Right, but to make these independent decisions we still need information. The first source is the films own promotional material but since that obviously is intent on selling the film we reflexively distrust it.

So that leaves secondary sources such as reviews. So then your best bet is just to find a few reviewers who you feel are more or less on your wavelength, observe their opinions and the word of mouth of friends and family and then measure that against your own instincts.

 

That would be me. There's been movies that everyone else hated that I defend to the death (Transformers obviously but also Batman & Robin, Super Mario Bros., and others)

 

I ignore Tomato talk. I decide to go to a movie depends how it looks in the trailers and if I'm interested in the topic.

 

I honestly can't recall the last time I really used RT. I know I had many laughs with my friends when Batman V Superman came out reading the scathing reviews. I may occasionally use it when something comes out on-demand that I'm mildly interested in as I recall, though the last time I had a slow night to do that was last year.

The article and the posters here have the same point, which I agree with; make bad movies, get bad reviews. Don't blame the system for providing an avenue for people to see all those reviews.

 

Well Paramount Pictures shouldn't bitch all their movies this year were soundly panned and all but one made money. And what more could a Hollywood studio ask for then to make money.

 

The studio that made ScarJo's stinker Ghost In The Shell were wringing their own hands over this exact issue, looking to blame everything and everyone else except themselves for butchering the source material.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you the guy who also doesn't believe Youtube reviewers qualify as a real reviewer because they are freelance and not owned by a corporation?

 

Treat it like how you're supposed to treat Wikipedia when writing your college thesis: a starting point.

If 99% of reviewers who saw a movie hated it, then there's a pretty good chance the movie stinks across the board and that there's no redeeming qualities to the movie, period. If the reviews are more mixed, though, then that might be your cue to read deeper into the full write-ups to determine if the movie's flaws are something you can get over or not, and then formulate your own decisions from there.

The site's not supposed to make up your mind for you, but it puts all the tools for you to do so in your hands.

It's not that difficult of a concept.


You don't have to use Rotten Tomatoes to form the basis for your movie-going decisions. By all means, if you have a favoured reviewer who seems to share your tastes, feel free to default to their opinion. But not everybody has one of those, and some people like to take in the more varied range of thoughts on the subjects.

 

While I do believe movie studios need to realize when they've made a real pos, like the Emoji movie, I also believe that Rotten Tomatoes is a worthless website. The number of reviews used for any given movie is randome, and the fresh/rotten title is an arbitrary judgment given to each review by the staff at Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not saying that is proof of any bias, but the possibility for it is undeniable. Biased or not, the RT score of any movie is meaningless imho.

 

How is it arbitrary?

 

This was clear a good 8 years ago.

Rotten Tomatoes is just social engineering.

Art should be as far away from that as possible.

 

Rotten Tomatoes is an opinion archive with an algorithm, so far the only thing I've seen it engineer are stupid arguements.

 

More news on how most people need someone to think for them.

Studies: Rotten Tomatoes Influences Moviegoers

 

um, nope.

There are definitely certain YouTube reviewers that are better than others... and maybe 95% of YouTube reviewers aren't worth the time (imo).

But I can formulate my own decisions without using RT at all. Trust me, I've been doing that, and it's been working just fine.

I don't have to use RT at all, which is my main point. I don't really see the value (to me) of that site -- so I don't use it.

That's fine. I was only ever speaking for myself -- you can do whatever you want.

It's not that difficult of a concept.  



wow, I really had no idea that RT had so many defenders...

 

I actually prefer youtube reviews instead of "official" reviews from critics, whose only concern, in my opinion, seems to be fitting as many obscure adjectives into their reviews as possible.


And ever since that whole 65% yet "Certified Fresh" score for Ghostbusters(2016), Rotten Tomatoes has lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

 

Why don't movie studios simply write their own reviews on RT? I mean, it's not like you have to actually see the movie to write a review.

 

And that's fine. But you said earlier that you don't understand the purpose of an aggregate score. I just told you the purpose of an aggregate score.

 

The only time I don't see a movie based on reviews is if it's a movie that I am not sure of. However, if it's a movie I really want to see or just one I want to watch for action I don't care about the reviews and I go see it anyway.

 

73%, actually. And as I'm sure it's been brought up, that just means 73% of critics thought it wasn't bad. The percentage score doesn't count all the criticisms even the most positive review can have, it just counts whether the review said it was good or bad.

 

Pretty sure it was at 65% at one point. And you prove my point about RT. A reviewer can pan the shit out a movie in their review, but still recommend seeing it, which drives up the approval percentage. That just seems completely ass-backwards to me. Hence, RT scores are completely unreliable.