History Headscratchers / RottenTomatoes

29th May '16 10:16:22 PM TheRealYuma
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I can't agree with that. I mean, this site is an unfortunate, and unintentional (I'll believe), transmitter of ReviewsAreTheGospel. Granted that also has to do with the individuals themselves who can't see RT's flaws or what the percentage really means. Nevertheless, when has the site ever explicitly stated that these are just opinions?

to:

*** I can't agree with that. I mean, this site is an unfortunate, and unintentional (I'll believe), transmitter of ReviewsAreTheGospel. Granted that also has to do with the individuals themselves who can't see RT's flaws or what the percentage really means. Nevertheless, when has the site ever explicitly stated that these are just opinions?opinions?
* Why isn't there an audience equivalent of Certified Fresh? After all, it's the money made from the box office that makes or breaks a movie. So, considering that regular audience members have more power over a movie, at least in theory, shouldn't the audience be treated as well as the critics are?
2nd Apr '16 8:38:12 PM TheRealYuma
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Who, the critics? There's a reason why there's a trope for CriticProof, because certain films, especially blockbusters, guaranteed to be too much of a success for the critics to give a dent to. Nowadays their real power is in directing smarter moviegoers to lesser known films coming out that wouldn't have received as much publicity if it weren't for the fact that most critics agree that it is good, even great. That's quite a positive step, not a negative one.

to:

** Who, the critics? There's a reason why there's a trope for CriticProof, because certain films, especially blockbusters, guaranteed to be too much of a success for the critics to give a dent to. Nowadays their real power is in directing smarter moviegoers to lesser known films coming out that wouldn't have received as much publicity if it weren't for the fact that most critics agree that it is good, even great. That's quite a positive step, not a negative one.one.
*** I can't agree with that. I mean, this site is an unfortunate, and unintentional (I'll believe), transmitter of ReviewsAreTheGospel. Granted that also has to do with the individuals themselves who can't see RT's flaws or what the percentage really means. Nevertheless, when has the site ever explicitly stated that these are just opinions?
19th Jul '15 8:36:28 AM phylos
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** The only one of those with more than 100 reviews collected is Toy Story 2. And Dr Strangelove has one rotten review.


Added DiffLines:

*** A movie being good or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Everyone is allowed to dislike anything.
15th Nov '13 6:20:37 PM ading
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Except that there are over 100 works that have 0 rotten reviews (Off the top of my head, Citizen Kane, the first two Toy Story movies, and Dr. Strangelove).
11th Nov '13 5:55:01 PM ading
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** If it's a legitimately good movie, what's wrong with that?
20th May '13 12:47:49 PM Tuckerscreator
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Who, the critics? There's a reason why there's a trope for CriticProof, because certain films, especially blockbusters, guaranteed to be too much of a success for the critics to give a dent to. Nowadays their real power is in directing smarter moviegoers to lesser known films coming out that wouldn't have received as much publicity if it weren't for the fact that most critics agree that it is good. That's quite a positive step, not a negative one.

to:

** Who, the critics? There's a reason why there's a trope for CriticProof, because certain films, especially blockbusters, guaranteed to be too much of a success for the critics to give a dent to. Nowadays their real power is in directing smarter moviegoers to lesser known films coming out that wouldn't have received as much publicity if it weren't for the fact that most critics agree that it is good.good, even great. That's quite a positive step, not a negative one.
20th May '13 12:47:22 PM Tuckerscreator
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* A lot of films are infamous for the fact that their reviewer score and their viewer score are drastically different. Why don't people start to realize that allowing a few people to have a stranglehold on the success and failure of movies might not be a good idea?

to:

* A lot of films are infamous for the fact that their reviewer score and their viewer score are drastically different. Why don't people start to realize that allowing a few people to have a stranglehold on the success and failure of movies might not be a good idea?idea?
** Who, the critics? There's a reason why there's a trope for CriticProof, because certain films, especially blockbusters, guaranteed to be too much of a success for the critics to give a dent to. Nowadays their real power is in directing smarter moviegoers to lesser known films coming out that wouldn't have received as much publicity if it weren't for the fact that most critics agree that it is good. That's quite a positive step, not a negative one.
20th May '13 12:30:28 PM Watergirl909
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** These people don't consider the mathematics. Older and/or more obscure films will tend to have fewer reviews. One review out of ten being negative will automatically bring down the percentages to 90% whereas it takes ten negative reviews to do the same when there are a hundred overall, and the odds are that there will be at least ''one or two'' people knocking the film.

to:

** These people don't consider the mathematics. Older and/or more obscure films will tend to have fewer reviews. One review out of ten being negative will automatically bring down the percentages to 90% whereas it takes ten negative reviews to do the same when there are a hundred overall, and the odds are that there will be at least ''one or two'' people knocking the film.film.
* A lot of films are infamous for the fact that their reviewer score and their viewer score are drastically different. Why don't people start to realize that allowing a few people to have a stranglehold on the success and failure of movies might not be a good idea?
6th May '13 6:59:22 AM MathWizardBoy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** These people don't consider the mathematics. Older and/or more obscure films will tend to have fewer reviews. One review out of ten being negative will automatically bring down the percentages to 90% whereas it takes ten negative reviews to do the same when there are a hundred overall, and the odds are that there will be at least ''one or two'' people knocking the film. Also Rotten Tomatoes has an irritating habit of branding mostly ambivalent reviews "fresh" or "rotten" based on their own bizarre and frequently inaccurate interpretation of the overall tone, classifying mildly positive reviews "rotten" and mildly negative ones "fresh". Not to mention that to get a "fresh" rating on the consensus a film has to get not only a majority of positive reviews but a minimum of 60% (what ''is'' this, school?!), which leads to a lot of mostly well reviewed films still being idiotically labeled "rotten". Also there is a certain amount of EightPointEight involved.

to:

** These people don't consider the mathematics. Older and/or more obscure films will tend to have fewer reviews. One review out of ten being negative will automatically bring down the percentages to 90% whereas it takes ten negative reviews to do the same when there are a hundred overall, and the odds are that there will be at least ''one or two'' people knocking the film. Also Rotten Tomatoes has an irritating habit of branding mostly ambivalent reviews "fresh" or "rotten" based on their own bizarre and frequently inaccurate interpretation of the overall tone, classifying mildly positive reviews "rotten" and mildly negative ones "fresh". Not to mention that to get a "fresh" rating on the consensus a film has to get not only a majority of positive reviews but a minimum of 60% (what ''is'' this, school?!), which leads to a lot of mostly well reviewed films still being idiotically labeled "rotten". Also there is a certain amount of EightPointEight involved.
16th Jun '12 10:30:57 PM MerlinSyndrome
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The massive amount of FanDumb from users. It's mostly noticeable with classic works with more than a 90% Fresh rating. This usually means that there's a single negative review of the film. Critics will get flamed in the review's comment section for "ruining a perfect score". It's almost a real life example of TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong.

to:

* The massive amount of FanDumb from users. It's mostly noticeable with classic works with more than a 90% Fresh rating. This usually means that there's a single negative review of the film. [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong Critics will get flamed in the review's comment section for "ruining a perfect score". It's almost a real life example of TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong.score".]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 15. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.RottenTomatoes