explain me why should I give a shit about Rotten Tomatoes, again?
>>67404437
Idk. It takes averages of what critics say in a positive or negative way, the score by the left of it is more accurate as it takes the numbered rating
Overall, I can't trust critics really after they give Indy 4 a positive rating but give back to the future 2 a negative
Sharknado
>Reviews Counted: 17
Batman v Superman
>Reviews Counted: 185
>>67404437
Whoever is their reviewer should be fired
>>67404437
>38
Ha, you wish
>>67404531
This.
Real critics didn't even touch Sharknado. It was always a meme movie.
The fact that you're comparing BvS to it and you think this is a DEFENSE of Snyder's latest bowel movement is sad.
>>67404531
>Sharknado
>>Reviews Counted: 17
the movie doesn't serve a number above 0
>>67404437
I can guarantee you that the majority of people who disliked Sharknado were Doug Walker-tier dumdums who thought ''Oh my god! Flying sharks?! Yeah, that's soooo realistic.''
>>67404573
does't matter, the director has the right to say ''82% on Rotten tomatoes!''
meaning that RT gives good overal reviews to shitty movies and the other way around, even a retard can see that
>>67404555
It's a collection of reviewers.
>>67404654
They should fire them all then
>>67404645
Rotten Tomatoes does not give reviews. You're literally throwing a bitchfit over an algorithm.
>>67404645
You haven't even seen BvS yet, have you?
>>67404724
yes, not a perfect film but better than the last star wars and avengers movie
>>67404699
you know what I mean retard, the point is the final grade, nobody gives a shit about the number of critics or if they are working with RT, disney or whatever
>>67404839
>Better than these two other capeshit pieces of trash
What's your point?
>>67404839
>better than the last star wars
Anon I hate to tell you this but there have been two more Star Wars movies since Attack of the Clones.
>>67404437
Sharknado was a deliberate campy b-movie. The movie was praised by critics that saw a movie that aimed low and hit its mark. The user score reflects people who either a.) didn't know it was trying to be bad and took it honest-to-god seriously or b.) were rightfully pissed off that a movie was downright insulting its audience by smearing on its proverbial clown makeup and parading genuine shit as comedy.
Batman vs. Superman didn't strike well with critics because it tried to be more than what it was, but did well with audiences because they fed into the hype machine by buying tickets and getting a big explosive comic book movie featuring two characters that have never shared the screen before.
>>67404598
The movie knew what it was and critics respected it for it. BvS on the other hand...
why don't you use imdb instead of this?
are you so hipster?
>>67404901
force awakens a shit
>>67404887
that those were mediocre, this was better as in GOOD.
>>67404437
Because we're too lazy to actually look for and then follow interesting critics so instead we use RT to tell us what to think.
>>67404437
Sharknado is being reviewed by 17 contrarian hipsters who are recommending it based on its forced awfulness.
>>67404437
stfu yauze
>>67404437
The real question is how long will the DCucks bitch about people not liking their movie.
>>67404883
>Being this angry cause no one liked the capeshit movie you liked.
>>67404686
They don't work for RT retard
>>67405301
Then how is it RT's fault for low reviews?
Disney owns RT
They also own Marvel
Stop questioning things and be a good goy
>>67405410
Are you sure about that?
>>67405376
They aren't, what the fuck are you talking about? It's an aggregator
>>67405376
it's not RT's fault
it's the fact that RT happens to be the place where the retards gather to review
IMDB is not exactly a good place for reviews and the like. But if you compare the two, it's well-argumented opinions on IMDB, and shit like MUH WHITEWASHING and WHERES THE FUN on RT
IMDB a shit
RT even worse
>>67404437
The fact that it has less rating then objectively dogshit movies that are known to be made with no effort seems like most of the reviews are either so biased or possibly even payed for.
>inb4 dkuk
Nah havent watched this capeshit since vanila avengers few years ago and deadpool as of late
>>67405468
Yes, google it.
>rotten memetoes
>>67405584
How about you prove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_tomatoes
>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.)
Average Rotten Tomatoes score is 5.2. It's only 1 point less than Thor:TDW, The Incredible Hulk, and Man of Steel.
Thor:TDW : 6.2/10
The Inc. Hulk : 6.2/10
Iron Man 2 : 6.5/10
Thor : 6.7/10
Avengers:AOU : 6.7/10
Ant-Man : 6.8/10
Capt. Amer.:TFA : 6.9/10
Iron Man 3 : 7/10
Capt. Amer.:TWS : 7.5/10
Guar. OTG : 7.8/10
Iron Man : 7.7/10
Avengers : 8/10
Man Of Steel : 6.2
>>67405625
>>67405823
See I knew Warner Brothers had it in for that Batman vs Superman. They really are using RT to slam it. I truly am sorry for being mean to all those that have said this is really a good movie. We need to make a stand and tell Warner Brothers not make unfair biased reviews on RT about how horrible BvS is.
