Slashdot Mirror

For me personally, streaming has reduced the times I go to a theater. In my teens I went probably on average a couple times a month. Last year I saw maybe 3 movies in theaters. What's changed? In my opinion the prevalence of streaming has put movie studios in a bind: now that nearly everyone has access to near unlimited amounts of content from their couch, movies have become a much more risk-averse business. Making movies costs a lot and competition is fierce. This has led to studios focusing heavily on franchises and sequels and cinematic universes. There's a reason disney paid a fortune for the Star Wars IP (and already made their investment back): they know SW is a franchise with a huge pre-existing fanbase and they know they can keep pumping these movies out at a rate of about 1 a year and keep raking in the cash. Marvel. DC. Harry Potter franchise being hastily expanded beyond the original series. It's all about risk-management: the studios are asking themselves 'what can we invest XXX million bucks into and be fairly certain that we'll make money?'

This is not to say all that is bad. I enjoy a mindless action-flick or a superhero movie here or there. But this has made it so that the selection of movies available in theaters, at least here in Finland, is pretty narrow. My personal taste in movies is story and character/dialogue driven. If the plot and the writing is good enough, I don't care if the special effects budget has been small. Movies like Coherence and Primer are good examples of how to make thoughtful and entertaining scifi/mystery films with a very limited budget. However these kinds of movies don't make it to the cinemas any more, they're too risky. The movie going public has been conditioned into expecting a 'larger than life' experience on the big screen.

Every once in a while a movie with a wide mass-market appeal hits the theaters that even a cinephile nerd like me can call excellent. Mad Max: Fury Road is a good example of a such a film and in my opinion the best pure action film ever made (because it uses action to actually tell a story beautifully, instead of having tons of crap dialogue that just acts as dressing to get the characters into the next action set-piece, you could cut what little dialogue there is out of the film and it'd still be more world building and immersive than the whole of the Transformers franchise combined), but outside such movies I don't often find myself wanting to go to the theater, because for people like me, the streaming services simply offer a better selection.

For me personally, streaming has reduced the times I go to a theater. In my teens I went probably on average a couple times a month. Last year I saw maybe 3 movies in theaters. What's changed? In my opinion the prevalence of streaming has put movie studios in a bind: now that nearly everyone has access to near unlimited amounts of content from their couch, movies have become a much more risk-averse business. Making movies costs a lot and competition is fierce. This has led to studios focusing heavily on franchises and sequels and cinematic universes. There's a reason disney paid a fortune for the Star Wars IP (and already made their investment back): they know SW is a franchise with a huge pre-existing fanbase and they know they can keep pumping these movies out at a rate of about 1 a year and keep raking in the cash. Marvel. DC. Harry Potter franchise being hastily expanded beyond the original series. It's all about risk-management: the studios are asking themselves 'what can we invest XXX million bucks into and be fairly certain that we'll make money?'

This is not to say all that is bad. I enjoy a mindless action-flick or a superhero movie here or there. But this has made it so that the selection of movies available in theaters, at least here in Finland, is pretty narrow. My personal taste in movies is story and character/dialogue driven. If the plot and the writing is good enough, I don't care if the special effects budget has been small. Movies like Coherence and Primer are good examples of how to make thoughtful and entertaining scifi/mystery films with a very limited budget. However these kinds of movies don't make it to the cinemas any more, they're too risky. The movie going public has been conditioned into expecting a 'larger than life' experience on the big screen.

Every once in a while a movie with a wide mass-market appeal hits the theaters that even a cinephile nerd like me can call excellent. Mad Max: Fury Road is a good example of a such a film and in my opinion the best pure action film ever made (because it uses action to actually tell a story beautifully, instead of having tons of crap dialogue that just acts as dressing to get the characters into the next action set-piece, you could cut what little dialogue there is out of the film and it'd still be more world building and immersive than the whole of the Transformers franchise combined), but outside such movies I don't often find myself wanting to go to the theater, because for people like me, the streaming services simply offer a better selection.

It would be naive to think it isn't true unless RT emphatically deny doing it, e.g. by publishing their ethics. Go look at their lead headlines right now and witness an example of what I'm talking about. Not the first time either. It happens a lot with these major studio releases.

