I remember when getting a fresh score on a movie actually meant it was good, and it was rare that movies would get 80%+ scores.
Now after rottentomatoes was bought by warner brothers in 2016, it seems like every new movie coming out has a fresh rating. Do the scores mean anything these days?
>when content becomes advertising
Yes, RT has been shit for a long time.
objectively perfect
My tongue, from her heels (not a footfag btw) to her lips then to her tits then to her real lips and back down until she orders me to stop.
maybe
>not tongueing her asshole
don't get me started
>watch concussion
>will smith starts talking with a funny accent
>i start laughing
>realize it's not a comedy
>i predict every line of dialogue
>nonsensical relationships shoved in the movie
>barely finish it
>ok this has to have 10% on rt
>60%
Who cares? Its just a shitty website more.
Nothing good lasts forever.
RT is part of the corporate machine now, and will reflect what the corporation wants it to reflect.
It actually has a lot of sway with people. But like everything corporations ruin, people will stop taking it seriously.
Sorry but I'm not gay.
>tonguing a goddess's asshole is gay
user...
In this scenario I'm only licking the side part of her body so my tongue doesn't go in that area anyway.
>Is rottentomatoes finished?
>mfw dumbfucks on Sup Forums dont realise they're making the exact opposite of your average black panther salon article
swap rotten tomatoes for anything about being white in ur statement
>It's another regularly scheduled retard who thinks RT is a score out of 100 thread
Everybody here knows how the percentage is calculated you aspie fag
Tbh the black panther is a cinematic master piece. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist and or ignorant.
Isn't the fresh ratings just based off random critics?
I think the fact that more and more "movie critics" are just retards with a blog or youtubers that give movies an 8/10 because they had "fun".
frsh is based on the number of 6+/10 (fresh) reviews versus 5-/10 (rotten) ones. It has nothing to do with quality of the movie, just how many people thought it wasn't that bad.
how is she so perfect
how
what
No I believe the critics are hand picked. Maybe the studios have been getting rid of tough reviewers and adding lots of shills.
>I remember when getting a fresh score on a movie actually meant it was good
i don't
Pls sit on my face
i want to be Kate
RT is owned by Fandango not WB
Yeah my bad, its actually owned by comcast
>I remember when getting a fresh score on a movie actually meant it was good
This was never true ever. Also, RT doesn't make the score, it's an aggregation of many critics.
>true cinema score
Kermode + white + roeper + RT Audience Scorw divided by 4= real film grade
I want to be inside her daughter.
itll go the way of Snopes.
so what's the best site to get a honest rating on a movie?
I was just thinking about how it seems really easy for movies to get a fresh score lately and you can determine whether or not a movie will get fresh or rotten by how much hype the movie has beforehand. I can't remember the last time i've been surprised by a RT score for any major studio film.
Objectivity is gone, everything is virtue signalling nowadays.
Precisely. An aggregate of trash is still trash.
If you like the look of a film or are curious, then it's best to just watch it yourself.
despite the shit with click farms, the curious killing of the forums or any other problems, plebs voting IMDb is the only patrician tier rating system that actually reflects the quality of a movie most accurately... for most cases.
Wonder Woman was the only surprise but it was a bit hollow of course because muh vagina but DCEU always sucks so it was slightly shocking, I think this once it was allowed to be good. Aquaman should safely get a 25%.
>Do the scores mean anything these days?
No the scores have never meant anything, because the "critics" are hand picked and have to be "approved" by the site like this poster states
The 'approval' process to qualify as a critic is listed somewhere in their FAQ. This process is open to influence by corporations and can be controlled by studios themselves.
"audience scores" are easily manipulated by trolls so not much attention is given to them, and since now that they are banning users who give negative feedback that is not comparable to the "critics" score, the whole system is a complete joke.
It is (and has always been) a complete crapshoot. Many reviewers are good at reviewing the kinds of movies they like but shit at reviewing everything else, yet they do it anyway.
Scores are becoming way inflated, same thing happened to video gaming criticism as soon as both money and politics entered, the group think and heavily inflated scores
>filename
her feet are terrible though
nah, fuck that. i don't like to waste time on shit movies.
I'm confused, what does that graph have to do with your comment?
