apologists: "Well at least they tried something original and new! They didn't just remake A New Hope!"

BvS apologists: "Well at least they tried something ambitious rather than all those cookie cutter Marvel movies!"

A this point it isn't even "denial". They admit the movies sucked. But they can't let go of this steadfast belief that an inventive failure is somehow better than a conventional success.

Well, yeah. It's not about quality. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

It's not just the people anymore, it's in the marketing for the films now. 90% on Rotten Tomatoes!

People are always going to skip to an end result and run with the most prominent feature. On RT, it's the percentage.

But this isn't some default thing used in marketing by every outlet. I've seen plenty of trailers/tv spots that make zero mention of it, and yet are generally liked and have high scores. Was Ebert's thumbs up or down detrimental to Hollywood studios as well? Was their fate firmly in his hands..or thumb?!

Again, the movie broke records on its release DESPITE that green splat next to its name. Made close to a billion despite its critical panning. There were assess in the seats without the 🍅..why are we ignoring these facts all of the sudden?

End of the day, what I said stands. It's not RT's fault that some people just read headlines and run with it. If that's the case, shut down ALL media. Plenty of folks actually read the reviews, have their faves and all that jazz..some run with the number. In the end, I'm blaming the drunk behind the wheel for tearing through my living room, not Ford for making the damn car..

 

[Kabuki Waq]

I wonder if good directors would feel the same.

 

[caliph95]

It's not just the people anymore, it's in the marketing for the films now. 90% on Rotten Tomatoes!

People are always going to skip to an end result and run with the most prominent feature. On RT, it's the percentage.

Is it a new thing i've have seen movies use critic quotes and scores for marketing before RT got popular.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Is it a new thing i've have seen movies use critic quotes and scores for marketing before RT got popular.

Exactly. And to be real with you, I used Ebert as an example earlier because I always felt that dude and I barely agreed at times. Some folks read those pulls and let it guide their viewing decisions..most don't.

 

[Timu]

BvS denial is going to exist forever isn't it.

I sure hope not!

 

[AndersK]

I sure hope not!

Well, the thing is, it's never gonna be forgotten. It'll age like fine wine, ain't nobody gonna talk about Iron Man 10 years after its release back in 2008 and...Uh...

And...wait it's 2017 now?

Well shit.