And it's funny how their tweets seem to come from a core of blogs which have their own questionable ethical standards. These tweeters clearly don't seem bound by any embargo. It would be naive to assume they're not being paid for this of piffle, the tweeters for "influencing", and RT for aggregating it.

So yeah, maybe it's all completely innocent. The real world suggests money is changing hands. I'd add that the trolls damage studios, not RT, so I wonder too why their actions focus on that and not the bigger issue.

It would be naive to think it isn't true unless RT emphatically deny doing it, e.g. by publishing their ethics. Go look at their lead headlines right now and witness an example of what I'm talking about. Not the first time either. It happens a lot with these major studio releases.

And it's funny how their tweets seem to come from a core of blogs which have their own questionable ethical standards. These tweeters clearly don't seem bound by any embargo. It would be naive to assume they're not being paid for this of piffle, the tweeters for "influencing", and RT for aggregating it.

So yeah, maybe it's all completely innocent. The real world suggests money is changing hands. I'd add that the trolls damage studios, not RT, so I wonder too why their actions focus on that and not the bigger issue.

Critics at least try to look at the movie for what it is

LOL. No they don't. They are the most obvious shills on the internet and the old business model of independent critics is coming to an end. Critics now have to compete with regular viewers which is apparently a problem. Can't have people disagree with critics/narrative or else they be racist sexist trolls!

The Orville Season 1 hated by critics. What changed in season 2? How can you go from creatively, morally, and ethically bankrupt to it's all characters stories in the space adventure return and that's a good thing. When it's the same show/formula nothing major different? I am all for people changing their mind but there are plenty of these kind of examples and that kind of 180 is a little ridiculous. Media producers are buying up critic sites so in many cases there is a conflict of interest to say something bad.

Online trolls do not explain why box office numbers are down . It doesn't explain Oscar viewership at the 2nd lowest record. And it certainly doesn't explain the garbage that is being produced and hailed as the 2nd coming of sliced bread. Do not disagree lest ye be troll!

Critics at least try to look at the movie for what it is

LOL. No they don't. They are the most obvious shills on the internet and the old business model of independent critics is coming to an end. Critics now have to compete with regular viewers which is apparently a problem. Can't have people disagree with critics/narrative or else they be racist sexist trolls!

The Orville Season 1 hated by critics. What changed in season 2? How can you go from creatively, morally, and ethically bankrupt to it's all characters stories in the space adventure return and that's a good thing. When it's the same show/formula nothing major different? I am all for people changing their mind but there are plenty of these kind of examples and that kind of 180 is a little ridiculous. Media producers are buying up critic sites so in many cases there is a conflict of interest to say something bad.

Online trolls do not explain why box office numbers are down . It doesn't explain Oscar viewership at the 2nd lowest record. And it certainly doesn't explain the garbage that is being produced and hailed as the 2nd coming of sliced bread. Do not disagree lest ye be troll!

According to RT, these are the top 100 movies OF ALL TIME (their words):

https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Who can take this site seriously?

Rank Rating Title No. of Reviews
1. 97% Black Panther (2018) 456
2. 99% Lady Bird (2017) 355
3. 98% The Wizard of Oz (1939) 111
4. 100% Citizen Kane (1941) 80
5. 96% BlacKkKlansman (2018) 386

Since a lot of people are claiming it's just the interest meter, and no reviews. It's actually both.
Here is a link to the actual Audience Reviews.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...
At present time around 400 audience reviews have been submitted. The written reviews seem mixed but more positive than the interest meter suggests.

> NO! We can put out infinite numbers of cartoon based superhero stories all with essentially the same plotline and people will line up to see them forever! It has to be bombers! No wait... it could be.... RUSSIAN bombers!!!

I did a deep investigation of the site and found that it's WORSE than you think.

They have Russian films on there! The Russians have taken over the site!

I've heard that some of them even comment on the internet. In ENGLISH!

You can view the actual reasons.

There are a number of them giving Brie Larson's rant on the diversity of movie critics as their reason:

> I do not need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about ‘A Wrinkle In Time.'

Really, you're whole take is to argue terminology. In this case incorrectly, since they're literally labeled "Captain Marvel Reviews / Audience" on the site.

Look for yourself: https://www.rottentomatoes.com... .

Here is a link to the list in question:

Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 Movies of all time

I agree the list is shit. Looks like someone mispelt "Most popular."

