Was rotten tomatoes reliable at some point in the past? is so, what happened?

was rotten tomatoes reliable at some point in the past? is so, what happened?

Yeah, how is not at 100%? Someone must have been too dumb to get the quips.

So RT is now a Disney shill front?

(((Rotten)))

>was rotten tomatoes reliable at some point in the past?
Sure, as far as review aggregation goes at least, but he site is only as good as the critics are. Same with metacritic.
>is so, what happened?
They got less critical and peoples tastes have changed.

Rotten tomatoes has always been retarded.

Getting 100% just means all the reviewers that reviewed it gave it at least 6/10 or equivalent.

A thousand people could give it 6/10 and it would still be 100%

Isn't like 30% of RT owned by Warner Bros?

Not with Disney franchise movies it's not, the bloggers aggregated there make a living off the merchandising bags Disney sends them

Define 'reliable'

Movies and their enjoyment are subjective.

Make up your own damn mind and don't rely on other people to tell you of what to think of movies. All they do is watch it, just like you.

Why wouldn't it be reliable? Thor is at a 7.5 on RT, which is lower than its IMDB score apparently.

they shoot pictures don't they? is a better aggregator.

No, no one likes you dc le ebin capekino there either

it was reliable about 7-8 years ago, it's just a shillpit now

Yeah, but the score underneath the 100% would still say "6/10", so how is it the sites fault some people are too stupid to look at the actual score?

Metascore is way better because it doesn't have a misleading BIG NUMBERS for the literal brainlet Wojack human equivalents

>bringing WB for no reason *wink*
OH BOY HERE WE GO

What, did you think the same shills making reviews for Ragnarok wouldn't be here shilling too?

i dunno

They were reliable back when they allowed comments by users on shitty movie reviews (like the ones by Vincent Canby from years ago bitching about Godfather II not being like his arthouse shit or something), now with no real input against critics from the public it serves only as a tool for studios to promote their films.

Everyone, including most retards on this board, completely misinterprets RT scores.

A high RT doesn't mean the film is good, it means the viewer has a higher chance of liking it. It's just maths. If 90% of people liked a movie, then theres a 90% chance you will too.

Of course, then theres a 10% chance that you will hate it, which is perfectly fine.

If everyone realised this, there would be little arguing. Just dissociate high RT score with a good quality film, but rather with a film that you have a higher likelihood of enjoying. This is the best way of rating movies, and the only way films should be rated, but everyone keeps on seeing 95% and thinking that means it's the same as 9.5/10.

Anything with journalists involved in it can be good nor reliable.

see

>This is the best way of rating movies, and the only way films should be rated
fuck outta here

Maybe if they put the score in big numbers instead of % it would be less confusing but their site is designed by retards

scoring rating system is flawed as you have people that give high ratings to fucking everything, and people that give low ratings to everything. Rating the movie should be the job of the viewer. RT score should just tell whether the film is worth watching or not (higher chance of the view enjoying it as well)

>safe, mass-appealing, carefully engineered Disney flick is well-reviewd by the majority of critics
Wow stop the fucking presses