What does Sup Forums think of Rotten Tomatoes?

What does Sup Forums think of Rotten Tomatoes?

eh, Avengers had more quips. Hard to argue with the scores when you consider that.

Meaningless, like all review-sites.

It's a meme site for casual film-goers (aka normies) that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Guarantee you the negative reviews on Jesse James were all written by women, women are incapable of understanding that film.

yeah exactly
jesse james was pretty boring desu

>yet another ridiculous hollywood whitewashing of the most blacked era of human history

...

>solid historical film with some problems such as fucked-up pacing and miscasted brad pitt - 7,5/10
>highly entertaining summer blockbuser, one of the best in its niche - 9/10
What's the problem?

It's alright for seeing what films are on and if they are straight up garbage or worth a try.

it isn't their fault that the critics and the audience are manchildren

it's a review aggregator. the number is fucking superfluous.

there are plenty of 50% films on RT that i quite enjoyed. that 50% just means that half the people liked it and half the people didn't. the image you posted doesn't surprise me at all, most normies wouldn't be able to sit through taojj, which is reflected in the number of critics that liked it.

why RT has become the be all end all of determining whether a film is worth watching i will never know. people seem to really enjoy oversimplifying reviews and the like with a number at the end and people seem satisfied with just having a number on RT rather than having to actually expose themselves to critical opinions.

>problems such as fucked-up pacing and miscasted brad pitt
I bet you hated the way the title gave the ending away, too. Pleb.

...

I think it's part of human nature to want the most vital information possible with as little hassle as possible.

We attempt to boil it down to numbers because it's a universal language most people on Earth easily understand.

A percentage is used because everyone with a brain knows that percentages start at 0 and op at 100, meaning we have a frame of reference where 0 is the worst possible score and 100 is the best.

Therefor one could easily tell the quality of a film based on it's percentage.

The problem isn't in the number though, it's in how that number is calculated. We have no algorithm capable of judging what a "good" movie is, and therefor the best we can do is put our faith in people who claim TO know what a "good" movie is and summarize based on their opinions.

We're just not predictable enough for a computer to give us an accurate number (yet), so we rely on meaningless heuristics.

Only one review matters.

Not after his hidden niggers review

They're on the poster tbf

pure garbage that is very possibly damaging the contemporary cinema scene

Being that critics are more about judging a film on how it will please its projected audience, rather than quality, I'd say that's pretty accurate. However, I don't like either film you posted, so it's no great crime to me that one beat the other.

My sister forced me to watch that movie, so you're making a big generalization there

Thede threads should be banned on sight

Too easy to game.

Is that really a bad thing though? Do we really want computers to analyze us so completely that they know, before we do, what we will enjoy and what we won't?

Why bother being alive at all if a computer can just calculate what you'd enjoy and what you wouldn't?

hasn't steered me wrong yet

I think the way it presents critical reception is garbage and that film critics don't know shit, one degree of separation from vidya critics. It's useful to see how it was received by the public but most of the time the box office numbers will tell you the same story.