If you read some of the reviews the bumper says bad things yet somehow still counted as positive. If it's not automated or self submitted its possible someone's curbing the scores
Edit:
A lot of the "good" reviews say things like "totally missed the mark, but Chris is pretty funny I guess"
[QUOTE=Primigenes;50691589]I came into this thread and you threw a personal attack at me. What are you guys even mad about? I defend a guy posting on his phone and throw a joke at a guy posting on his phone and whatever. I can't even take you seriously at this point
The tomatometer is just a measure of critical agreement. It's literally what Mooth is talking about so I'm not explaining shit. You literally can't hold a conversation without moving goal posts and mentioning extraneous shit.[/QUOTE]
No, i told you how the tomatometer works. Its a manual system, somehow despite getting a lukewarm score average [b]AT BEST[/b] of 6.5 its got a near 80% percentage, explain that to me. Especially when other films near similar average scores have fucking massive percentage differences.
Percentage works as number of labeled positive so I guess 80% reviews are positive but low scores?
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
Is that even possible
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50691615]Percentage works as number of labeled positive so I guess 80% reviews are positive but low scores?
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
Is that even possible[/QUOTE]
Only if someone is deliberately fucking with the system, i'd imagine.
3/5 sounds positive but it's in the middle
12 3 45
A lot of the positives (including some that speak ill) are 3/5. Is that not like a 5-6/10?
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
Were 3/5 and 6/10 marked as good on BvS?
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50691636]3/5 sounds positive but it's in the middle
12 3 45
A lot of the positives (including some that speak ill) are 3/5. Is that not like a 5-6/10?
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
Were 3/5 and 6/10 marked as good on BvS?[/QUOTE]
Yeah it'd be a 6, but the 5 star system is a little odd.
For the 5 star system its essentially a "its okay, but not terrible" or something along those lines.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50691593]If you read some of the reviews the bumper says bad things yet somehow still counted as positive. If it's not automated or self submitted its possible someone's curbing the scores
Edit:
A lot of the "good" reviews say things like "totally missed the mark, but Chris is pretty funny I guess"[/QUOTE]
Imagine if corruption is revealed and this is the fucking movie that destroys Rotten Tomatoes' credibility
People already told me "critics don't matter!!" when I laughed my ass off about BvS
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50691666]Imagine if corruption is revealed and this is the fucking movie that destroys Rotten Tomatoes' credibility[/QUOTE]
I'd be shocked WB couldnt pay or convince anyone to boost BvS but Sony "oh fuck oh fuck Marvel save us" was able to.
But its just cause the misogyny bullshit probably.
Whys it gotta be like that. Why cant you just make good things and have it be good and not be a dick about it and make it super political to see it or not.
I called it early on because every time they had a new trailer they showed us something new they shoehorned in
-Wonder Woman
-weird desert batman thing
-Jason Todd
-Doomsday
I was concerned when Wonder Woman was added because I didn't think she belongs on a batman v superman movie and I didn't like her casting
When I saw the Jason Todd reference I was like "how do you have time for this", same for desert batman thing
And when I saw doomsday in a trailer I was finally like "there is too much going on there's no way they pull this off"
Low and behold...
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50691686]I called it early on because every time they had a new trailer they showed us something new they shoehorned in
-Wonder Woman
-weird desert batman thing
-Jason Todd
-Doomsday
I was concerned when Wonder Woman was added because I didn't think she belongs on a batman v superman movie and I didn't like her casting
When I saw the Jason Todd reference I was like "how do you have time for this", same for desert batman thing
And when I saw doomsday in a trailer I was finally like "there is too much going on there's no way they pull this off"
Low and behold...[/QUOTE]
Fucking Disney shill.
You dont get capekino.
They should've held off on most of those ideas
Batman would've benefited from a solo film in this universe especially given his changed personality
Lex should've been in Man of Steel tbh, or a sequel. Doomsday should've been its own Superman movie.
Wonder Woman should've stayed in a solo flic even though I doubt it'd be that good anyway
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
They didn't want to wait for that avengers money so they fucked up instead
Is it bad that I don't think going straight to "Rotten Tomatoes is bribed!" is the best idea? I'm pretty sure it's just a fundamental problem with the fresh/rotten binary. Any review over 60% is going to be marked as positive, even if it had major problems with the film overall, and add to the positive "tomatometer". 77% of the reviewers didn't give it a high score, just considered it not a terrible movie. That's how a movie like Finding Dory has a 95% despite the reviews averaging out to 7.7- not because Disney gave a fat sack of cash to the review aggregate site (which kinda sounds silly when put like that), but just had a lot of people who thought it was a decent flick.
This ain't me defending RT or the new Ghostbusters, in fact I have a big distaste for both- I just think there's simpler and smarter ways of explaining that percentage discrepancy.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50690522]
[t]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hz_PHldS8zw/maxresdefault.jpg[/t]
[/QUOTE]
Wow, I'm immediately reminded of how Gamergate was treated by the media.
