You have two (2) minutes to explain in your own words how the Rotten Tomato scoring works without doing any research

You have two (2) minutes to explain in your own words how the Rotten Tomato scoring works without doing any research.

The more you pay, the higher the number.

in binary, yes - no
anything above 5/10 is yes, everything else is no

gathers the reviews from various sites and journalists and give an average score based on said reviews

It collect all the reviews score and average them by a %

jews pay good goys
good goys say yay or nay

>critics rate movie
>if they thought it was 8-10 they give it a fresh
>5-7 can be either fresh or rotten and the critic gets to choose if its fresh or rottten
>1-4 rotten
>fresh just means they liked it
>rotten means it sucks ass
>average score is always under the tomato meter

Incorrect

It collects ratings from any SJW blogger and their SJW dog. Rotten Tomatoes is filth and retardation.

It aggregates reviews based on the principal that if a reviewer scores the film over 50%, 5/10, 2.5/5 etc. then it is a positive (fresh) review. Any rating less than 50% is negative (rotten)
The site then forms a ratio of fresh to rotten reviews, which is displayed as a percentage of how many critics had a positive impression of the film

It's a bullshit metric, because 1000 reviewers could all rate the film 5/10 - i.e. completely mediocre. But still, so long as nobody rated it a 4/10 or less, the movie will be 100% fresh on the Tomatometer which foolishly implies that the film is some kind of masterpiece by RT standards.

The average score is the only professional RT metric that is actually informative.
Audience scoring isn't bad since it's a direct "did you like it or not"

Thank correct reply took too long

...

It is actually 6/10 and up, but critics can choose if a 3/5 or 6/10 score or any borderline score is rotten or not

I like Scorcese but this sounds like a crybaby indie movie director who's movie got panned

>reeee stop telling the masses if they're paying to see a good movie or not reeee

Hollywood has fought critics ever since it existed, all the complaints about RT are just the exact same rehashed complaints about Siskel and Ebert they made 25 years ago

its an aggregate, if the admins think a review is positive, it counts as a positive review, and the same for negative. it doesnt take into account score, so its pretty arbitrary.

But he's correct.

We live in a society that caters to criticism and judgment rather than creativity and uniqueness. We live in the most catty generation ever and it feeds off of cruelty.

Cruelty is considered a unique, highly desirable trait. Being a cynic is considered a ''good'' thing. It isn't. These people literally kill themselves or walk down roads of self destruction.

See all the great ''cynics'' of history. They've all killed themselves or proceeded to destroy themselves in other ways. Cynics are miserable human beings who derive no joy from the creation of others, much less themselves. They're the lowest form of human beings because they can't even joy life. There's a reason why this generation is the most depressed -- we are literally the most cynical generation. Nothing is serious, everything is a fucking joke and we disrespect almost everything. We're probably one of the meanest generations walking around.

percentage of positive critical reviews

Reviews are determined to be Fresh or Rotton. The score is the percentage of total review that are fresh.
.
.
I think?

If enough people think the movie is okay it gets a seal of approval. If it's sub-par it gets the green sticky. Any film in the 50-70% range is probably Kino.

i've seen reviewers give a rotten score of 8/10

It's determines if a movie is fresh or not by the number of good reviews to negative in a percentage. If a movie is a 4 and below it's generally considered rotten, but if it's a 6 and above, fresh. Mediocre scores such as 5s can be chosen by critics as to whether they're rotten or fresh

300 dipshits with a blog give a movie a score primarily based on their own prejudices and biases and other dipshits use the aggregated score to argue on anonymous message boards about whether a movie they've never seen was good or not.

>300 dipshits with a blog give a movie a score primarily based on their own prejudices and biases
>Critics do what they've always done
FTFY

It's 60%

This. A movie can get 98% fresh ratings while when you look at the small number the average score could be around 65%.

So it's basically a curve that'll artificially inflate or suppress scores

Well there's the number that shows the percent of positive reviews. Then there's the numbers below which are the average score. Usually I'd say it's accurate enough unless the film in question is a comedy or a safe childrens film with inflated scores from people trying to get in the mind of the audience.

This is how it works.

All you see is the big number, which I think is deliberately distracting from the actual average, which is always smaller.

>38% of reviewers liking a movie distracts from the cumulative qualitative rating of 5/10.

Really missing out on that diamond in the rough, aren't we?

they take all the ratings from diferent scales and normalize them through their own dichotomous rating system, and then use the mathematical average of said scores as the overall scores.

i.e. anything with 6+/10 gets fresh, everything else rotten, rt score is fresh/overall

ahhhhhhtherotten..tomato
>action please

....

.
>action user, please


it doesnt do anything???

It's a constant with all RT reviews. I just picked the most recent one.

But if you want something else, Thor Ragnarok's actual score is 7.5%, which is a "C"

Shit forgot to include it.

Don't know where you are from, but in the US, a C is passing in academic institutions. By that metric, why wouldn't the vast majority of reviews be fresh?
On top of that, I seem to recall how often Sup Forums and Sup Forums like to point out the audience score. It certainly seems the critics opinions echoed that of that percentage of the audience that enjoyed it as well.

Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely idiots who interpret the RT score as indicative of quality, but I fail to see how the design is explicitly dishonest. You can get a qualitative score off of literally any review, but an aggregate score is something that sets RT apart, so why wouldn't that be what is given the emphasis?

It's the % of reviewer journalists who gave a rating of 5/10 or more.

A "C" is not a 92% rating by anyone's stretch of the imagination. The big number is misleading.

They select a random handful of reviews which they then assign a fresh or rotten rating to based on the rating given by the reviewer. If no rating is given, they choose how to interpret the review themselves.

This presents a number of problems, because there's no upper limit of reviews to include, the reviewers chosen change between films, and obviously choosing how to interpret the reviews themselves means the rating may not reflect the reviewer's opinion.

Because of these problems the system opens itself up to score rigging. It's also pretty dumb to rate a movie based solely on volume of positive reviews. Art is more nuanced than that.

I've also noticed that while most poorly rated films are bad, a lot of well-rated films are mediocre at best.

>A "C" is not a 92% rating by anyone's stretch of the imagination.
I didn't say it was, but if the movie is qualitatively passable, unambitious and inoffensive, and does what it tries to do well, why wouldn't 92% percent of critics give it a pass when the options are pass or fail?

It shows the consensus in a black and white manner rather than the average.
For instance:

Movie A
>60% of reviewers give 4.9/10
>40% of reviewers give 10/10
The RT score is 40% but the average rating will be 6.94/10

Movie B
>100% of reviewers give 5.1/10
The RT score is 100% but the average rating will be 5.1/10

Cheaters

See : it's 22% behind Thor Ragnarok in terms of rating.
But the RT score will say 55% behind because the movie is more polarizing.

Reviews are categorized as either positive or negative. 50% on RT means that 50% of reviewers gave it a positive review.

>which foolishly implies that the film is some kind of masterpiece by RT standards.
Yeah if you're fucking reading it wrong like a fucking mongoloid. They advertise fucking all over their site that it's not an aggregate.

Literally a % of critics who gave the movie a positive review as opposed to a negative one.

Takes reviews from actual profesionals.
removes all nuance and turns them into either 'THIS GOOD' or 'THIS BAD'
Takes an average of this

This
Thread

>DCucks trying to do damage control

KEK

If a reviewer gives it 6/10 or higher, its considered a positive review, all the reviews are then aggregated and a percentage is made based on how many positive reviews there are, and on the top left corner, the actual average score is displayed.

When the film is good the score goes up.

When the film is bad the score goes down.