- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has Rotten Tomatoes jumped the shark?...
Posted on 7/16/16 at 6:48 pm to Addison Tiger
Posted on 7/16/16 at 6:48 pm to Addison Tiger
quote:
Yet they marked that as a 'fresh' review. In fact, the average critic score is only 6.5/10.
A movie can still be good even if it isn't particularly memorable or creative. I'd say the biggest problem with film critics these days is expectation.
1
Posted on 7/16/16 at 6:52 pm to BulldogXero
quote:
A movie can still be good even if it isn't particularly memorable or creative. I'd say the biggest problem with film critics these days is expectation.
Right, but on a rating out of 10,where do you draw the line between good and not good? What's the difference between a 5 and an 8? Why would I put an 8 instead of a 5?
Posted on 7/16/16 at 6:53 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:This.
Well most critics select the fresh or gotten rating themselves. So the rating is only as good as the critics themselves.
It's not the website. If you have a problem with RT ratings, you have a problem with critics in general. Don't shoot the messenger.
This post was edited on 7/16/16 at 6:59 pm
Posted on 7/16/16 at 7:08 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
You guys realize that in 10 years or so if this site still exists there will be student posters that will be making threads about how much they loved this movie, transformers, and similar films were their entire childhood? That'll be interesting
Well, yeah, but there are people here who defend Independence Day, despite it being our generation's Transformers. I'll be more than happy to take a nice steaming load on someone else's chest who takes up for these movies.
Posted on 7/16/16 at 8:52 pm to Addison Tiger
quote:
In looking at some of the reviews, they marked reviews 'fresh' that I would not. Would you want to see a movie that is described like this...
quote:
How will the reboot be remembered a couple of decades down the line? Not as beloved, or beloathed; more likely as beliked, if it's remembered at all.
Yet they marked that as a 'fresh' review. In fact, the average critic score is only 6.5/10.
This has probably already been posted, but if not... Rotten tomatoes doesn't "Mark" each review, the critic does that. It's based on simply "good" or "bad". So if a critic gives it a 6/10, that's separate from his "good" vote. The percentage they use is the percentage of "good" reveiws by the critics. So a 6/10 movie could still be "certified fresh"
This post was edited on 7/16/16 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 7/16/16 at 8:58 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Right, but on a rating out of 10,where do you draw the line between good and not good? What's the difference between a 5 and an 8? Why would I put an 8 instead of a 5?
Common sense says 5/10 is average, 8/10 is really good
And again, the fresh or rotten percentages are completely independent from the x/10 ratings
Posted on 7/16/16 at 8:59 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
quote: You guys realize that in 10 years or so if this site still exists there will be student posters that will be making threads about how much they loved this movie, transformers, and similar films were their entire childhood? That'll be interesting Well, yeah, but there are people here who defend Independence Day, despite it being our generation's Transformers. I'll be more than happy to take a nice steaming load on someone else's chest who takes up for these movies.
I feel like Armegeddon would be a better example.
Both movies are atleast a big jerk off to America, which I can respect as a goddamn America of the U S of A.
Transformer doesn't have the same cache of a straight domestic boner
Posted on 7/16/16 at 11:46 pm to Addison Tiger
Obama rang Rotten Tomatoes..........
Posted on 7/16/16 at 11:48 pm to sicboy
quote:
My point all along is I really wouldn't want to watch GB reboot even if they had cast men in those roles.
It would take something away from my childhood. Change the feelings I have attached to those memories.
If it wasn't a GB3 with all original cast, I don't want another.
Posted on 7/17/16 at 12:41 am to Addison Tiger
quote:
Has Rotten Tomatoes jumped the shark?...
*Sigh*
I'm not going to read through the entire thread, so this may or may not have been addressed. Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator. They do not write the reviews, they do not come up with the percentage assigned to a movie, and they do not decide whether or not the movie is rotten or fresh. The critics do that for them. They merely link to the reviews the critics have written. Think of Rotten Tomatoes as another version of the Drudge Report. Instead of posting links to news stories, Rotten Tomatoes posts links to film criticisms.
The only thing Rotten Tomatoes does that may or may not be controversial, is they assign a rating to the movie. As of right now...Ghostbusters is sitting with an average critic score of 6.5/10 on Rotten Tomatoes. Some people have come to criticize the way Rotten Tomatoes assigns a review a score because a lot of reviews that are written by critics don't include a score. So what the website does is it reads the review and comes up with a score on its own based on the tone of the review in question.
Once again....Rotten Tomatoes does not assign a percentage or a rotten/fresh rating. The critics whom the website links to does that for them.