Looks like history repeats itself.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;50690519]Let's also not forget that just because critics gave a film a good review, doesn't mean a film is good.
For instance, "The Witch".
[url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_witch_2016/[/url][/QUOTE]
people rarely appreciate slow burn horror films or horror films that dont involve scary video tapes or haunted mansions tbh
[QUOTE=Magikoopa24;50691754]Is it bad that I don't think going straight to "Rotten Tomatoes is bribed!" is the best idea? I'm pretty sure it's just a fundamental problem with the fresh/rotten binary. Any review over 60% is going to be marked as positive, even if it had major problems with the film overall, and add to the positive "tomatometer". 77% of the reviewers didn't give it a high score, just considered it not a terrible movie. That's how a movie like Finding Dory has a 95% despite the reviews averaging out to 7.7- not because Disney gave a fat sack of cash to the review aggregate site (which kinda sounds silly when put like that), but just had a lot of people who thought it was a decent flick.
This ain't me defending RT or the new Ghostbusters, in fact I have a big distaste for both- I just think there's simpler and smarter ways of explaining that percentage discrepancy.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone's saying RT was directly bribed. They don't really review anything after all
They're showing a pool of reviews that can be bribed/biased etc
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
Also tampered with apparently, some were bullied down
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50691792]people rarely appreciate slow burn horror films or horror films that dont involve scary video tapes or haunted mansions tbh[/QUOTE]
yeah, that's the reason I loved it. It was a nice slow pace, extremely atmospheric, and you really got to see how the family fell apart, and for a good chunk of the movie were left guessing at [sp]whether or not the supernatural stuff was real, or rather just a figment of their religious beliefs to explain the bad shit that happened[/sp]
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;50690388]this conspiracy is so batshit that it's funny. somehow a majority of reviewers are all in on this and nobody could possibly enjoy the film because I and all my internet dudes say so
you're delusional[/QUOTE]
Yeah the guy unable to change his ->opinion<- about what antivirus to use over several years despite being shown repeated ->facts<- about how of date and utility it was has been elected supreme emperor of movie objectivity.
Sure, you can be trusted to be impartial.
[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;50691745][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ANN7yQN.png?1[/IMG]
thank god Roeper still has integrity.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50691610]No, i told you how the tomatometer works. Its a manual system, somehow despite getting a lukewarm score average [B]AT BEST[/B] of 6.5 its got a near 80% percentage, explain that to me. Especially when other films near similar average scores have fucking massive percentage differences.[/QUOTE]
This.
Entirely this.
RT is just like MetaCritic.
If you're using it as an ->objective<- scoring method, then you're not paying particular attention. Just like MetaCritic, reviewers are given "weighting" and how much a review changes an aggregate score is neither public nor is it known, and RT can change the weighting at any time for any reason with any review.
Not sketchy at all.
[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;50691745][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ANN7yQN.png?1[/IMG]
:zing:[/QUOTE]
Fucking Savage, Based Roeper strikes again
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50691666]Imagine if corruption is revealed and this is the fucking movie that destroys Rotten Tomatoes' credibility[/QUOTE]
RT is just an aggregate, they don't really have any control over the reviews.
Its just worse than most sites because the "rotten" system takes subjectivity and places it over subjectivity.
-Snip-
Can someone create an algorithm that separates top-critic reviews based on their mention of feminism?
[editline]11th July 2016[/editline]
Also I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this.
[quote]The ladies' most impressive talent, however, is their ability to overcome a lazy script that takes forever to get going. Coscreenwriter-director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, Spy) feels the need to hit every familiar Ghostbusters beat, down to the “look, our business is booming!” montage. Instead of nailing a ghost at a high-profile hotel, they do it at a raucous Ozzfest concert. Jones must literally carry the movie's best sight gag on her shoulders; the rest of the jokes are hit-and-miss one-liners — including a self-referential dig at online fanboy haters. [sp](After McCarthy uploads a video on YouTube, an anonymous commenter whines,“ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." Ouch!)[/sp][/quote]
[url]http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/ghostbusters-remake-is-not-ready-for-slime-time-w212383[/url]
Like if there wasn't any evidence that they knew what they were doing, there is now.
We have mentioned it though
game is hard
did you guys mention voter demographics for imdb?
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt[/url]
majority of ratings are 10/10 or 1/10. I don't know if I can trust IMDB for an incredibly accurate user consensus for this movie because ghostbusters is not a perfect movie or the worst movie ever.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50692300]game is hard
did you guys mention voter demographics for imdb?
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt[/url]
majority of ratings are 10/10 or 1/10. I don't know if I can trust IMDB for an incredibly accurate user consensus for this movie because ghostbusters is not a perfect movie or the worst movie ever.[/QUOTE]
there's a reason most places use thumbs up and down instead of a star system
idk guys the reviews for this movie aren't biased and ARE NOT based on an agenda
[img]http://puu.sh/pYksJ.png[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.