- 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
Metacritic vs. Rottentomatoes
Posted on 7/1/12 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 10:49 pm
The two most famous critic review sites that use a different formal to calculate the scores critics give films in their reviews. It's pretty amazing to see the difference in score sometimes. Take "The Avengers" for instance. On Rottentomatoes, "The Avengers" currently has a 93% fresh approval rating with an average score of 8.1/10. On Metacritic, the overall score is 69/100 or "generally favorable reviews." Compare that with "The Amazing Spider-Man" which is currently 77% on Rottentomatoes (with an average score of 6.9/10) and is also currently at a 73/100 on Metacritic - a higher score than "The Avengers".
I really want to know how Metacritic arrives at their scores because "The Dark Knight" has a slightly better approval percentage (93% vs. 94%) and a slightly better rating (8.1 vs. 8.4) and yet "The Dark Knight" scores 82/100 ("Universal Acclaim") while "The Avengers" scores 69/100 ("Generally Favorable Reviews"). Why are the scores so different on Metacritic when they are so similar on Rottentomatoes?
I really want to know how Metacritic arrives at their scores because "The Dark Knight" has a slightly better approval percentage (93% vs. 94%) and a slightly better rating (8.1 vs. 8.4) and yet "The Dark Knight" scores 82/100 ("Universal Acclaim") while "The Avengers" scores 69/100 ("Generally Favorable Reviews"). Why are the scores so different on Metacritic when they are so similar on Rottentomatoes?
2
Posted on 7/1/12 at 10:55 pm to RollTide1987
Metacritic takes variances into account more than rottentomatoes, meaning that a 3/5 review and a 5/5 are both treated as "fresh" on rottentomatoes whereas they aren't treated as the same on metacrtitic.
Avengers is a perfect example as, while a fun movie, over 90% is way too high and puts it on the same level as legitimately outstanding movies which is a bit much.
Avengers is a perfect example as, while a fun movie, over 90% is way too high and puts it on the same level as legitimately outstanding movies which is a bit much.
This post was edited on 7/1/12 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 7/1/12 at 11:31 pm to RollTide1987
I trust RT way more than Metacritic. Going by their scores, there is no such thing as a pretty much perfect movie. RT allows that though. Metacritic is far too critical compared to how RT does it.
Posted on 7/1/12 at 11:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Avengers is a perfect example as, while a fun movie, over 90% is way too high and puts it on the same level as legitimately outstanding movies which is a bit much
The Avengers did everything it was supposed to do almost perfectly. It deserves to be in the 90s. Plus you can look at the "average rating" as well, so RT gives you the best of both worlds.
Posted on 7/2/12 at 6:59 am to OMLandshark
RT is too generalized for me. A positive review shouldn't mean merely good vs. bad when critiquing a movie. When I think a movie was OK, that doesn't always mean that I'm giving it my full endorsement. I prefer more of a specific value when looking for reviews. It works especially well for video games, too.
Posted on 7/2/12 at 9:45 am to OMLandshark
quote:
It deserves to be in the 90s
No it really doesn't. Just "doing what you're supposed to do", even perfectly, should not be enough to get such a high rating. A movie that gets over 90% should be slam dunk best picture nominee and the Avengers isn't close to that standard.
It's as good a comic book movie as I've seen (sans Nolan) but that's sort of like being the smartest kid with down syndrome. It doesn't belong in the same breath with real movies the way RT puts it and that's the flaw in their system.
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 9:48 am
Posted on 7/2/12 at 10:06 am to OMLandshark
It should be in the 90's if all you were reviewing is comic book movies. The Avengers is a great movie, but the 90's should be reserved for truly great movies.
The Shawshank Redemption is only a 90% on RT. Do you honestly believe TA is a better movie?
The Shawshank Redemption is only a 90% on RT. Do you honestly believe TA is a better movie?
Posted on 7/2/12 at 10:23 am to kballa6
I have issues with how both sites weight their averages.
RT b/c often I find reviews they deem rotten than are mostly positive that will be counted as rotten and vice versa with negatives being fresh.
I really feel there should be a middle ground for average reviews. Like a yellow tomato or something.
as for MetaCritic. They weight their reviews based on how they feel about each source giving the review but do not tell you who is more or less important. So a movie or game could conceivably have several high reviews but one negative review from one of their unnamed preferred sources can bring the "average" rating down far lower than the actual average.
If they would just split it up like RT where there is a preferred/top reviewers section to the side of the overall rank it wouldn't be much of an issue.
I also don't care for the way they convert reviews to their number system. For example, a review that gives out a "B" to them is around a 73 in their system.
RT b/c often I find reviews they deem rotten than are mostly positive that will be counted as rotten and vice versa with negatives being fresh.
I really feel there should be a middle ground for average reviews. Like a yellow tomato or something.
as for MetaCritic. They weight their reviews based on how they feel about each source giving the review but do not tell you who is more or less important. So a movie or game could conceivably have several high reviews but one negative review from one of their unnamed preferred sources can bring the "average" rating down far lower than the actual average.
If they would just split it up like RT where there is a preferred/top reviewers section to the side of the overall rank it wouldn't be much of an issue.
I also don't care for the way they convert reviews to their number system. For example, a review that gives out a "B" to them is around a 73 in their system.
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 10:25 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News