* Black Panther is ranked 1? In whose delusional universe? Most popular? Maybe? Best? LOL at all the stupid plot holes.
* Mad Max: Fury Road is ranked 7?? It was meh. The Matrix was far better.
* Dunkirk is ranked 20?? It is meh aside from the nice cinematography and I even went to the IMAX to see it.
* Stupid Wars: The Latest Junk is ranked at 31??? Even Gladiator was better then this shit.
* The Force Awakens is at 42. A crappy remake of Star Wars: A New Hope scores higher then the original not even on the list??? WTF.
* Manchester by the Sea is 45 -- b-o-r-i-n-g as fuck. Can I have my 2 hours back please?

I don't see Baraka on the list. For a movie to have no dialog, no plot, no characters AND to be that moving is out of this world. The BluRay version is a real treat.

I don't see any Robin William's movies on the list: When Dreams May Come, Awakenings, The Fisher King, Mrs. Doubtfire, Good Morning Vietnam, Alladin, Dead Poet's Society, Goodwill Hunting, Bicentennial Man, etc. Any one of these is better then the tip 10 combined.

No James Cameron movies on the list?

I don't see Contact on the list? Oh wait we got crap like Baby Driver at rank 58. How silly of me to think we were listing good movies!

No Jet Li movies such as Hero?

This list is a total farce. It is a list of most popular. Most of these movies will be forgotten in a decade.

I guess McDonald's serving BILLIONS of hamburgers makes them The Best Food of All Time! /sarcasm

That doesn't make sense, and doesn't even align with other review sites (7.4 out of 10 on IMDB) but 98% on RT.

Actually, it does, but you're confused because you're comparing apples to oranges and expecting things to match.

IMDb is a wiki and its scores are based solely on user reviews, whereas Rotten Tomatoes uses critic reviews for its top-line rating. Apples and oranges. That doesn't mean Rotten Tomatoes lacks user reviews, however. In fact, if you check the Audience Score for Lady Bird on Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see that it's at 79%, pretty much spot-on with IMDb's 7.4/10.

You clearly prefer user reviews. I actually find them to be a rather mediocre indication of a film's quality, particularly when it comes to blockbusters, given that fans and foes of a franchise/cast/crew will leave reviews without any regard for the merits of a particular film (e.g. most entries in the widely-maligned Transformers franchise have user scores far in abundance of what is merited). Even at their best, I generally find that user scores are only useful to answer the question of whether or not a film is entertaining, but entertainment value is a rather shallow assessment of a film's merit, and in most cases should merely be one metric considered among many. User scores generally don't speak to the the overall quality of the film, whereas critics frequently try to address the topic of whether or not a film is an exemplar within its genre.

In the "BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME" list (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/), 7 of the top 10 movies are from 2017/18.

If that's the only evidence you have for your conspiracy theory, you're running short on facts. I already explained why what you're talking about is a feature, not a bug (see (C) above). If you want to suggest that a fully-disclosed, common sense bias in a formula is an indication that Rotten Tomatoes is bought-and-paid-for by the industry, that's your choice, but that's a rather weak foundation on which to stand.

That doesn't make sense, and doesn't even align with other review sites (7.4 out of 10 on IMDB) but 98% on RT.

Actually, it does, but you're confused because you're comparing apples to oranges and expecting things to match.

IMDb is a wiki and its scores are based solely on user reviews, whereas Rotten Tomatoes uses critic reviews for its top-line rating. Apples and oranges. That doesn't mean Rotten Tomatoes lacks user reviews, however. In fact, if you check the Audience Score for Lady Bird on Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see that it's at 79%, pretty much spot-on with IMDb's 7.4/10.

You clearly prefer user reviews. I actually find them to be a rather mediocre indication of a film's quality, particularly when it comes to blockbusters, given that fans and foes of a franchise/cast/crew will leave reviews without any regard for the merits of a particular film (e.g. most entries in the widely-maligned Transformers franchise have user scores far in abundance of what is merited). Even at their best, I generally find that user scores are only useful to answer the question of whether or not a film is entertaining, but entertainment value is a rather shallow assessment of a film's merit, and in most cases should merely be one metric considered among many. User scores generally don't speak to the the overall quality of the film, whereas critics frequently try to address the topic of whether or not a film is an exemplar within its genre.

In the "BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME" list (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/), 7 of the top 10 movies are from 2017/18.

