• The Ghostbusters Reboot Fan Club
    725 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50728716]I'd be more willing to accept it being genuine if there wasnt a smear campaign against anyone who criticized the movie.[/QUOTE] RT is innocent. Put down your pitchforks until you actually have proof that RT is corrupt. If you start pulling conspiracy theories out of nowhere the "other side" will have reason to suspect that people are just nitpicking ghostbusters and are looking for reasons to devalue any review that's positive. [QUOTE=postal;50728713]I agree but it is worth noting that sometimes they are weird about awarding it for films that are on the threshold like this. take this for instance: [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_bfg_2016[/url] the average rating between reviews is a 6.7, that's even higher than the 6.5 that ghostbusters currently has. So it is a bit weirdly subjective at times. But as long as it doesn't drop below 70 and they still call it fresh then I wouldn't call foul regardless.[/QUOTE] They don't care about average ratings, they care about if someone liked it. Average ratings should be irrelevant anyways in deciding if a movie was good, because you're going to have cases like ghostbusters where everyone either gives it a 10 or gives it a 1. Reason why BFG didn't have a certified fresh rating is because it didn't meet that 75% mark.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728753] They don't care about average ratings, they care about if someone liked it.[/QUOTE] I'm aware, I'm just pointing out the silliness of a film that on the whole got higher reviews (by actual rating) than ghostbusters still doesn't get certified fresh rating. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728753] Average ratings should be irrelevant anyways in deciding if a movie was good, because you're going to have cases like ghostbusters where everyone either gives it a 10 or gives it a 1. Reason why BFG didn't have a certified fresh rating is because it didn't meet that 75% mark.[/QUOTE] Uh i was talking critic, not audience ratings ofc lol. But I changed my mind anyways since I realized they're going just by the steady tomatometer early on. But even then I think that's silly. They shouldn't by giving the fresh award so quickly, they really out to wait a week till the vast majority of reviews are out.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728753]RT is innocent. Put down your pitchforks until you actually have proof that RT is corrupt. If you start pulling conspiracy theories out of nowhere the "other side" will have reason to suspect that people are just nitpicking ghostbusters and are looking for reasons to devalue any review that's positive.[/QUOTE] Buzzfeed is a top critic. So as far as im concerned that already fucks up the sites credibility, for me anyway. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728753]They don't care about average ratings, they care about if someone liked it. Average ratings should be irrelevant anyways in deciding if a movie was good, because you're going to have cases like ghostbusters where everyone either gives it a 10 or gives it a 1. Reason why BFG didn't have a certified fresh rating is because it didn't meet that 75% mark.[/QUOTE] Eh. If the movie is so divisive that people are either rating it 10s or 1s, the score absolutely should reflect it, and does. Its sitting at a 6.5.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728693]I seriously hope that you're not hinting at a conspiracy that rotten tomatoes gave it a fresh rating because of bias. [img]http://i.imgur.com/EF5B9Su.png[/img] This is how the tomatometer works. Instead of subtly accusing it of something it's innocent of, research on how the Tomatometer actually works.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have a steady 75% or higher. It's a 73% right now, after 200+ reviews.
[QUOTE=elowin;50728818]It doesn't have a steady 75% or higher. It's a 73% right now, after 200+ reviews.[/QUOTE] Read the fine print. Steady Tomatometer. Tomorrow, if it's under 75%, then it will probably have that certification removed. Like 30 minutes ago when I initially checked it, the review was 75% but now it changed to 73%.
:snip: [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] Still, im glad this movies crashing and burning.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50728798]Buzzfeed is a top critic. So as far as im concerned that already fucks up the sites credibility, for me anyway. [/QUOTE] Criteria for Top Critic: [quote]Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, [B]a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.[/B][/quote] [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/[/url]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728898]Criteria for Top Critic: [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/[/url][/QUOTE] Buzzfeed. I stand by my original statement.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50728903]Buzzfeed. I stand by my original statement.[/QUOTE] Whether you like it or not, Buzzfeed's reviews are opinions and rotten tomato does not care how good or bad your opinion is when it comes to reviews. Buzzfeed is still a critic. If you don't think that Rotten Tomatoes is a valid site for expressing reviews because they have the piss droplet known as Buzzfeed in a sea of piss, then feel free to believe that.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728927]Whether you like it or not, Buzzfeed's reviews are opinions and rotten tomato does not care how good or bad your opinion is when it comes to reviews. Buzzfeed is still a critic. If you don't think that Rotten Tomatoes is a valid site for expressing reviews because they have the piss droplet known as Buzzfeed in a sea of piss, then feel free to believe that.[/QUOTE] Well yeah. I mean guys like Ebert are categorized the same as Buzzfeed. As soon as i learned that the site lost credibility in my eyes. Disagreed with a number of reviews Roger Eberts done, even, but its the principle behind it.
