Do people still take this site's reviews seriously?
/tv/ does
>kek
>>70343634
The site doesn't have reviews. It aggregates them you idiot. Why don't you ask us if we take Google search results serious.
I don't take any review site seriously except /tv/ tbqh
>>70343857
>The site doesn't have reviews. It aggregates them you idiot.
Then it selectively aggregates them and is literally just a worse Metacritic.
Do people take the RT rating seriously, then?
>>70343884
You know who does.
>>70343841
Thus Riddet does too do annoying retards like Angry Jose and Jeremy Jews.
>>70343884
If I ask a thousand people if they like something and you want to see the results which would you prefer: going to 1000 different websites and reading 2-10 paragraphs on each, or would you like a consensus compiled on a single site to see what the overall reaction is? People that whine about RT one way or another are the highest tier autistic.
After the whole BvS thing they lost a lot of credibility. The average moviegoer has no idea about rotten tomatoes and those that do know they as the site that says every movie sucks now.
>>70343634
read top critics and then make up your own damn mind. It's your fault if you follow youtube faggots.
>>70343634
Not really though the audience score is usually somewhat reliable. The critics section is too infested with SJWs and contrarians
>>70343975
>average moviegoer has no idea what RT is
Yeah not true at all it's listed on google next to any movie you search
>says every movie sucks now
Uh no. Even less true. Recent studies have shown modern reviews to be more favorable than ever
Stop talking out of your ass
only when it confirms their bias
>>70343634
RT is horrible on tv and in general I prefer IMDB
>>70343634
back in 1999 no.
>>70343951
Did you read my post?
Metacritic does what you talked about.
RT does it, but selectively. They only show reviews that fit their political agenda instead of simply aggregating ALL reviews.
>>70344020
I have never put any credence in RT reviews or ratings. I just know it was a meme some time ago that they were "the authority" on movie reviews and wandered whether people have seen through them yet.
>>70343634
>butthurt blizzdrone detected
Nope. Why would they give Doom 19%? It deserves at least 40%.
>lacking in plot
What the actual fuck does this even mean?
The main plot is as follows:
The main actor had a traumatic experience on Mars when he was a kid, loosing his parents if I remember correctly. His sister though remained on Mars as a scientist and he has to face his fear when he goes back to Mars on a mission to get rid of a contaminated virus that has spread across the whole facility: turning people into infected zombie/demonic like entities.
Yes this movie did not fully follow the game i.e. that Hell is real and that all these infections are due to Satan - that is a little too far fetched in reality and so therefore the makers of this film wanted to make it more realistic.
Infections are realistic as well as people becoming monsters: just look up Elephant Man for example. A real case of disease that makes people look like freaks.
This movie had amazing practical effects, along with CGI which was excellent for a 2005 movie. Each marine character had his own belief system: I loved the powerful scene when the young kid does not want to kill a room full of non infected people whilst the Sergeant demands it because he believes they will be infected. The sergeant decides to kill this young kid. It is really a great scene, with the Sergeant screaming "I don't need men but Soldiers!" Makes you really hate the Sergeant from this point on and the way the Sergeant dies too is justice as the main character says "Like the kid said... go to hell" before chucking a grenade at him as he explodes (whilst he has transformed ironically into an infected being).
This is one of my favorite video game adaptions. I loved the Mars Facility and the opening CGI shot of Mars. No idea why most movies today have weak CGI that look so fake compared to this.
This movie does not deserve any of the hate it gets. Also: the Pinky Demon was right out of Doom 3. 100% identical design.
>>70344137
>it deserves at least 40%
well to be fair, it basically got a 39% from critics
Did anyone ever take them seriously?
If a movie gets shit reviews, it's probably shit, get over it you fucking babies.
>>70344137
>it deserves 40 %
by your logic it should have 0 %, or do you not know how Rt works?
>>70344244
Only when it became convenient for shitposting
What a great question.
We will find out the answer in this thread.
Otherwise there is no way to find out its current level of popularity.
>>70343634
I don't.
When they give certain Marvel movies and TDKR and the new Jungle Book and shit like 10 Cloverfield Lane 80+% while Batman Vs. Superman isn't even at a fair 60%, something nasty is going on behind the scenes.
Nowadays I just go by imdb user scores. Even metacritic seems unreliable.
Generally people, I'm speaking of posters here, don't read reviews. They make a quick glance at the score, if anything. They have no interest in gaining another's perspective.
>>70344429
>Nowadays I just go by imdb user scores.
imdb user scores are voted by fans not critics. but anyway i agree with your post.
>tfw you know suicide squad is going to have a 23%
>>70344429
>IMDb scores
Half of them are submitted before the fucking film is even seen by anyone. This may be the dumbest post I've read this year. Congrats.
>>70344565
Why would I go by an imdb score before the movie is released? Use your brain instead of assuming the stupid answer is the right answer.
>>70344604
They still factor into the score after its released Einstein. Do you have Downs?
>>70344654
And it heads toward the proper direction after the opening weekend, unless you actually think people don't give it exaggerated ratings on both ends of the spectrum.
>>70343634
Not for anything past 2005 or so.
>muh reviews
Why are /tv/ and /v/ so obsessed with reviews?
>>70343841
only the capeshit/reddit half of /tv/
>>70343857
>implying all reviews are equally valid
bzz wrong try again dumbass, seriously look at the reviewers' history and you'll see how braindead 90% of them are
>>70343951
>the more opinions we can find the more insightful and accurate our ratings will be
you're an idiot
>>70344137
>It deserves at least 40%.
Then it should have a zero? A 40 on RT isn't the website giving it a 4/10
It's expressing that only 40% of critics gave the film a favorable review
I stopped paying attention to RT when I saw it has a higher aggregate rating for Aliens than Alien.
>>70343634
If Master and Commander came out today it would get no higher than a 50% and you all know that's the truth.
>>70345792
that can't be true
>>70345893
That's bullshit.
>>70344429
BvS sucked
>>70345951
It's by like 3% and they're both in the 90s
>>70344086
Both metacritic and RT have the same system of allocating reviews from approved critics.
Metacritic may have like a dozen more reviewers than RT but it's the same idea.
>>70345893
Pretty much every big thing that comes out these days is rated 25% above what it's actually worth. Only the big things though.
>>70343634
The site doesnt review anything. It just shows what percentage of critics gave the movie a favorable review.
Are people actually this retarded?
>>70345585
so every single person on /tv/?
>>70343634
After BvS, no, I don't think so
>>70343634
after BvS and warcraft, yes
they were very accurate with those shit movies
>>70343975
Fuck off Snyder
>>70343634
It's cherry picked by capeshit consolewar faggots. Manlet virgins take it seriously only when it supports their cancer brand. But RT all of a sudden becomes a shit site for plebs when it doesn't give their shitbrand a decent score. And people wonder why this manchild board is on par with /v/.
>>70348927
This board isn't on par with /v/.
Whenever I make a memethread there it gets purged and when I try to cunnypost I get permabanned.
On /tv/ these threads reach 300+ posts.
Clearly this is the superior board :^)