If that's the only evidence you have for your conspiracy theory, you're running short on facts. I already explained why what you're talking about is a feature, not a bug (see (C) above). If you want to suggest that a fully-disclosed, common sense bias in a formula is an indication that Rotten Tomatoes is bought-and-paid-for by the industry, that's your choice, but that's a rather weak foundation on which to stand.

The top rated movie of ALL TIME on Rotten Tomatoes is "Black Panther". So....yeah.

A) Actually, it's not. It's the top ranked using their "Adjusted Score", but it's not the top rated, which should have been obvious, given that it has a 97% rating currently and there are plenty of films with a 100% rating.

B) If you hover over the ? on the Best of RT page, you'll see that their Adjusted Score is calculated using a Bayesian formula that's designed to account for variations in the number of reviewers per movie. I.e. More reviewers in agreement will result in a higher Adjusted Score. As such, it should be fairly obvious that their Adjusted Score will be biased towards more recent films (i.e. ones with more reviews).

C) A bias towards more recent films is a feature, not a bug, given that it helps their users discover films they haven't yet seen that are more likely to be available, which is basically the entire point of Rotten Tomatoes. They aren't the AFI, BAFTA, or Academy. They make no claim to being the arbiters of all that is good in film.

D) Despite the bias, the top 10 still contains three films (The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, The Third Man) from the last century, and every set of 10 after that contains 4 to 7 films from the last century, suggesting that it's still doing a pretty good job at bubbling up the best films, even if they're not necessarily ranked in the top 100 in the order we might think they should be.

But, perhaps most importantly, your argument is missing the point entirely. The question of good vs. great—should Black Panther be ranked higher than Citizen Kane?—doesn't matter when we're talking about the overall quality of streaming libraries. What matters is whether they do a good job at distinguishing good vs. bad—that they correctly labeled Black Panther and Citizen Kane as "Certified Fresh" while not giving that label to most of the schlock that comes out each day. Towards that end, it seems like Certified Fresh is a decent indicator of quality, even if you (and I, just to be clear) might disagree with how they rank individual films within the Certified Fresh set.

The top rated movie of ALL TIME on Rotten Tomatoes is "Black Panther". So....yeah.

A) Actually, it's not. It's the top ranked using their "Adjusted Score", but it's not the top rated, which should have been obvious, given that it has a 97% rating currently and there are plenty of films with a 100% rating.

B) If you hover over the ? on the Best of RT page, you'll see that their Adjusted Score is calculated using a Bayesian formula that's designed to account for variations in the number of reviewers per movie. I.e. More reviewers in agreement will result in a higher Adjusted Score. As such, it should be fairly obvious that their Adjusted Score will be biased towards more recent films (i.e. ones with more reviews).

C) A bias towards more recent films is a feature, not a bug, given that it helps their users discover films they haven't yet seen that are more likely to be available, which is basically the entire point of Rotten Tomatoes. They aren't the AFI, BAFTA, or Academy. They make no claim to being the arbiters of all that is good in film.

D) Despite the bias, the top 10 still contains three films (The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, The Third Man) from the last century, and every set of 10 after that contains 4 to 7 films from the last century, suggesting that it's still doing a pretty good job at bubbling up the best films, even if they're not necessarily ranked in the top 100 in the order we might think they should be.

But, perhaps most importantly, your argument is missing the point entirely. The question of good vs. great—should Black Panther be ranked higher than Citizen Kane?—doesn't matter when we're talking about the overall quality of streaming libraries. What matters is whether they do a good job at distinguishing good vs. bad—that they correctly labeled Black Panther and Citizen Kane as "Certified Fresh" while not giving that label to most of the schlock that comes out each day. Towards that end, it seems like Certified Fresh is a decent indicator of quality, even if you (and I, just to be clear) might disagree with how they rank individual films within the Certified Fresh set.

Two things I learned today:

JavaScript is the #1 most known language on the planet. https://venturebeat.com/2019/0...
"Black Panther" is the best movie of all time according to Rotten Tomatoes https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

It is amazing what you can learn on the Internet.

Did you look at your link? It says clearly: "All lists are sorted by Adjusted Score" There is a question mark right next to "Score" that tells very briefly how it came to this conclusion. If you click on "What is the Tomatometer", it tells you very clearly how they come up with the list. But let's look at the crux of your agument: RT posting their score of other people's opinion is invalid because it goes against YOUR opinion.