All media with shameless "propgressive" bias is finished.
t. soy"""male"""
Hourly reminder that you will never be /ss/'d
Tell me the logistics of someone paying many reviewers to give a positive review? It's so unrealistic and they would have surely been outed by now
It shows that despite everyone noticing a general decline in quality and staleness in modern film making, there are somehow more "GOAT" films being made recently than ever before. Only there isn't, the review sites have just been paid off and so they give good reviews they would have formerly saved for actually good films to any old shite, black panther being a noticeable example
mediocrity gets a 7.5/10 and above.
They threaten to withdraw advanced screening privileges to reviewers if they get bad reviews, leaving the reviewers with the choice to either release their reviews later (and be irrelavent) or kowtow to the studio system. There a carrot as well as a stick, reviewers who sell out get special privileges and gift bags and shit. RLM pointed it out in one of their "Nerd Crew" segments and the gaming community noticed their review industry does the same thing during gamergate.
the reviewer is just part of the content cycle. owned by the media, they don't pay for good reviews. they write their own.
>2016
Nigga i remember getting tricked into watch marvel capeshit by their 90% rt scores in 2013.
>that tat "wait for it"
what did she mean by this?
BRAP
I wonder how many people got tricked into watching The Last Jedi or Iron Man 3
There is no cash trade for positive press. It's as simple as holding their prescreening privileges hostage. That isn't to say they won't just immediately revoke a privilege at the first sign of negative press, but if steady and consistent, they'll take it away or publishers will be more than willing to fire them in a panic and replace them the following moment to protect their assets.
LA Times was closest to losing their press passes because one of their writers wrote a scathing piece that investigated Disney's business practices, most likely having to do with their amusement parks than anything. They got unbanned only because various publications decided to back them up, and Thor 3 and TLJ were around the corner.
The audience score used to be worth considering ("professional" critics have zero integrity, so their opinions are irrelevant). But even the audience scores have been compromised now.
These days, I get most of my recommendations from Sup Forums. Fuck the review sites
rotten tomatoes needs to be destroyed, and this video is evidence of how it's even more fucked than you think it is already
Sup Forums has also seen an influx of leftypol soyboys recently.
we need a Switch console to see if they do the jaw drop.
It was, look up the LA Times scandal and how Disney handled it. We even know Disney has housewives shilling for them in low tier public internet forums like Sup Forums
Yeah, but when reading a discussion of a film on here, it's easy to recognize posters whose tastes are similar to mine
RT doesn't decide the scores OP
and if Warner Bros had some hand in it like you're implying, Justice League and BvS wouldn't have performed so badly
Stop shilling your fucking channel, Alex
WB doesn't have a lion's share of RT to pull those kinds of strings. Why do you faggots keep bringing this up despite having the information clearly available to you?
They bring that up because it's clear that Disney is rigging the scores by strong-arming media outlets (this shit happens way above the actual critics, look up the LA Times shit) so shills bring up another studio to claim it's all fine and dandy
Why don't they just input the real rating from the critic into the tomatometer algorithm? Most Marvel crap would be around 70% then, and true kino would stand out more.
To be honest, if I was a critic, with the current system I'd probably give mouse droppings "7/10, it was alright" reviews as well to keep my screening privileges.
>RT doesn't decide the scores OP
You're right. Disney does.
your "real critics" are sell outs.
...
The critics could get themselves out of this system by coordinating. If they could get together a large enough number of themselves and all agree to start writing 100% honest reviews, they could snap back against the revoking of screening privileges by refusing to go to any early screenings at all if even one member of their group has their screening privileges revoked. The studios would obviously prefer to have only good controlled reviewers, but they can't have no reviewers, and the worst thing that could happen is to have this kind of thing go broadly public. News agencies won't want to publish any of this shit but a massive absence of reviews for a new Disney movie would invite investigation.
Studios get away with this shit because it's just a few people with all the power and critics are tons of people with little power. Unionizing is the only way to even out this power differential.
from what I've seen critics hate rotten tomatoes because it makes them pick whether their review is rotten or positive, which is like just letting a critic say if a movie is good or bad, no inbetween.
that graph is obviously fake news. Rotten tomatoes wasn't even around in 1920.
check and mate.