If people still think Ghostbusters is getting special treatment from RT with the "Certified Fresh" rating [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_secret_life_of_pets/[/url]
I dunno why it matters what reason the movie has CF, this still means it's not the infallible resource everyone uses it as. Constantly I'd seen RT be waved around as proof that something is good, someone in this very thread even tried to say people that think its bad are "delusional" because of the RT score at the time. Also read the reviews and you'll notice they put positive on a lot of low reviews [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729002]If people still think Ghostbusters is getting special treatment from RT with the "Certified Fresh" rating [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_secret_life_of_pets/[/url][/QUOTE] Didn't you just show us that it had to be 75% and now here's a movie that has it that is below that lol at least this one has a good audience score
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729012] Also read the reviews and you'll notice they put positive on a lot of low reviews [/QUOTE] A significant portion of the "reviews" are just bashing people who didnt like the movie and dont actually talk about the movie.
and before you say "BUT TOP CRITICS HAS 76%" for secret life of pets go look at the top critic score for ghostbusters, both ends have less than the 75% criteria on Gbusters
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50728693]I seriously hope that you're not hinting at a conspiracy that rotten tomatoes gave it a fresh rating because of bias. [img]http://i.imgur.com/EF5B9Su.png[/img] This is how the tomatometer works. Instead of subtly accusing it of something it's innocent of, research on how the Tomatometer actually works.[/QUOTE] You need to research it yourself because the site can weight reviews at will with no oversight, and thus provide fresh or not essentially at will.
[QUOTE=postal;50728655]idk why people are giving this that much credibility. you do realize a large portion of the people spamming this 1/10 on these sites probably haven't even seen it, right lol. This film has a pretty large amount of people online that want to see it burn after all. nah it happens sometimes. 70 is apparently meant to be the cut off, so yeah. [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wiener_dog/[/url] yeeeee i don't think 500 mill is happening lol. Maybe 400 at best if this ends up popular internationally.[/QUOTE] Banned in china because ghosts so unlikely.
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;50726487]Hell I saw this watching TV last night. [video=youtube;cin-bvwIaIk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cin-bvwIaIk[/video][/QUOTE] Male ghostbuster in this ad What I love most about this kind of thing is it seems like the amount of merchandise and classic ghostbusters stuff seems to be outweighing the amount of crap that's original to the new movie. Even the toys, I went to a toys r us and the original ghostbusters had detailed figures and the new ghostbusters character toys were made of some kind of shitty rubber on the heads and in general looked way less detailed. Stuff like the lottery tie ins and such too also seem to be mostly playing on the OG ghostbusters They know they're giving us garbage and just hope we'll buy re-released and new classic ghostbusters shit in spite not realizing that they still get paid that way [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=postal;50728655]you do realize a large portion of the people spamming this 1/10 on these sites probably haven't even seen it, right lol. This film has a pretty large amount of people online that want to see it burn after all. [/QUOTE] uhm, you can literally say the same in perhaps bigger numbers about the people saying it's good. They almost never talk about the film itself and have been rambling about how they'll go see it and love it no matter what because misogyny and trolls for months. A lot of people we're supposed to trust as critics have been doing the same.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729115]Male ghostbuster in this ad What I love most about this kind of thing is it seems like the amount of merchandise and classic ghostbusters stuff seems to be outweighing the amount of crap that's original to the new movie. Even the toys, I went to a toys r us and the original ghostbusters had detailed figures and the new ghostbusters character toys were made of some kind of shitty rubber on the heads and in general looked way less detailed. Stuff like the lottery tie ins and such too also seem to be mostly playing on the OG ghostbusters They know they're giving us garbage and just hope we'll buy re-released and new classic ghostbusters shit in spite not realizing that they still get paid that way [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] uhm, you can literally say the same in perhaps bigger numbers about the people saying it's good. They almost never talk about the film itself and have been rambling about how they'll go see it and love it no matter what because misogyny.[/QUOTE] I think the marketing must still be in the "this isn't a reboot" phase, remember the "20 years ago" in the trailer? Nobody told marketing I guess.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;50729107]Banned in china because ghosts so unlikely.[/QUOTE] So much shit gets banned in China anyways lol, wouldn't call it that big a deal. It's a negative but certainly no deal breaker for international success as loads of other banned films have shown. [QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729115] uhm, you can literally say the same in perhaps bigger numbers about the people saying it's good. They almost never talk about the film itself and have been rambling about how they'll go see it and love it no matter what because misogyny.