Oh that's odd. Maybe I was confused by the "BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME" header on the list: https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

How you could possibly believe any rating from that site is unbelievable, but people are naive and stupid.

Oh I guess I was deceived by the "BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME" heading under the list I was talking about here: https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Paddington 2 has a 100% rating. The new Spiderman drivel has a 97% rating. Give me a break. Obviously the system is gamed.

Tell me what I "misunderstand" about the rating under the heading "BEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME" on this page https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

The ratings are useless. "Paddington 2" has a 100% rating. "Casino" has a 79% rating (about right). Give me a break. You misunderstand how the Internet works.

" Generally better films will get higher ratings and worse films will get lower ratings."

Obviously not. Look at the lists: https://www.rottentomatoes.com.... The ratings are useless.

Upcoming movies:
32 movies to the end of feb, zero superhero movies.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Well, at least "Battle Angel Alita" should probably count as a sci-fi superhero movie...

Hollywood needs to move on from the superhero genre entirely.

Hollywood is a big place which churns out lots of big movies. If the couple of superhero movies that come out every year is troubling to you I suggest you actually look at yourself and how it is you actually find out which movies are being released.

Rotten tomatoes:
Movies released this week: 5, zero superhero movies.
Upcoming movies:
32 movies to the end of feb, zero superhero movies.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Exactly this.

And really, even if their stuff never comes back to Netflix, I doubt I'd care. For many people, the lack of X on Netflix is seen as a major problem, but instead of getting annoyed that X wasn't available on Netflix, I came to realize that Netflix carries plenty of other stuff that's just as good, that scratches the same itch, and that I can derive just as much enjoyment from viewing. I don't need X to be entertained, because there's Y and Z that I never would have considered otherwise (e.g. I just watched Hugo Weaving in 1998's The Interview (not to be confused with 2014's The Interview) on a lark last night after Netflix recommended it to me, and it was great). Put differently, Netflix taught me to treat most media as fungible entertainment, since there's very little that's actually "must-have". I pay Netflix for access to a constantly rotating, seemingly endless stream of content that I want to watch once, without much care for what that content actually is, so long as it's entertaining enough.

But for those films and shows that are actually must-have, they are, by definition, worth having. As such—and because I have qualms with piracy—I'm fine paying my one-time fee to buy them on DVD or blu-ray and then rip them into Plex so that I can watch them anywhere. Plex doesn't care whether the data I feed it came from a new or used copy, in a sleeve or the original packaging, so it's incredibly easy to legally fill out one's collection for cheap, thanks to eBay and Amazon.

Moreover, even if we wanted to own every major release from the Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and other Disney franchises (i.e. the things we'd sign up for their streaming service to watch), we're still talking about less than one theatrical release per month, which we can almost certainly pick up used for less than what the monthly subscription is likely to cost. As such, even if everything they were making was must-have content, why would we pay them over and over again ad infinitum to maintain our access to that content when we could instead pay them a smaller fee just once to have an even better level of access that could never be taken away?

Exactly this.

And really, even if their stuff never comes back to Netflix, I doubt I'd care. For many people, the lack of X on Netflix is seen as a major problem, but instead of getting annoyed that X wasn't available on Netflix, I came to realize that Netflix carries plenty of other stuff that's just as good, that scratches the same itch, and that I can derive just as much enjoyment from viewing. I don't need X to be entertained, because there's Y and Z that I never would have considered otherwise (e.g. I just watched Hugo Weaving in 1998's The Interview (not to be confused with 2014's The Interview) on a lark last night after Netflix recommended it to me, and it was great). Put differently, Netflix taught me to treat most media as fungible entertainment, since there's very little that's actually "must-have". I pay Netflix for access to a constantly rotating, seemingly endless stream of content that I want to watch once, without much care for what that content actually is, so long as it's entertaining enough.

But for those films and shows that are actually must-have, they are, by definition, worth having. As such—and because I have qualms with piracy—I'm fine paying my one-time fee to buy them on DVD or blu-ray and then rip them into Plex so that I can watch them anywhere. Plex doesn't care whether the data I feed it came from a new or used copy, in a sleeve or the original packaging, so it's incredibly easy to legally fill out one's collection for cheap, thanks to eBay and Amazon.

