If I get this right? One critic - fresh or rotten
100 critics 78 of them givie it less then 50- a rotten tomato, the film rates 28% with critics.
So films like Batman v Superman and Warcraft gets crap reviews cause they don't live up the the hype and that critics all in all don't like this kind of film.
Why does anyone care about the rotten tomatoes critic score? Seems imdb rating is more acurate towards if a film is worth watching or not.
>>70743252
IMDb ratings are trash son.
Critics know more than stupid fanboys.
>>70743252
yep its a retarded system based on a simple liked it / didnt like it system like Youtube.
>>70743252
but Rotten Tomatoes does have the average reviewer score underneath the %. so Batman V Superman is a 4.9 on RT.
so its score is really 49%.
>>70743350
no, it's rotten tomatoes score is 27% as in 27/100 critics recommend the film
it's average score is 4.9/10
>>70743392
thats what I said, retard.
>>70743252
The system is fine, the critics weren't hyped for BvS because it's a Man of Steel sequel and that had poor reviews too. If they made BvS better than Man of Steel the critics would of gave it more generous ratings
The hype for Warcraft had nothing to do for its critic ratings, most credits don't play the game so they really didn't have anything to be hyped about. The main reason its going to underperform in the US is because the Warcraft fad has died down here, its much more popular overseas.
>>70743419
you were trying to claim the score should be 49% when it's only the average rating
>>70743350
>>70743392
Reviewers think they are fancy people liking oscar bait, looking down on films for regular people. Except for Marvel films for some reason.. ???
Batman v Superman- beautiful,exciting, but rushed and there were some bad decitions made, overall good film.
Warcraft- fun actionpacked light film
Turtles 2- actionpackedx film with humor and cartoony stuff, made for kids enjoyable for adults that liked it was kids and understand it's a film for kids with a retared plot.
>>70743529
because note how earlier marvel films (excluding IM1) got much worse reviews than the newer marvel films now? because now that marvel is so normiecore and EVERYONE loves the movies, critics are too scared to bash them even a little, so they just give them all good ratings to seem like they still know what makes a good movie
>less than 60% is rotten
trash system
>>70743252
Rotten Tomatoes features 3 ratings:
A tomatomer which gives the percentage of favorable reviews
Average Rating-the average score of all reviews
Audience Score-which percentage of audience liked it
The audience score is directly comparable to IMDB.
IMDB rating are unreliable, fanboys inflate the ratings and many films have 9.5 ratings before they are even screened for critics.
>>70743252
>>70743597
Thats how it works in school bro, its called standards
>Metacritic users say it's good
>RT users say it's good
>IMDB says it's good
>Amazon says it's good
>Majority of respected professional critics say it's good
Literally what are DCcucks complaining about?
>>70743252
hahahahaha
>>70743252
>Warcraft
That movie deserves all the shit it gets the other one might be mediocre but at least it looks good unlike fucking warcraft.
>>70743651
But 50% is exactly mediocre, anything above that is a positive.
Besides, any system that gives Thor a higher recommendation that The Assassination of Jesse James is either trash or populated by idiots or both.
>>70743661
The two DC movies have prompted more discussion than any of the cookie cutter production line flicks that Marvel have produced
Average scores like IMDB and Metacritic are useless. Just find few reviewers (not ones that necessarily have same taste with you, but write intelligently) and read their writings and do some pro et contra weighing
>>70743702
Where?
>Friendly reminder that this is the typical "critic" who doesn't like BvS
>>70743682
>mediocre
No, it's crap. BvS is horribly written and Doomsday looks 100 times worse than any special effect in Warcraft.
>>70743702
How much of that wasn't people crying about or making fun of the ratings
>>70743684
Anything below a 60 is failing in school, shit in College you can't transfer or advance to the next level with anything under a 70 which is considered mediocre. The system is fine
>>70743702
As does any tragic disaster.
>>70743613
the reason why many films have 9.5 is because they were just released. after a month or so when it stabilizes it's a more or less accurate score. tell me how many movies out there have an imdb score of 9.5 right now? I find IMDB more akin to my taste than rt, most of the time that is.
>>70743771
Quite a lot actually. It's only shitposters and Evansposters who try to spoil things
>>70743797
Isn't TDK one of the highest rated films on IMDB? Its a great film but its no where near top 50, isn't it like top 3 on IMDB?
>>70743252
>Seems imdb rating is more acurate towards if a film is worth watching or not
All ratings everywhere became shit due to The Dark Night. They don't work anymore.
>>70743768
Yea, was forced and they should have done seo ething else(lex droid -lex in kryptonite armor?)
Still some nice action with wonderwoman there.
>>70743797
BvS had a rating over 9 back in 2015, months before it was released, and so does every Marvel movie. There is even written reviews by people months before anyone has seen
>>70743529
you sound like a massive self-pitying moron with your ''dem arrogant elites don't like muh regular flicks for muh regular people'' nonsense.