[/QUOTE] Well yeah no shit lol. Doesn't change my point that the audience score shouldn't be given that much credibility on these sites. You'd probably get a better idea what most people that actually saw it thought about it by just ignoring the 10's and 1's ratings on IMDB's user rating breakdown tbh.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729012]Didn't you just show us that it had to be 75% and now here's a movie that has it that is below that lol at least this one has a good audience score[/QUOTE] Has to be a [B]stable[/B] over 75%. I don't know how their algorithms work, but you're seriously starting to nitpick if it reaches under 75% by less than 5% in under an hour. I think they check and see if the score itself is stable to remove the rating. This prevents movies that are close to the 75% mark (like ghostbusters or that dog movie) from constantly getting their certified fresh rating removed and re-added. In the case of ghostbusters, a single review can change the percentage point by 0.4% to 0.5%. 10 negative ratings at once can push it by 5% if they're weighted equally. [QUOTE=27X;50729084]You need to research it yourself because the site can weight reviews at will with no oversight, and thus provide fresh or not essentially at will.[/QUOTE] Is there any evidence of selective score tampering?
Isn't China a large market though? It's likely not comparable because the game it's based on is apparently popular there, but I recall WoW might've been a financial flop without the boost from the Chinese release [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729150] Is there any evidence of selective score tampering?[/QUOTE] read the reviews themselves, a ton of them not only came from sources that were all "misogny!" months prior, but a lot of others seem to let it down gently with the "this sucks" and give low scores and still counted as "fresh". I swear there was one that said one nice thing about it like "Chris was ok" and that was enough for whoever at RT to say its a fresh review
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729154]Isn't China a large market though? It's likely not comparable because the game it's based on is apparently popular there, but I recall WoW might've been a financial flop without the boost from the Chinese release[/QUOTE] It is, but it's weird. A film doing super well over there is a rarity. Warcraft managed a miracle with that shit, but a lot of the time, at least from films i've looked into, china really doesn't make up that much of the overall international gross as people like to assume. Usually I see it accounting for just like 10% of a film's non-USA gross. it's still bad losing china since that does mean some money lost, sure, but it's not a dealbreaker for success by any means.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729154]read the reviews themselves, a ton of them not only came from sources that were all "misogny!" months prior, but a lot of them seem to let it down gently with the "this sucks" and give low scores and still counted as "fresh"[/QUOTE] Sources that are all "misogyny!" are still sources. That may be score tampering on their part, but not score tampering on rotten tomato's part. Also what reviews are you referring to when they say "This sucks" and are still considered good reviews? Use this: [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/reviews/?sort=fresh[/url]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729181]Sources that are all "misogyny!" are still sources. That may be score tampering on their part, but not score tampering on rotten tomato's part. Also what reviews are you referring to when they say "This sucks" and are still considered good reviews? Use this: [url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/reviews/?sort=fresh[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]July 15, 2016 It is daringly progressive, and it is a landmark in mainstream entertainment. [b]It's just a shame that it isn't a bit funnier.[/b][/quote] [quote][b]Breezy, inoffensive entertainment.[/b][/quote] [quote][b]Is it substance-less like the ghosts that populate the movie? Yes. Predictable? Yes. [/b]But please: some of us just want to laugh.[/quote] [quote][b]Naturally, the problem with the movie isn't the four women ably kicking adversity in the teeth, it's the man behind the camera.[/b][/quote] [quote][b]The cast should have been set free to run wild. Director Paul Feig, who co-wrote the screenplay with Katie Dippold, needed to make the project broader to allow the women to be more expansive and utilize their full range of talents[/b].[/quote] [quote]How will the reboot be remembered a couple of decades down the line?[b] Not as beloved, or beloathed; more likely as beliked, if it's remembered at all.[/b][/quote] Bonus round: Not talking about the movie and instead crying about people who didnt like it. [quote]Feig's girl-power Ghostbusters was forged in a crucible of man-baby cyber-bullying and it wears a chip on its shoulder proudly.[/quote] [quote]Confronts its critics head-on with freewheeling 2016 girl power.[/quote] [quote]It's good. Take that, haters.[/quote] [quote]Haters gonna hate, but who cares? The rest of us will be out enjoying the most entertaining film of the summer, and we don't need their sorry company. [/quote] [quote]Angry nerds, take note: The ladies are the best thing about this franchise reboot. Kate McKinnon is a spontaneous eruption of hellfire hilarity.[/quote] [quote]A middle finger to the screaming brobabiez. If girls can't be Ghostbusters, then here, guys can't do anything.[/quote] [quote]The gender politics of women demanding to be taken seriously in their chosen profession has never been this much fun.[/quote] Dont forget that Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregate site. The staff has to find these reviews, add them, and decide if they're "fresh" or "rotten". As far as im aware this is an explicitly manual system because i cant imagine how it could possibly be automatic. So yeah. Please excuse this, somehow, i want to see if you can.