Moreover, even if we wanted to own every major release from the Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and other Disney franchises (i.e. the things we'd sign up for their streaming service to watch), we're still talking about less than one theatrical release per month, which we can almost certainly pick up used for less than what the monthly subscription is likely to cost. As such, even if everything they were making was must-have content, why would we pay them over and over again ad infinitum to maintain our access to that content when we could instead pay them a smaller fee just once to have an even better level of access that could never be taken away?

Are grown people supposed to talk about cartoon movies?

Indeed. Currently, no laws against that. Perhaps a brief refresher is in order ....
Avatar 1 and 2
Half the footage of most Star Wars movies.
Heavy Metal
Fantasia
Wizards
Toy Story 2
Another Bakshi producion, Fritz the Cat
Yellow Submarine
Ghost in the Shell
And my list can't be complete without a couple from Nick Park & Aardman Animations, Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit: The Wrong Trousers

I'm obviously leaving off a few Disney epics and some Japanese cult classics. But yes, grownups can talk about animation.

Trump wants to go into space so he can join his NAZI friends on the moon

That huge untapped market of Air Bud fans, it must be the cross-over from Full House (Mmmm D.J. Tanner, so babelicious).

Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.

Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.

I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.

But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...

Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.

Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.

Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.

I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.

But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...

Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.

Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.

Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.

I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.

But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...

Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.

Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.

Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.

I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.

But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...

Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.

Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.

Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.

I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.

But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...

Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.

Yeah... but that's again grading service. Personal preferences and prejudices and all that.
One to five stars is simply not a proper way to objectively grade a service. It should be a questionnaire.

Things I talk about are more like physical products or cultural artifacts such as books, movies, music...
E.g. One of my favorite "judging by the quality of judgment" cases is comparing the number of reviews for Boyhood with the number of reviews for 400 Blows... and every consecutive film in that series.

I.e. Of all the professional critics and the audience who gave such rave and "fresh" reviews to a movie whose gimmick is that it was filmed over a decade - practically none of them even know of a series filmed over multiple decades, where the main character is actually an alter-ego of the director, who basically invented auteur theory.
Where thus the gimmick is not a gimmick. And even a "clip show" is not just a clip show.

But people who don't know of that, though it's their job to know that, and some of whom even went to school to learn that... they clearly don't know of the series.
And they think that a gimmicky movie is "fresh" and fantastic. Hmm...

Something tells me that their praises of that movie are kinda overrated and underinformed.

they dont understand is just a excuse for we made a shit movie and dont wanna own up to it.

Occam's razor says it is true. One of the worst avenues to improve is to refuse to take telling.

Ocean's 8 received a 67 percent favorable rating with professional reviewers, and a 47 percent among non-professionals. https://www.rottentomatoes.com... Okay - mixed reviews. But perhaps rather then simply demanding that everyone love the movie, perhaps instead of telling anyone who had a criticism of it they are white males, therefore not relevant, and that the movie "wasn't for them" and that because they are white males, they were not capable of understanding the greatness of the movie, and that their opinion means not one thing......

Perhaps rather than a "fuck you" to 49 percent of the audience, they might ask exactly why a large part of that 49 percent has an issue with the movie. Shouldn't movies not exclude people by sex? But we have moved way beyond inclusivity, and into attempted domination.

Pointing out Kaling's misandry and racism should never be verboten, opposing female supremacists should be as important as pointing out white supremacists. A lot of people don't want to hear it, but a female supremacist and a white supremacist's brains think the same way, they only have a different group they demand be subjugated.

...someone to say in order to protect its existence. ;)

For more information, see this movie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

No, it isn't. Episode V is and I agree with that.
 

1. Correlation != Causation.

2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2.

Now there is (some) overlap between a movie that is popular AND good, but there are at least 4 permutations you seem to be ignoring:

RT / Quality
=========
High / Good -- i.e. Baraka
High / Crap -- i.e. Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Spy Kids, Jurassic World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Prometheus, etc.
Low / Good -- i.e Silence (2017), Underrated movies on RT, Ace Ventura (*)
Low / Crap -- i.e. Battlefield Earth, far too much crap to list.

Legend:

High = high popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Low = low popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Good = Great characters, plot, world building, story telling, or funny / satire / parody.
Crap = Who the fuck wrote/directed this shit???

