BREAKING: Rottan Tomatoes CONSPIRACY

...

>WB conspired to sabotage their own movie!

2.5/4 is 0.625 which is fresh

>WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>i need liberals on the internet to tell me whether i should like a movie

>Letter grading system

>He doesn't understand how Rotten Tomato works.

Fuck off. Not even defending DC.

The score is an objective personal rating and the fresh/rotten is meant for whether they liked it or disliked it.

You can like bad movies and hate good movies.

Learn how RT works before you shitpost faggot

>hate good movies.

if i circle this while leaving out context surely my fake comic book movie conspiracy will gain traction

Yeah you could totally see the bias with wonder woman

I think it's YOU who don't understand how it works. The point is to translate their grade, be it a letter or a number, into a binary variable: recommending or not recommending the movie. If a 2.5/4 translates to a fresh score for one movie, it ought to translate to a fresh score for the other movie.

You know RT is owned by WB right?

comcast

when are we going to ban and redirect all capeshit garbage talk to ?

But he's right Sup Forumsedditor
This isn't like your videogames

Thats not how Armond does it

Honestly, its like critics have become terrible writers or the quote they are giving is retarded sounding. 2.5/4 for the third sounds like its a mistake because I wouldn't call 'intoxicating' a fucking B-.

The only confusing JL review is the last, the others sound like rotten reviews.

Look dude this is an entirely different topic. Yes they own RT but have done nothing to leverage it appropriately which earns me a lot of respect for them. If Disney owned RT it would be a shitshow of Disney ballgargling. The critics themselves are being influenced or they aren't but WB has zero to do with how the critiques are being portrayed and are the only party who are obviously corruption free.

Won't happen because then there'd be literally nothing to talk about, since all movies these days are capeshit or pseudo-capeshit.

Well, of course. They know the DC audience will definitely go if the scores are negative.

>The company was launched in August 1998 by Senh Duong and since January 2010 has been owned by Flixster, which was, in turn, acquired in 2011 by Warner Bros. In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were sold to Comcast's Fandango. Warner Bros. retained a minority stake in the merged entities, including Fandango.

So yeah obviously Disney conspiracy. They all wine and dine and have people in their pocket but that's all the studios and it's nothing new.
It's like the kids on Sup Forums who refuse to believe that their mindless entertainment products are not treated as a serious art form.

Typical meme excuse straight outta mouse shill's manual.

the fresh/rotten score of a review is decided by the RT editors, not the critics. the critics can complain if they disagree.

reviews are fresh if they have 3/5 or more. if there is no score, the editors decided from the text itself.

this was the old system though, seems like they've changed it.

Imagine how much of a brainlet you’d have to be to put any stock at all in Rottentomatoes’ insipid metric or the numales whose blogs they aggregate...
I thought you had to be 18 to post here?

You already tried this shit with BvS and Suicide Squad

>being over 18 and browsing Sup Forums

Reminder: Rotten Tomatoes came up with a bizarre one-time algorithm to rank superhero movies in such a way that they could claim Wonder Woman was the best reviewed comic movie of all time, despite it not even being the best reviewed of the year
If you put absolutely any stock in them aside from being a convenient location where all nu-male and nerdbait reviews are rounded up, you’re an irredeemable pleb

Weird how be didn't make this thread about wonder woman

goes both ways

You realise if the critics have middling reviews they can decide rotten or fresh themselves?

Reviewers are allowed to determine whether their review is listed as a fresh or rotten review. It defaults to the 60% rule if they don't specify when putting it up

the absolute state of DCucks

RT is an aggregate
Reviewers choose if their review is fresh or rotten

>RT is biased against DC propert-

>If you can't do anything right, move so quickly that no one has time to notice
Kek

WB owning a share of Fandango who owns RT does not = owning it
Also, see pic related

Reviewers get to decide if it’s rotten or not when the score is close

They analyze mixed reviews better than the reviewers themselves. Sometimes stupid critics are clearly giving a negative review but give it a C+ or whatever.

his reviews was correctly marked fresh

After all these years, people still don't know how rotten tomatoes works...

>45% liked it

Looked up this Hughes guy, apparently he didn't know RT could post his reviews on their site without him knowing it. They don't have to ask.

This shit goes against RT own scoring system. 2.5 should be fresh no matter what

fucking sad

>overall rating

>can't understand a simple rating system

The fresh/rotten icon on a review is completely up the the critics themselves when publishing their reviews on RT, unless RT takes their review and posts it themselves, then it's 3.5/5 as a cutoff.

