These are the same stunted adolescents who lose their shit when Game Reviewer X gives AAA Game Y a 7.5/10.
One of my favorite things to do when I was bored and actually trolled people online was to go onto threads about movies, games, etc and just go "I didn't like it very much" and watch the absolute torrent of salt pour our.Parasondox said:Maybe it's the rise of social media or maybe it's just a dumb ego thing but so many people just can't think for themselves anymore. They need validation on everything and anything from some random person. They even lose their shit if you aren't connected to a single fan hive mind that they assume is real. So fucking what if Jimmy from Utah didn't like the thing you like. You can still enjoy it and love it and not abuse Jimmy because he doesn't think the way you do.The Enquirer said:NO. EVERYONE NEEDS TO AGREE WITH ME. If we disagree about anything that can only mean one thing. You are inherently wrong!Parasondox said:One must think angry people are misusing the online petition system. Brexit, US election, Movies. Fuck sakes!!!!
If YOU enjoy the movie, any movie, then fucking enjoy it. Don't let critics change your views on the things you are looking forward to or love.
It's YOUR mind.
Also, don't let online reviews from Rotten Tomatoes be the be all and end all of your movie viewing fun and experience.
I feel like that's the thought process behind a lot of this stuff.
We need to teach the future generation to not become spoiled brats who cries when small shit don't go their way. Oh, and not moan like a lil whiny ***** because they got caught and punished for cheating. Get Over Yourself!
Request permission to use that one in the future.TheLaughingMagician said:How the fuck do these people brush their teeth without accidentally drowning in the sink?
Yeah, the user reviews were more positive, but perhaps you should take a closer look at those user reviews (As is the case with any user review, you REALLY have to take them with a grain of salt). How many of them gave the movie a perfect score? How many gave them a zero? Regardless of how much one likes BvS, it does NOT deserve a perfect 10/10, especially when even The Dark Knight doesn't deserve a perfect score. But at the same time, it doesn't deserve a 0.Kibeth41 said:My bad. Never noticed that before. Probably because I don't check Rottentomatoes that much, and mostly before a movie is officially released.ShakerSilver said:It already does.Kibeth41 said:I feel that Rottentomatoes should be like Metacritic and have a separate section for User reviews
You're entirely wrong about that.Gonna need a rain check on that - at best the reaction from audiences was lukewarmBvS [...] had pretty bad critic reviews, but a LOT of good user reviews.
Metacritic - 7.0 User score.
724 positive reviews.
219 mixed reviews
190 negative reviews
Rotten Tomatoes - 65% user score.
It's not something to 'raincheck' on. The user reviews were positive. I'm not arguing that there aren't people vocal about hating the movies, but they're a vocal minority.
I really can't be bothered to argue about BvS's similarities to the comics.
And those movies are good in a vacuum. But generally, if you're making a Warcraft movie, the key demographic is primarily Warcraft/WoW fans. If you make a Batman/Superman movie, then the primary audiences are Batman or Superman fans.
They don't require you to do ungodly amounts of research in order to appreciate them. But generally you'll hve the most appreciation if you're at least a minor fan.
So, firstly, they only take reviews from the critics that a) work for major newspapers, b) are members of a film critic association, or c) are liked by their users. Then, the staff determine whether the review was positive or negative, and only whether it was positive or negative. Then they take all the positives and all the negatives and pump out the aggregate score, presented as a nice, simple percentage that someone who has no idea how they arrived at that number can just look at it and go, "Wow, that's a good/shit film."From their Wikipedia page said:"Rotten Tomatoes staff first collect online reviews from writers who are certified members of various writing guilds or film critic associations. To be accepted as a critic on the website, a critic's original reviews must garner a specific number of "likes" from users. Those classified as "Top Critics" generally write for major newspapers. The staff determine for each review whether it is positive ("fresh", marked by a small icon of a red tomato) or negative ("rotten", marked by a small icon of a green splattered tomato). (Staff assessment is needed as some reviews are qualitative rather than numeric in ranking.)"
Users have to rate a film 7 out of 10 for it to be considered a positive review. Last I fucking checked, five was half of ten. Not seven. They are literally assuming that user reviews are on a four point scale. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourPointScale] Do the people giving the reviews know that?Wikipedia said:Each movie features a "user average," which calculates the percentage of users who have rated the film positively, similar to calculation of recognized critics' reviews. The users' score is more detailed, because users rate the movie on a scale of 0-10. (Critic reviews generally use 4-star ratings and are often qualitative). A user score of 7 (equivalent to 3.5 stars on a 5-star scale) or higher is considered positive.
