Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aquaman
#61
RottenTomatoes is not a rating system, it's an aggregate. An individual critic usually assigns a number to a movie. But RT doesn't take that into account, it reduces each score to "yes/no" and then tallies them.

So if you're using RT as a measure of quality you're doing it wrong. It's a measure of broad appeal. Guardians of the Galaxy had broad appeal so it has a high score. But I can't imagine anyone putting it in the top 10% of movies ever made, despite its 90%+.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#62
Yeah, I know that. I never said I'm using the % as a measure of how I think they rank movies.

But these movies still received more bad reviews than good ones. Kinda missing my point. There's loads of movies that get panned by critics that are good watches.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#63
I'm not saying there aren't any. I disagree with two examples you gave and haven't seen the other two.

A low RT score doesn't necessarily mean I'll never see it but it almost certainly will make me wait to watch it at home. I have (and I suspect most people have) lower standards for a weeknight Netflix movie than when I make the effort and pay the money to go to the theatre. I go to a handful of movies in theatre a year, why waste it on something most people didn't like? And the opposite, if a movie gets surprisingly high score and I was already interested I may go see it, like I did for Overlord.

And while an aggregate of critical reviews is not a gospel truth or anything it is definitely more in line with my tastes than user scores.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#64
Taken, National Treasure, Spaceballs, Bad Boys, Tommy Boy, Space Jam, A Knights Tale all have bad ratings.

It's almost as if critics do not have a sense of humour.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#65
Taken and A Knight's Tale surprise me. Those are solid 4/5's for me. I see they're both at 58%, so better than half, but still lower than I'd have guessed.

I am totally fine with Spaceballs having a low score. lol I'm guessing it's nearly unwatchable today.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#66
Trailers and talking to people influence me more than reviews when it coems to deciding to spend time on a film. I'd rather read someone's thoughts on a film from this site and see the back and forth than any single aggregate. Entertainment is so diverse and it's easier for me to dismiss aggregate scores assigned to them.
If you need a sign to stay alive tonight, this is it!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#67
I'd imagine a lot of people grade movies on a curve based on the genre and their expectations.

Let's take Super Troopers. If we grade it on the same scale we grade Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding or whatever Oscar bait gets vomited out every year, then it will be a solid 1/5. Super Troopers doesn't make a lot of sense, it's not coherent, it doesn't break new ground - it's mostly just a series of loosely connected vignettes of shitty people doing shitty things, whereas GCEP is a Oscar bait masterpiece.

But when compared against others of its genre - stoner comedies intended to generate cheap laughs - Super Troopers is a masterpiece.

The problem with RT is that some reviewers grade on a curve, while others don't. Lord Stuffington of the Fancy Lads Post will always grade Super Troopers poorly, while The Dude from High Times will grade it highly.

I prefer to have some critics whose judgement I respect, and go with them, rather than any aggregator.
"Hope is not a strategy"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#68
(2019-01-16, 11:10 AM)Hieremias Wrote: I am totally fine with Spaceballs having a low score. lol I'm guessing it's nearly unwatchable today.

Blasphemy!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#69
(2019-01-16, 02:16 PM)HockeyHippy Wrote: I prefer to have some critics whose judgement I respect, and go with them, rather than any aggregator.

Pretty much this. There used to be specific individuals whose reviews i tend to check out. Now it's just for video games. My go to is ign video reviews, bot because i think IGN is overly good or bad, but because they use a similar scoring system to me (out of 10, based off visuals, story, gameplay, etc...) Also don't like watching video's that are too long (past 5 min). Keep it short and sweet! I like Kotaku as well for game and tv series reviews, but that's because i enjoy the writing of certain journalists lol
If you need a sign to stay alive tonight, this is it!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#70
Wait, you don't like hour-long game "reviews"?  Silly

GiantBomb's "Quick Looks" videos: minimum 45 minutes.
TotalBiscuit's (R.I.P.) reviews: minimum an hour with the first 15 minutes staring at options menus.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#71
(2019-01-16, 02:42 PM)Hieremias Wrote: Wait, you don't like hour-long game "reviews"?  Silly

GiantBomb's "Quick Looks" videos: minimum 45 minutes.
TotalBiscuit's (R.I.P.) reviews: minimum an hour with the first 15 minutes staring at options menus.

Seriously, 45 min? Imma briefly check those out because that sounds insane!!! I remember being suggested an Angry Joe review. Gave one video a chance and decided 20 minutes of his shtick was too much... Figured small 3-5 minutes was my preferred length.

Although I don't mind audio/podcasts talking about something in depth when it comes to entertainment discussion.
If you need a sign to stay alive tonight, this is it!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#72
I completely agree re: review length. If you can't give a rating and a decent summary of why in under 5 minutes you need an editor. For games or movies or frankly anything else.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#73
(2019-01-16, 02:16 PM)HockeyHippy Wrote: I'd imagine a lot of people grade movies on a curve based on the genre and their expectations.

Let's take Super Troopers. If we grade it on the same scale we grade Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding or whatever Oscar bait gets vomited out every year, then it will be a solid 1/5. Super Troopers doesn't make a lot of sense, it's not coherent, it doesn't break new ground - it's mostly just a series of loosely connected vignettes of shitty people doing shitty things, whereas GCEP is a Oscar bait masterpiece.

But when compared against others of its genre - stoner comedies intended to generate cheap laughs - Super Troopers is a masterpiece.

The problem with RT is that some reviewers grade on a curve, while others don't. Lord Stuffington of the Fancy Lads Post will always grade Super Troopers poorly, while The Dude from High Times will grade it highly.

I prefer to have some critics whose judgement I respect, and go with them, rather than any aggregator.

I see it like advanced stats and scouting in hockey, one method is not the end all, be all. It’s nice to use a combo of the aggregate Metacritic and looking at anecdotes from critics who have a similar taste to your own personal preferences.

These aggregate scores or fancy stats must be taken in context of the genre.  I mostly use the aggregate scores to filter out the massive turds ? that aren’t worthy of wasting my time and watching.

I do prefer the Metacritic over RT aggregates just because it’s weighing of a critic’s review as 0-100 produces aggregate scores of movies that more closely resemble a normal distribution, which is how you’d expect movies to be rated: a few terrible, some bad, a lot mediocre, some good and a few awesome ones. Whereas, with RT the read on the aggragate just enivitebly comes down to a plus/minus, thumbs up/thumbs down take.

In the end, it’s difficult to quantify “art” and entertainment for everyone. Do what suits you. (Just don’t use aggregate user reviews)
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)