re: Has Rotten Tomatoes jumped the shark?...

quote:

---

Just looking at the top movies now The Legend of Tarzan is a critics 36% and audience 69%. By this logic the critics are being paid to hate this movie. Looking at the audience score of a movie is a flawed metric since people on the Internet can rate things without seeing them, particularly this movie.

---

I mentioned that I could definitely see audience reviews being higher since they can overlook things, and Tarzan might be a good example with the good visuals and cinematography. My question is not really about the movies paying off critics, but more how rotten tomatoes comes up with their rating, seems pretty flawed and deceiving if a movie is rated 5/6 out of 10, but is 'certified fresh'.

Good point about the audience rating, but I'd think after a certain number of reviews, the rating would level out the biased reviews, and there's over 70,000 reviews out there right now.

quote:

---

ooking at the audience score of a movie is a flawed metric since people on the Internet can rate things without seeing them

---

Exactly, this goes for any user review metrics on the internet. Most recent example that comes to mind is the number of thumbs up/thumbs down on the trailers for the Call of Duty & Battlefield 1 video game. One of them had an overwhelming number of thumbs up and the other had nearly the same amount of thumbs down due to online campaigns to vote up/down.

On Metacritic & Rotten Tomatoes, there's no way to verify if a user has seen the movie/TV show or not. Like Porter Osborne Jr said, I'd like to know what's the average number of user reviews during a movie's opening weekend. I'm willing to bet the number of user reviews is higher for Ghostbusters.