[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729372]How was my evidence contradictory? Are you referring to the STABLE 75% that I've thoroughly explained that you seemed to thoroughly ignore?[/QUOTE]
Considering the score hasnt been stable the past week and has been gradually and consistently going down, and has been sitting at a 73% for the past day, you have no point with this.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729372]
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.[/QUOTE]
Well.
Their staff DID manually choose the reviews that they did.
And they chose to include a pretty big number of "fuck the haterz gurl power fucking misogynistic pigs fucking cis ableist scum straight boys lol" as their positive reviews.
Soooo.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50729377]Considering the score hasnt been stable the past week and has been gradually and consistently going down, you have no point with this.[/QUOTE]
My apologies.
[url]https://flixster.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/62679-what-is-%22certified-fresh-%22[/url]
Just found this VITAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE that says that it will have its certified fresh rating as long as it's above 70%.
[quote]Movies designated with the seal retain the Certified Fresh status as long as their Tomatometer remains above 70%. The Certified Fresh designation may be held at the discretion of the Rotten Tomatoes editorial team.[/quote]
If Rotten Tomatoes still gives Ghostbusters a certified fresh rating when the score is below 70%, then you have my permission to speculate.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50729377]Well.
Their staff DID manually choose the reviews that they did.
And they chose to include a pretty big number of "fuck the haterz gurl power fucking misogynistic pigs fucking cis ableist scum straight boys lol" as their positive reviews.
Soooo.[/QUOTE]
A positive review is still a positive review.
You've changed your point maybe 3 times now, ontop of asking the thread be locked. Now you're laughing at your new strawman. You literally just said our point that we no longer should use RT as infallible
this is probably the stupidest movie to be a battleground or whatever for feminism. give me more original shit featuring, directed by, and written by women. not at all offended by its existence but it would be vastly more preferable if people were rallying around something unique that shows that women don't need to rely on standing on the shoulders of men
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729402]A positive review is still a positive review.[/QUOTE]
No.
Those werent reviews.
They were "fuck the haters stupid silly boy nerd manchildren"
They werent reviews. For a review aggregate website, thats pathetic.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50729408]this is probably tbe stupidest movie to be a battleground or whatever for feminism. give me more original shit featuring, directed by, and written by women.[/QUOTE]
But then you couldnt farm drama because nobody actually gives a shit if the movie stars women or even women as Ghostbusters, just that its made for pandering brownie points and raping a beloved franchise.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729392]
If Rotten Tomatoes still gives Ghostbusters a certified fresh rating when the score is below 70%, then you have my permission to speculate.[/QUOTE]
Oh im still speculating because it was Certified Fresh before the movie even released, while the BFG has been out for a couple weeks now, above 70% , and does not have a certified fresh rating.
It's becoming apparent that people that care about progressivism in movies aren't creative since they consistently just hijack franchises that were never like it and crash them into the ground
next on the list: Black gay James Bond
not kidding, there's actually apparently people pushing for this and they aren't talking about a spiritual inspired film, it must be James Bond
Edit:
Also I still don't get how F is the only bad grade somehow. Do people actually cheer themselves for D's?
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729403]You've changed your point maybe 3 times now, ontop of asking the thread be locked.[/quote]
Jesus fuck lmao
My point was, and always was: Rotten Tomatoes isn't part of a fucking conspiracy to make Ghostbusters look good.
As for the locked part, you could never be so misguided. I'm actually offended by your post tbh.
Postal asked if we should merge threads, I suggested that we lock all the threads and just make a new fresh one in the name of clutter. Me asking for all threads to be locked is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. But maybe I'm wrong, how is me asking for ghostbuster threads to be put in a new thread relevant to me saying that RT isn't part of a huge conspiricy?