FTFY.NLS said:All fanboys need to calm down a notch or two.
Actually, the reviewers tell Rotten Tomatoes whether they liked the movie or not, and that is what is used in the equation for whether or not it is "Fresh", the staff at Rotten Tomatoes do not make that decision. So yes, if Yahtzee review movies, he would simply tell them whether he liked it or not. (Remember any butt-hurt fanboy can edit Wikipedia at any time.) As for their audience reviews, while I agree that 7.5 is a little high of a threshold, on the internet most people do use the four point scoring, which is why critics giving 3/5 stars to a fanboy movie, or 70% to a AAA game are attacked by impotent ragers. Do people giving the reviews know that? Well, all you have to do is mouse over the ? next to Audience Score and it tells you exactly that, so I imagine that yes they do know that, unless they just blindly put out a 5/5 or a 0/5 in which case they don't care.bastardofmelbourne said:the petition is dumb but...
Rotten Tomatoes really does suck at its job.
So, firstly, they only take reviews from the critics that a) work for major newspapers, b) are members of a film critic association, or c) are liked by their users. Then, the staff determine whether the review was positive or negative, and only whether it was positive or negative. Then they take all the positives and all the negatives and pump out the aggregate score, presented as a nice, simple percentage that someone who has no idea how they arrived at that number can just look at it and go, "Wow, that's a good/shit film."From their Wikipedia page said:"Rotten Tomatoes staff first collect online reviews from writers who are certified members of various writing guilds or film critic associations. To be accepted as a critic on the website, a critic's original reviews must garner a specific number of "likes" from users. Those classified as "Top Critics" generally write for major newspapers. The staff determine for each review whether it is positive ("fresh", marked by a small icon of a red tomato) or negative ("rotten", marked by a small icon of a green splattered tomato). (Staff assessment is needed as some reviews are qualitative rather than numeric in ranking.)"
This is not a good process for deciding what films to watch. It is a bad process. I think those guys accusing Disney of bribing reviewers are as full of shit as the next conspiracy theorist, but to be honest, it would not take too many guys working at RT to skew the numbers one way or another and make a film look like the critics hate it. There's just way too much room for bias and human error in their process.
To everyone here who watches Zero Punctuation: If Ben Croshaw was a film critic, would he meet RT's qualifications to be included in the aggregate? And if he was, how would RT tell whether his reviews were positive or negative when he deliberately avoids giving a review a score in favour of giving you his actual, unvarnished opinion?
Edit: Look. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes#Audience_Score_and_reviews] Look at this shit.
Users have to rate a film 7 out of 10 for it to be considered a positive review. Last I fucking checked, five was half of ten. Not seven. They are literally assuming that user reviews are on a four point scale. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FourPointScale] Do the people giving the reviews know that?Wikipedia said:Each movie features a "user average," which calculates the percentage of users who have rated the film positively, similar to calculation of recognized critics' reviews. The users' score is more detailed, because users rate the movie on a scale of 0-10. (Critic reviews generally use 4-star ratings and are often qualitative). A user score of 7 (equivalent to 3.5 stars on a 5-star scale) or higher is considered positive.
Why do people pay attention to this website?
You need to check out more videos instead of cherry picking the good ones. It's being savaged on YouTube just as much as by the pro critics. Search the word "disappointment" and you should bring up most of the Suicide Squad reviews.Remus said:Actually the reviews I've seen thus far haven't been that bad.
General consensus = good movie, big characters were underutilized, but would likely have overshadowed the film had they had more screentime.
So if the critics hate the movie they're not fans of the source material, and if users hate the movie they're on a hate bandwagon. Do you have a situation for when a movie is just plain bad?Kibeth41 said:It's petty, but not completely unwarranted in my opinion.
I feel that Rottentomatoes should be like Metacritic and have a separate section for User reviews. Because a lot of the time, I see a major discrepency between the two, and it usually means the movie is okay.
For example, let's take Warcraft and BvS. These movies had pretty bad critic reviews, but a LOT of good user reviews. This probably comes down to the fact that the critics aren't really fans of the source material and are more just watching the movies because they have to, without really "getting" anything that's going on. Whereas the users who go out to watch these movies are more than likely going to be fans of the source material already, and can provide a more accurate insight for other fans (probably you included).
And then there are movies like Ghostbusters, which saw decent critic reviews, and abysmal user reviews. Probably due to critics looking at the movie with a more neutral viewpoint, away from any backlash or controversy. Whereas users have been on the hate bandwagon for Ghostbusters ever since its conception.