>>70743773
Nice comparison m8, but this isn't a school grade.
On the RT system it isn't a grading system of how good something is, it's the percentage of recommendations it got.
Even if a film is recommended by over half the people who rated it, it's still rotten.
That doesn't make any sense.
>people were surprised that Neighbors 2 underperformed and turned out to be shit after so many RT reviews were written by SJWs unironically praising the film for its vapid feminist messages.
What do you fucking think?
>>70743970
yea but does it look like it's anywhere near 9 in IMDB now?
>>70743866
i personally find TDKR deserving of the score, but nolan has lots of fanboys on IMDB
>>70744032
Typically for a normal distribution the average score is 70, with a standard deviation of 10 which means any score from 60-80 is deemed average.
I don't know if movie reviews follow a normal distribution but they probably, so even if half the critics recommend a film it still its still bad because the average film released would have 3 quarters of critics recommending it
>>70743252
The biggest problem is that 99% dont even watch the movie. You can read each review and see key buzz words and exact same pros/cons, almost word for word, praising or bashing the same things. The way things are worded you can tell its someone that read another persons review and parrot it.
>>70743702
not exactly a positive
I usually ignore reviews unless they are concerning food, medicine, or computer parts.
>>70743760
>unironically disliking Moviebob
>>70743252
>100 critics 78 of them givie it less then 50- a rotten tomato, the film rates 28% with critics.
This is not how rotten tomatoes work
why is it every summer some stupid faggot doesnt know how the site works
the rating x/10 is decided by critics, the % is based on the number of reviews positive vs negative
>>70744754
>Unironically liking Moviebob
Did you forget where you are?
How do you qualify as a """critic""" anyway. As typified by the thousands of Millennial core threads about Youtube """celebs""", there seems to be no barrier to entry other than a total lack of dignity, self respect and decency.
>>70745150
Typically anyone who reviews movies for major newspapers and magazines, although RT also consider some bloggers and people who reviews movies for websites as critics.
I personally wouldn't consider anyone who isn't paid to give their reviews as a credit
>>70743400
>>70743529
BvS - good first act, bad third act
WC - bad first act, awesome third act
Turtles 2 - joy for the fans and kids, ass for the hipsters
>>70743613
>IMDB rating are unreliable, fanboys inflate the ratings and many films have 9.5 ratings before they are even screened for critics.
IMDB is unrealiable because it treats click ratings the same as reviews.
Look at TFA, for example. The user reviews are mostly about how bad it is, but the click factor overwhelms them.
>>70744191
Maybe it's just a personal thing, I guess. If someone recommended a film to me, I thought it looked interesting and I saw that 50% of people liked it, I'd give it a shot.
>>70745339
I don't know senpai, when I'm on a porn site and the video doesn't have at least a 90% rating then I typically won't enjoy the video, its kinda similar to RT
>>70743702
This is what happens when you take risks instead of exploiting the dumbassery of the audience
>>70745591
What risks did DC take?l BvS was WB shoehorning a cinematic universe like Marvel, they tried to cram 3 movies in one
>>70743400
The funniest thing is that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Warner.
>>70745636
>Proving you didn't understand the movie
Today's mass audience only want to see spectacle. They expected Man of Steel fight scenes x10 but with Batman. What they instead got was a character driven piece of art dedicated to those who see the big picture in terms of what these characters represent (man and God). It is a critique on society, politics, religion, and most importantly, ourselves.
Name 1 other big budget movie that does that as implicitly and exceptionally as BvS did. Answering with Star Wars because of "muh Nazis" and the "force" is laughable.
>>70743577
> because now that marvel is so normiecore and EVERYONE loves the movies, critics are too scared to bash them even a little,
are you serious.
You can't seriously be this deluded right? If that were the case they'd all get 100% on the tomatometer.
>>70743252
>So films like Batman v Superman and Warcraft gets crap reviews
BECAUSE THEY'RE GARBAGE
>>70743797
It doesn't matter, the end score will still have been skewed by the fanboys, be it negative or positive scores.
>>70743801
I've yet to see a thread about it that wasn't complaining about the movie or attacking the RT score.
Audience score is almost always a better indicator than the Tomatometer.
>>70743661
Why does seeing capeshit movie posters cause me physical distress?
I haven't even seen single entire capeshit film yet. Only trailers and posters. It just makes me sick to the stomach.
Once I tried to watch some "Spider-Man" and it was a daunting experience. Like a 2 hour long YouTube cringe video with a $100,000,000 budget which just made it so much worse
>>70745859
>a character driven piece of art dedicated to those who see the big picture in terms of what these characters represent (man and God). It is a critique on society, politics, religion, and most importantly, ourselves.
I can't tell if these posts are satire or not.