[quote]Now you're laughing at your new strawman. You literally just said our original point that we no longer should use RT as infallible[/QUOTE]
Let me explain: you should use Rotten Tomatoes, but you should look at all the data provided, which also includes:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/V3YxQJ9.png[/img]
- Average Critic Rating: 6.5/10
- Audience Rating: 56%
- Average Audience Rating: 3/5
Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer isn't perfect when it comes to judging whether or not a movie is good, it's to display that what the critics think of the movie. There is a reason why they also include the audience rating next to it.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50729413]Oh im still speculating because it was Certified Fresh before the movie even released, while the BFG has been out for a couple weeks now, above 70% , and does not have a certified fresh rating.[/QUOTE]
Was it ever above 75% in the first place?
To gain a certified fresh rating, you need a rating more than 75%.
To lose a certified fresh rating, you need a rating less than 70%.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729425]It's becoming apparent that people that care about progressivism in movies aren't creative since they consistently just hijack franchises that were never like it and crash them into the ground
next on the list: Black gay James Bond
not kidding, there's actually apparently people pushing for this and they aren't talking about a spiritual inspired film, it must be James Bond
Edit:
Also I still don't get how F is the only bad grade somehow. Do people actually cheer themselves for D's?[/QUOTE]
You know what i want?
Original diversity instead of changing existing things purely for diversity.
Like Black Panther. Or Luke Cage. Captain Marvel sure.
All you do when you change existing shit is you're helping to keep actual cool shit minority heroes obscure.
Even with Ghostbusters, you could've done it way better, especially since its more of a company and not people with codenames.
When asked about what’s next, Sony’s marketing distribution chief Josh Greenstein said “There absolutely will be more [films],” and added “This is a restart of one of our most important brands.”
[url]http://ghostbustersnews.com/2016/07/17/ghostbusters-has-best-debut-for-a-live-action-comedy-in-over-a-year-sony-says-more-films-are-coming/[/url]
we may have underestimated Sony's stupidity
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729430]Was it ever above 75% in the first place?[/QUOTE]
I think it was over 80% for a bit, I think someone cited it being 79% to say that saying its bad is delusional
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729458]When asked about what’s next, Sony’s marketing distribution chief Josh Greenstein said “There absolutely will be more [films],” and added “This is a restart of one of our most important brands.”
[url]http://ghostbustersnews.com/2016/07/17/ghostbusters-has-best-debut-for-a-live-action-comedy-in-over-a-year-sony-says-more-films-are-coming/[/url]
we may have underestimated Sony's stupidity[/QUOTE]
You mean like when they said they'd do Amazing Spider-Man 3, Sinister Six Part 1, Sinister Six Part 2, Kraven, The Amazing Spider-Man 4 Part 1, The Amazing Spider-man 4 Part 2, Spider-Man vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, etc.?
Or Fant4stic 2?
It wont happen. Sony isnt stupid enough. Cant be dumb enough. Amy Pascal is, but she already got demoted once.
Yeah but when they said that they weren't facing down the barrel of "holy shit what have we done", they likely cancelled Amazing Spider-man 3 because marvel was outperforming them and churning out movies twice as fast
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Let's hope you're right and they let it RIP
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729458]I think it was over 80% for a bit, I think someone cited it being 79% to say that saying its bad is delusional[/QUOTE]
Do you have proof of this because I'm still waiting for evidence that they tamper with reviews. This is important to me because I really want to know if I should trust Rotten Tomatoes as a site I go to to decide whether or not a movie will be good.
Really as I see it right now, saying that Rotten Tomatoes is involved in some sort of conspiracy to make ghostbusters look good is like accusing non-partisan polls of being involved in some sort conspiracy to make [POPULAR YET AWFUL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HERE] look good because [POPULAR YET AWFUL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HERE] reports 60% in the polls.
Rotten Tomatoes is the messenger.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729484]
Really as I see it right now, saying that Rotten Tomatoes is involved in some sort of conspiracy to make ghostbusters look good is like accusing non-partisan polls of being involved in some sort conspiracy to make [POPULAR YET AWFUL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HERE] look good because [POPULAR YET AWFUL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HERE] reports 60% in the polls.[/QUOTE]
Its less that, more likely that they dont want to contradict the narrative.
