What the fuck happened to Rotten Tomatoes?

What the fuck happened to Rotten Tomatoes?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0D3WZxYxWd8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'd say the audience score is pretty accurate.

This. I usually agree with one or the other and rarely neither.

Critic score = siskel
Audience score = Ebert

>le ebin "pretend to not know it's an aggregator" may-may

top class

I think the bigger question is what happened to critics / what happened in terms of qualifying who the critics are?

I already know the answer though

The real question is what happened to reviewers

Welcome to modern rating systems. Just do what I do and take the mean score between critics and audience.

>Critics tend to vote suspiciously similar to each other because their job depends on having a POV that falls in line with their peer's consensus
>Audience votes are pretentious and will vote on the far ends of the spectrum, saying it's either complete garbage 1/10 or others just don't understand it on their level 10/10.

I find the mean value generally evens the bullshit out enough that it lands in the range I think it is. But then again i'm not a pretentious critic wannabe faggot

It reflects the opinions of the masses through an aggregation process.

I'm bewildered at the critical response to Sausage Party. It was fucking awful.

Welcome to 2016. Enjoy your complementary drago dildon, and HRT medication.

Everyone can be a critic now and put their crappy malformed opinion on the internet where Rotten Tomatoes takes it and adds it to their score.

Most critics are either bloggers or "journalists" in clickbait sites.

I feel like if I watched Sausage Party as a critic and graded like it was a gymnastic routine I'd give it a good score.

Technically I think it has a lot of strong points. I thought the banter was pretty well written - mostly. It's novel in it's concept so at least it's not another by the numbers cape wannabe blockbuster. It's daring at the end. It's weakness like the overall story and pacing don't matter much for a fantastical lowbrow comedy.

But as a viewer all together it was just kind of boring.

Nu-gen "critics" who know jackshit about cinema and bloggers started reviewing movies.

>tfw Ebert died 3 years ago

The same thing with what happened to screen junkies who defended Ghostbusters

>"Before you see the reboot that the internet thinks will be an unfunny attempt at cashing in on your nostalgia for the original Ghostbusters"
Yep they actually said this
youtube.com/watch?v=0D3WZxYxWd8

>surprisingly thought-provoking storyline

what did they mean by this? really makes you think

>what did they mean by this?
Is to do with the God storyline

Rotten Tomatoes? Nothing. The critics? I don't know.

The CIA runs a lot of newspapers and makes them give good reviews to propaganda movies

Does RT just add all the scores together and divide by the amount of critics ?

They should probably eliminate top ten and bottom ten percent and average out the rest because I've noticed a lot of critics are really overly emotional about some things (it's the worst movie ever! Reeee).

It would be a more accurate way to judge flicks

Modern critics are too concerned with projecting their political views on everyone rather than reviewing a film for what it is.

This
Look up Operation: Mockingbird

>suicide squad has a higher audience score than the both of them

Reddit will defend this

>Does RT just add all the scores together and divide by the amount of critics ?
I believe they've stated they have it weighted so reviews from certain outlets can be worth either more or less for reasons.