You are posting the criteria for the Tomatometer, which is the % of fresh reviews.

>picture unrelated

Anyone find it interesting that OP left out the names and links for these people so that no one could verify in themselves easily?

I'd be a hell of a lot easier to just read each review and see if its positive or not. Either way I don't really give a fuck since I know for a fact that JUST league was trash that was almost worse than SS and FAR worse than BvS.

Only shills defend it. Its a sad step down from BvS and lacks any kind of artistic vision or integrity. Thor at the very least LOOKS better and plays better as a comedy with focus on one character.

just read what they said, the critics on the right were much more negative than the ones on the left.

What is wrong with my life that I'm obsessed over the rating of a superhero flick.

I think the reviewers can decide if they think their reviews are rotten or not.

Mods

try reading the words instead of just obsessing about numbers?

it's clear which ones are positive and negative.

Ok that is kinda weird. Clearly some corruption here.

RT has literally been doing this for every movie in their DB for years. You can find dozens examples of incorrectly counted reviews easily.

But muh capekino!

>incorrectly counted reviews easily.
impossible to determine.

i'ver heard critics weigh in on this, pajeet. if the review is at 2.5 they ask the critic if they would give it a fresh or rotten. the critic then gives the fresh or rotten rating to rt.

Really? Then what would you call the pic in the OP?

this is despicable

>rotten tomatoes
>they are green

SOMETHING DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT

Marvel shits all voer RT ratings. It's nos ecret. That's why their credibility is nil.

And if WB can present this to a grand jury, well if it's legit then there's a prosecutable case for economic sabotage by the mouse.

I don't understand why people trust RT instead of metacritic. Metacritic just counts the numbers. RT INTERPRETS the text however they want to INTERPRET it and give a thumb up or a thumb down, which leads to OP pic. That's what they do, that's the idea of RT, OP. Why do people look at that score at all, it's completely "curated"

>And if WB can present this to a grand jury, well if it's legit then there's a prosecutable case for economic sabotage by the mouse.
Please god let it happen. A scandal involving Rotten Tomatoes would be the cherry on the sundae.

I dont have a reaction image good enough to mock this adequately.

You seriously have to be some highschool sophmore if you actually believe this.

You dumb faggot read the RT rules. A score that rounds to 60% from either direction can be considered fresh or rotten AT THE REVIEWER'S DISCRETION.

You're definitely a fucked up retard. I'm an obese piece of shit gamer faggot and even I go into these threads to laugh at people who care about the most inconsequential shit imaginable.

that's pretty fucked up to be honest, it means the scores are completely biased

No, it means the reviewer has the discretion to represent the overall point of their review: to either recommend or not recommend a film. It's fucking simple, you simple bitch. It means the scores are completely representative of reviewer consensus.

then why give it a number rating to begin with?

Doesn’t matter cause the culture around these movies is what we are really interested in, not the movies themselves.

Rotten Tomatoes does give critics the option of picking Fresh or Rotten even with the rating you give. Though I will say there should be consistency . If these were exactly the same critics there would be a solid case

if you made all 21 borderline reviews positive, the tomatometer would be 49% instead of 41%

Big improvement :^)

>user sees no difference between "it has problems but overall it's enjoyable" and "it has good parts but it's overall shit"

liberals control box office now.

Kind of a dumb review. For a movie supposedly without consequences, it sure reboot Thor completely.

Marvel’s credibility is measured at the box office. Current status? Winning.

The market decides, like Blu Rays over HD, and they pick the losers, with examples like beta max, Blackberry, DC...

A grand jury. I’ve never seen such a pitiful post.

exactly, did they not see thor losing an eye? that's totally consequential to the plot and to future marvel films.

It’s 110% cosmetic and it still could have been charitably been taken seriously if they had let the moment breathe for a sec before forcing in 2 rapid quips in quick succession with the forgettable score not willing to deviate from “whimsy” long enough to allow for one single attosecond of genuine drama

A guy on twitter clarified it. If your score is mixed and you don't set it to Fresh or Rotten, RT does it for you depending on what you wrote.

>minority stake
>owns RT
pick one.

If only you could grasp how dark things truly are.

Disney owns the reviewers.

When a movie is good, it gets a high RT score.

When a movie is bad it gets a low RT score.