I feel gross saying that word but hey, its probably the case.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729484]Rotten Tomatoes is the messenger.[/QUOTE]
They didnt have to include reviews that amounted to "fuck manbabies vagina power amiright".
or post D's that carefully didn't blast it entirely as good
Edit:
This just in presidential polls are the same as movie reviews
Wtf
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50729425]Also I still don't get how F is the only bad grade somehow. Do people actually cheer themselves for D's?[/QUOTE]
I only cheer for double Ds :v:
Sorry. To keep this post relevant, I know the films weren't orgininally pitched for the kids, but Ghostbusters merchandise for the franchise was a big hit and is still very much in the realms of the 1984 crew. It took me a while to find any figures of the new team, finding the main monster, that dragon (???) and [URL="http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/2667214.htm"]this[/URL] before the one set of statuettes of the four women. It's more than 20 years and there's Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston Lego minifigures still being made, but a heavily marketed 12A has nothing. Did Sony really have the confidence that this will kickstart a lucrative shared cinematic universe when they don't have a market of memorbilia like those two have? Or are they going to cut their loses by not putting out what isn't going to sell after realising they've got an unmarketable product?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50729514]They didnt have to include reviews that amounted to "fuck manbabies vagina power amiright".[/QUOTE]
While I agree that it's bullshit that critics are saying that, I still have to get the point across that it's still a review, and sometimes they don't gather it personally.
[url]https://flixster.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/62683-how-are-reviews-selected-and-gathered-[/url]
I'm curious about the issue to, which is why [URL="http://flixster.desk.com/customer/portal/emails/new"]I'm planning on emailing them on their Contact Us page[/URL] asking for what their policy is on political motivated reviews.
I think this just all really proves that RT's method rating something "fresh" or not is flawed. If a movie has an average of 6.5/10 it's more or less in the "it's kinda meh, but you might like it if it's your thing" category for me. Just having a binary rating based on how many reviews aren't explicitly bad doesn't really showcase the quality of the film.
[QUOTE=Anderan;50729962]I think this just all really proves that RT's method rating something "fresh" or not is flawed. If a movie has an average of 6.5/10 it's more or less in the "it's kinda meh, but you might like it if it's your thing" category for me. Just having a binary rating based on how many reviews aren't explicitly bad doesn't really showcase the quality of the film.[/QUOTE]
It is similar to Steam user reviews problems. You can have a game that everybody thinks it is an average OK game, like a 6 or 7 out of 10. But since you can only rate it up or down, most people will simply give it a thumbs up and you can end up with a 90% user score which many will perceive like the average score is 9/10, but in reality it only means 90% gave it a positive rating which is completely different thing.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;50731394]It is similar to Steam user reviews problems. You can have a game that everybody thinks it is an average OK game, like a 6 or 7 out of 10. But since you can only rate it up or down, most people will simply give it a thumbs up and you can end up with a 90% user score which many will perceive like the average score is 9/10, but in reality it only means 90% gave it a positive rating which is completely different thing.[/QUOTE]
Does that actually happen often on Steam though?
Normally if something has an average score the user score reflects it, in what i've seen. Because the people scoring it also decide if they're giving it a thumbs up or not.
[quote]The ghosts looked like cgi haunted mansion characters... I don't care... Characters were flat and boring... The villain was stupid... [b]There was a funny jaws joke in there, I'll say that, I thought there was a funny jaws joke![/b]
There's not much to learn from it, it's just [b]very consumable[/b].. Kinda drivel. And the thing is this has nothing to do with the women that played this. [b]All of those women are really funny chicks.[/b] But what they were given? The material they were given? Was not awesome, ok? They were not given anything to work with.
And in the perspective of regular movie goers, a lot of you are gonna say "[b]I saw it, it was fine, I laughed a couple times[/b]". But the thing is you're not gonna remember this in a couple weeks. Shit I was forgetting it right after I stepped out of the theatre! So in the end we have a movie not nearly [b]as phenomenal as the film that it sparked off![/b][/quote]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/NTzs8pZ.png[/t]
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50733889]-quote mining-[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of this old gold
[video=youtube;vl4pjEbEydE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl4pjEbEydE[/video]
I wish people would stop with this "omfg misogynist" when people say something bad, that has nothing to do with the characters being women, about the movie.