>>70744803
>why is it every summer some stupid faggot doesnt know how the site works
because you have selective memory and don't notice this happens all year since we always have threads complaining about RT not being reliable because they have a low score on a movie OP liked.
that or you're trying to fit in.
>>70745946
>deluded fanboys are more trustworthy
>>70745859
DCucks gonna cuck
>>70743797
>I find IMDB more akin to my taste than rt, most of the time that is.
That says more about your taste than about RT
>>70745988
No it always happens more often in summer because of blockbusters, and the summer kiddies come here to talk about their favorite shitty movie
>>70745859
BvS was pretentious garbage, they wasted a $250 budget on characters who wore spandex that are symbolizing Christian and Greek mythology. Zack Snyder approaches symbolism like a 6th grader using it for the first time for an english paper.
the problem with RT at least on here is that most don't know how to interpret the score. It doesn't show how high a movie was rated by a critic only if the critic liked it/would recommend it. So 5 barely positive reviews equals the same as 5 reviews loving the film - 100%. This is where it gets flawed if you take the score as a measure of quality not what it really is - the percentage of a bunch of hobby critics and amateur bloggers that would recommend the movie. So don't get me wrong that is a valuable information but it's not a professional critics consensus if you want a score representative of that, metacritic would be the better choice
It's really simple:
If a film can gross $500,000,00 it means it caters to the lowest common denominator, insults your intelligence and is generally not worth your time.
Why would anyone look at these "scores"
You don't want to watch "bad" movies? Only "good" movies? Which is just opinions anyway. Its a sign of low IQ when you base your movie watching decisions on these scores on places like imdb & rt
ok for all that still don't get it
Rotten Tomatoes
>how many movie bloggers liked it
Metacritic
>Average score of how critics rated it
Imdb
>what do the normies think
>>70745837
Yes, people at Warner are they only critics posting their reviews.
>>70743252
Why does anyone care about the "critics" on /tv/, that are mainly teens, that post on /b/ and /v/, that care about video games more than film, that don't even know how to critique a film?
>>70743252
>RT
Has audience score, critic percentage and critic average score. You have to be retarded to be confused like that.
>Metacritic
Has critic average score. Pretty straight forward.
>IMDB
Maybe if you take each score, remove the 10s and 1s from the fanboys and the haters, maybe then you would have something that resembles a legitimate score.
Nevertheless, you shouldn't take any of those into consideration, after you have your own opinion of the movie. Follow any specific critics you trust, use that only to decide whether to see a movie or not waste your time.
But here's another thing. You can like a movie, any movie. You can like shit for all I care. But if you like something and have to be an edgelord because other people, even more so most people, don't like it (or reverse), then you're a fucking retard, end of story.
tl;dr: a lot of people on this board are retarded
>>70744045
So your point is that yes, IMDB scores can't be used seriously during a movie's theatrical run but somehow that's not a problem? Fuck off.
Lmao
>>70743252
Let's imagine that :
>all critics give it 4.9/10
0% - rotten
>all critics give it 5.1/10
100% - fresh
It's not rigged, it's just an inaccurate metter for quality. And inaccurate since the beginning. But if it was only that, why DCucks are so butthurt about that website?
Number reviews are shit.
You need to read their actual opinions.
>>70746832
they are butthurt because they can't handle the banter from Marvelfags. The simple fact that is right now, Marvelfags are gettting exactly what they wan. There are at least three new movies everyone year, could be something small scale like ant-man or some epic like GotG. Sure, there is a similar tone running through all of their movies but there's still some range.
With DC movies you only really get grimdark Batman or grimdark Superman. Maybe they'll get a grimdark justice league movie, maybe.
>>70746979
Don't forget grimdark Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad, a movie about villains that seems way more light-hearted than the superhero movies, but still fairly grimdark.
Does anyone watch capeshit and "action" flicks unironically?
I always assumed you were all just memeing
>>70744044
But it has a rotten rating dumb dumb
>We live in a world where movies like this are praised by critics and all intelligent pieces of filmmaking are behind shunned
Is this a dream? Did we wake up in a matrix nightmare?
>>70748236
Sharknado is funny. BvS is just pretentious and bad.
>>70748491
>Sharknado is funny.
>so funny that it deserves am 82% score
yeah no it fucking doesn't
rotten tomatoes is a shitty system.
55% is deemed 'rotten' yet thats more positive reviews than negative. Surely say it has mixed reviews makes sense.
No doubt disneyfags will pipe up with their 90% pleboramas
>>70745988
>2012
Movie websites have bias, just like political and news websites, so find a website that's in tune with your sensibilities towards film, and follow that. This is part of the success and popularity of reviewers like Red Letter Media and the Nostalgia Critic; they outline clearly their likes and dislikes about films, and if you feel you have a lot in common, you can trust reviews to be relevant to you. Populist reviewing is dying and deserves to die frankly, just like populist news reporting. People should be critically minded enough to understand the context of any given opinion.