not to mention the high amount of 2.5/4 and 3/5, which is roughly 6/10 rounded. Not a good score. In comparison to the tomatometer they give that's 60%.
Nice new name, Postal
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50729258]Bonus round: Not talking about the movie and instead crying about people who didnt like it. Dont forget that Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregate site. The staff has to find these reviews, add them, and decide if they're "fresh" or "rotten". As far as im aware this is an explicitly manual system because i cant imagine how it could possibly be automatic. So yeah. Please excuse this, somehow, i want to see if you can.[/QUOTE] Please also include the scores for all of these reviews. Or to make it easier for yourself, find me a less than 60% positive review. I'm looking at all these reviews and they're all 60% or above in their given score. [QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729271]not to mention the high amount of 2.5/4 and 3/5, which is roughly 6/10 rounded. Not a good score. In comparison to the tomatometer they give that's 60%.[/QUOTE] 60% and above is considered a recommendation. It's been like this for all movies on rotten tomatoes. [editline]17th July 2016[/editline] Here I'll do the first 3 for you. [img]http://i.imgur.com/vmYE6vI.png[/img] ORIGINAL SCORE: 3/5 [img]http://i.imgur.com/S2ZnuaJ.png[/img] ORIGINAL SCORE 3/5 [img]http://i.imgur.com/yrJmPJ0.png[/img] [url]http://www.bangkokpost.com/lifestyle/film/1036161/girls-just-wanna-have-fun[/url] [quote]Eighties geeks may only see a ghost of the glory of the old franchise, but if you're a non-fan who isn't obsessed with upholding a cultural legend, this rebooted Ghostbusters checks all the boxes you want checked. There's just enough glossy lasers, goofiness and butt-kicking, plus a few genuine moments of real-world problems that really strike a chord. Where else can the pains of self-doubt, getting branded as liars and jilting your pal be best explored, if not in a movie where main characters are trying to prove the existence of spooks in modern society?[/quote]
It's pretty obvious that you're not gonna be swayed at all considering you supplied your own evidence that was contradictory and still refute it. 60% is a fucking D, literally one percent from an F. I wouldn't be excited about that on a report card.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729352]It's pretty obvious that you're not gonna be swayed at all considering you supplied your own evidence that was contradictory and still refuse to see something fishy. 60% is a fucking D, literally one percent from an F. I wouldn't be excited about that on a report card.[/QUOTE] At my school 60% was an F.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729352]It's pretty obvious that you're not gonna be swayed at all considering you supplied your own evidence that was contradictory and still refuse to see something fishy. 60% is a fucking D, literally one percent from an F. I wouldn't be excited about that on a report card.[/QUOTE] How was my evidence contradictory? Are you referring to the STABLE 75% that I've thoroughly explained that you seemed to thoroughly ignore? Do you genuinely think that rottentomatoes is involved in some sort of conspiracy to give ghostbusters a good review? I'm not arguing that Rotten Tomatoes is completely infallible as a review system, but to suggest that it's displaying Ghostbusters a good rating in the name of bias is laughable.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.