I think it's pretty cool to have a female cast actually, they are not the problem.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50729605]I'm curious about the issue to, which is why [URL="http://flixster.desk.com/customer/portal/emails/new"]I'm planning on emailing them on their Contact Us page[/URL] asking for what their policy is on political motivated reviews.[/QUOTE]
Got a reply.
[quote]Hi Matthew,
All Reviews from Approved Tomatometer Critics are included in the Tomatometer. The Approved Tomatometer Critics are critics that fit within a set of standards - mostly from accredited media outlets and online film societies. You can find our criteria here:
[url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/[/url]
We use the same list of critics to evaluate each movie. This way, we can ensure that the Tomatometer is consistent and unbiased. This also prevents studios or fans from affecting the Tomatometer by submitting only positive reviews to us from sources not on our approved Tomatometer list.
Regards,
Jose[/quote]
[url]https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/[/url]
Reviews are added no matter how bias or unbiased the content is. The critic itself is added to the list of approved critics beforehand because they trust the source to be good considering that they have so much experience and are part of highly credited review associations. They don't remove reviews, but they do remove critics if they're shown to be suddenly terrible.
They won't be removing any critics. They would be retarded to do so and I won't trust them as a site anymore if they're going to be reactionary like that. Only scenario that I can think of that involves them removing a critic is if that critic consistently displays bias in his or her reviews or the critic starts spewing shit like "kill all muzzies" or "kill all men" in his or her review.
[editline]18th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50733889][t]http://i.imgur.com/NTzs8pZ.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Well done displaying your continuous ignorance of how Rotten Tomatoes works, once again.
If they give a 60% or more, it's considered a recommendation. Instead of shitting on Rotten Tomatoes, shit on the reviewer who said it was garbage and gave it a 3/5 stars.
The guy literally said its to prevent bias then you say "they add bias no matter what"
You keep showing us evidence then doing a 180 on it, just like when you used Pets to say 75% is the award when it was below 75%. It also has nothing to do with their fresh/rotten decisions which iirc you showed us were infact done by editors and not automation. Some of those reviews they fucked up didn't have ratings, they're supposed to read these, and if 60 is a recommendation why is their criteria for decent 70+, like most review sites nowadays use 7-10 for decent to good and 1-6 for terrible to mediocre?
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50734903]The guy literally said its to prevent bias then you say "they add bias no matter what"
[/quote]
It prevents bias in a sense where if they start filtering out reviews based on opinion, then it's bias.
Read:[code]We use the same list of critics to evaluate each movie. This way, we can ensure that the Tomatometer is consistent and unbiased.
This also prevents studios or fans from affecting the Tomatometer by submitting only positive reviews to us from sources not on our approved Tomatometer list.[/code]
[quote]
You keep showing us evidence then doing a 180 on it, just like when you used Pets to say 75% is the award when it was below 75%.
[/quote]
My point in showing pets as a certified fresh with a CURRENT sub 75% rating is to disprove the notion that Rotten Tomatoes was giving Ghostbusters special treatment and that their algorithm is not "If it's sub 75%, remove rating"
I then later learned that I was right, and that it isn't just "sub 75% = remove rotten tomato rating."
[code]Movies in wide release with a Tomatometer of 75% or better and at least 80 reviews from Tomatometer Critics (including 5 Top Critics).[/code]
[code]Movies designated with the seal retain the Certified Fresh status as long as their Tomatometer remains above 70%.
The Certified Fresh designation may be held at the discretion of the Rotten Tomatoes editorial team.[/code]
[url]https://flixster.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/62679-what-is-%22certified-fresh-%22[/url]
[quote]It also has nothing to do with their fresh/rotten decisions which iirc you showed us were infact done by editors and not automation. Some of those reviews they fucked up didn't have ratings, they're supposed to read these,[/quote]
Show me these reviews. Find me these reviews. I've been asking you to find these reviews, and no one has provided a single fucking review where it contains a non-recommendation and it's perceived as a recommendation.