Posted on 7/17/16 at 1:12 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
the first one was entertaining for sure. Plus Megan Fox was stupid hot in it and that aussie was smoke too
Haters gonna hate. The first movie was badass. The rest sucked balls.
Aussie chick >>>>>>>>>>>> Megan Fox
Posted on 7/17/16 at 8:02 am to Addison Tiger
quote:
I don't see how there can be such a discrepancy in the audience/critic reviews (49% vs 73%)
This movie was hated on by audiences as soon as they announced an all female cast. Do you really think the user score is indicative of how people actually feel about this movie?
This post was edited on 7/17/16 at 8:08 am
Posted on 7/17/16 at 9:12 am to jeff5891
quote:
This movie was hated on by audiences as soon as they announced an all female cast. Do you really think the user score is indicative of how people actually feel about this movie?
And it was loved on just BECAUSE it had an all-female cast.
Posted on 7/17/16 at 9:48 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
And it was loved on just BECAUSE it had an all-female cast.
No it wasn't.
Posted on 7/17/16 at 10:23 am to Tactical1
Yes, in fact, there are women seeing the movie because of the female cast and to "support feminism". I have met these people in person.
There have been articles explicitly saying to watch the movie to "stick it to men ".
There have been articles explicitly saying to watch the movie to "stick it to men ".
This post was edited on 7/17/16 at 10:26 am
Posted on 7/17/16 at 10:49 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Yes, in fact, there are women seeing the movie because of the female cast and to "support feminism". I have met these people in person.
There have been articles explicitly saying to watch the movie to "stick it to men ".
And I'm sure that audience is a drop in the bucket compared to the people that hate it (and refuse to see it) because of the all female cast.
I find it funny I'm not supposed to buy into what "paid off" critic who have seen the movie say, but I'm supposed to listen to folks that refuse to see it because they think it sucks.
Face it, the movie has been favored critically and will pull in good box office numbers. This is an absolute far cry from what many of you wanted this film to achieve and you're a little angry about it.
This post was edited on 7/17/16 at 11:09 am
Posted on 7/17/16 at 11:57 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Yes, in fact, there are women seeing the movie because of the female cast and to "support feminism". I have met these people in person.
There have been articles explicitly saying to watch the movie to "stick it to men ".
there wouldn't be the minuscule amount of people that feel that way had the reaction to the cast not been filled w/such vitriol.
to deny that the reaction to the all female cast didn't lead to some people defending it via feminist arguments is extremely intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant.
Posted on 7/17/16 at 1:17 pm to Dr RC
quote:
there wouldn't be the minuscule amount of people that feel that way had the reaction to the cast not been filled w/such vitriol.
A dislike of the cast selection was labeled "misogyny". There's no winning here, and it's why I don't like it. It's apparently not possible to dislike the movie for reasons other than misogyny, and this is the heart of the entire problem. It's why the "stick it to men" group popped up, you're right. You're just not correct in saying misogyny prompted the outcry. There are other female actors more appropriate and add to it that Sony is notorious for trying to squeeze money out of a movie based on name alone.
Only because of the original movies was the Ghostbusters base mostly male, and no one can change that, and male nerds are a new sjw target, just look at the uproar in the gaming industry about female inclusion. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyways, and the fan base is helpless because they liked a movie that was made 30 years ago, they can't change why they liked the movie because they can't change the movie itself.
If you have to say it's misogyny then you're adding nothing to this argument. Its a lazy cop out, and it's easy for you, so I get why you wouldn't look into other reasons, probably too much work and thought.
Posted on 7/17/16 at 3:42 pm to Addison Tiger
You have to keep in mind how they work.
If the film is even slightly likable, or positively remarked, it is a fresh.
If not recommended, it is rotten.
A 100% rating doesn't mean a perfect film. It just means they all gave it a 6/10. And I bet many reviewers sought for a silver lining because you "have" to show support for the all female cast because of how much it was "needed"
If the film is even slightly likable, or positively remarked, it is a fresh.
If not recommended, it is rotten.
A 100% rating doesn't mean a perfect film. It just means they all gave it a 6/10. And I bet many reviewers sought for a silver lining because you "have" to show support for the all female cast because of how much it was "needed"
Posted on 7/17/16 at 4:38 pm to Dr RC
I disliked the cast when it was first announced, not because they were all women, but because I never liked any of the women that they cast. I have long thought Kristen Wiig overrated as a comedian, I believe Melissa McCarthy is a one trick pony, and never cared either for McKinnon or Jones.
If it were to be an all-female cast I would have preferred actresses like Emma Stone, Rose Byrne, Krysten Ritter, and Kerry Washington.
If it were to be an all-female cast I would have preferred actresses like Emma Stone, Rose Byrne, Krysten Ritter, and Kerry Washington.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News