[quote]and if 60 is a recommendation why is their criteria for decent 70+, like most review sites nowadays use 7-10 for decent to good and 1-6 for terrible to mediocre?[/QUOTE]
Because 60% is a good number for reviews, but I don't know for sure because I'm not associated with Rotten Tomatoes. To me, I can see why 60% is a good threshold. 3 stars is an average movie on the 5 star system. 4 stars is a good movie. 5 stars is an almost perfect movie.
Jeff Giles apparently announced the certified fresh on RT and has articles about ghostbusters dating back to Paul Fieg's inclusion on other sites, one where he even shills soundtrack preorders, no reason to be suspicious though
Not to mention BFG same rating as ghostbusters with no award
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50735025]Jeff Giles apparently announced the certified fresh on RT and has articles about ghostbusters dating back to Paul Fieg's inclusion on other sites, one where he even shills soundtrack preorders, no reason to be suspicious though
Not to mention BFG same rating as ghostbusters with no award[/QUOTE]
I genuinely don't know what to say to tbh so I'll try two things.
[B][U]Thing 1: You're a wonderful human being. Here's how the algorithm works.[/U][/B]
[quote]Movies designated with the seal retain the Certified Fresh status as long as their Tomatometer remains above 70%. The Certified Fresh designation may be held at the discretion of the Rotten Tomatoes editorial team.
[/quote]
[quote]To receive a Certified Fresh rating a movie must have a steady Tomatometer rating of 75% (during those conditions) or better. Movies opening in wide release need at least 80 reviews from Tomatometer Critics (including 5 Top Critics).[/quote]
Ghostbusters was over 75%: TRUE
Ghostbusters has a rating over 70%: TRUE
BFG was over 75%: PRESUMABLY FALSE
BFG has a rating over 70%: TRUE
Unless you can provide evidence that BFG had a rating over 75%, then I'm going to assume that all is well.
[B][U]Thing 2: You're paranoid as fuck.[/U][/B]
Stop pretending that this algorithm doesn't exist. Stop pulling conspiracy theories out of your ass. You've done this so many fucking times, even one involving me where I wanted the thread to be locked to avoid this conversation when that wasn't even the case.
The world is fucked up, I get it. Corruption is everywhere, but you're crying wolf right now. You're arguing with math, you're arguing the truth.
The truth isn't that ghostbusters is a good movie, its a shit fucking movie. It's a corporate movie using conflict to sell the movie. The truth is that some critics are selling out for the movie, and are giving it a good review because of fear or political alignment. Like I said before, attacking Rotten Tomatoes for reporting that critics like this movie is like attacking a non-partisan poll for reporting that [INSERT DANGEROUS YET POPULAR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HERE] is 60% in the polls.
Here's my agenda for full transparency:
I want people to get mad at the right things. Get mad at the people involved in this mess. Get mad at hollywood for constantly pumping out movie garbage because money. Get mad at the reviewers too scared to speak their mind, get mad at the reviewers who bring politics into this mess, get mad at the reviewers who are too scared to speak their minds. [URL="https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/ghostbusters-is-certified-fresh/"]Get mad at Jeff Gills.[/URL] There are plenty of people to get mad at and RottenTomatos isn't one of them.
Don't get mad at people reporting the news.
So an editor and friend of the founder in RT and their affiliates since '05 not only works for some of the sites writing these reviews but also is responsible for entering the reviews, and he does all this bullshit, yet it's somehow not representative of flaws in RT?
[editline]18th July 2016[/editline]
Now you've resorted to calling us paranoid lol, ontop of the consistent strawman that this is some illuminati theory
Not to mention that your argument has amounted to "they're not doing wrong, they're just stupid" crap pointing out they can't do math and grading
[editline]18th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50732464]Does that actually happen often on Steam though?
Normally if something has an average score the user score reflects it, in what i've seen. Because the people scoring it also decide if they're giving it a thumbs up or not.[/QUOTE]
Yes/no systems aren't very good but yes, people do decide their vote. Another issue with the steam one is that you have to pick one to put your epic zinger that usually goes to the top
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.