We can ignore the High/Good (both > 90%) and Low/Crap (both < 40%) since in those cases it can generally be agreed upon that RT's score of popularity DOES equal quality. It is the two OTHER ones High/Crap, and Low/Good that demonstrate RT's score is based on popularity, not quality:

* High/Crap = movie might be over-rated
* Low/Good = movie might be under-rated

(*) I thought Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls was funny as hell, but only a deluded fan would think it was "good" -- how should it be rated then??? Good from an Entertainment value? Crap from a Story perspective?

Beside, IMDB's Top 100 is a better correlation of good movies then RT. But again, this is still mostly a list of popular movies.

Even "better" is a combined RT and IMDb -- but even that must be taken with a grain of salt.

3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score.

Spy Kids has a 93% from critics (WTF?!), yet only a 46% from the audience.

More crap like this can be seen with SW:TLJ, critics rate it 91%, yet the audience score is closer to 24% (**) -- ignoring the animated Clone Wars (2008), it is the LOWEST Star Wars film to date.

(**) RT currently shows the audience score as 47%, but this leads me to my next point.

4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!

The Last Jedi ACTUAL Rotten Tomatoes popcorn score is 24 percent - Mark Sargent

Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.

The problem is people like you conflate "popular" == good, or RT "high score" == good, when that simply isn't the case.

1. Correlation != Causation.

2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2.

Now there is (some) overlap between a movie that is popular AND good, but there are at least 4 permutations you seem to be ignoring:

RT / Quality
=========
High / Good -- i.e. Baraka
High / Crap -- i.e. Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Spy Kids, Jurassic World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Prometheus, etc.
Low / Good -- i.e Silence (2017), Underrated movies on RT, Ace Ventura (*)
Low / Crap -- i.e. Battlefield Earth, far too much crap to list.

Legend:

High = high popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Low = low popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Good = Great characters, plot, world building, story telling, or funny / satire / parody.
Crap = Who the fuck wrote/directed this shit???

We can ignore the High/Good (both > 90%) and Low/Crap (both < 40%) since in those cases it can generally be agreed upon that RT's score of popularity DOES equal quality. It is the two OTHER ones High/Crap, and Low/Good that demonstrate RT's score is based on popularity, not quality:

* High/Crap = movie might be over-rated
* Low/Good = movie might be under-rated

(*) I thought Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls was funny as hell, but only a deluded fan would think it was "good" -- how should it be rated then??? Good from an Entertainment value? Crap from a Story perspective?

Beside, IMDB's Top 100 is a better correlation of good movies then RT. But again, this is still mostly a list of popular movies.

Even "better" is a combined RT and IMDb -- but even that must be taken with a grain of salt.

3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score.

Spy Kids has a 93% from critics (WTF?!), yet only a 46% from the audience.

More crap like this can be seen with SW:TLJ, critics rate it 91%, yet the audience score is closer to 24% (**) -- ignoring the animated Clone Wars (2008), it is the LOWEST Star Wars film to date.

(**) RT currently shows the audience score as 47%, but this leads me to my next point.

4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!

The Last Jedi ACTUAL Rotten Tomatoes popcorn score is 24 percent - Mark Sargent

Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.

The problem is people like you conflate "popular" == good, or RT "high score" == good, when that simply isn't the case.

"Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie..."

It's fine you don't like Avatar but don't make things up.

Metacritic: 83 (user score 7.5) http://www.metacritic.com/movi...
Rotten Tomatoes: 83% (audience score 82%) https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Those are not the ratings of a movie that is "widely regarded" as bad.

"Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?"

No but different backgrounds bring different results and what's more different when it comes to people than race and sex? Variety is a good thing whether you're talking about cinema as art or entertainment (or anywhere inbetween).

All the parts, will still be manufactured elsewhere.

LOL ..To quote Lev Andropov from Armageddon:

Components? American components, Russian components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!
 

The simplicity of the RT scoring system is a big part of its mass appeal, but it's also its biggest weakness.

Pros: RT helps weed out clunkers/bombs with extreme accuracy. If it's below 25%, it's going to be bad - end of discussion.

Cons: RT scores don't do as good of a job telling you HOW good the non-bomb movies are because it's a binary system (Fresh/Rotten). When 100 critics see a generally satisfying but not great movie, the overwhelming majority still give it a begrudging Fresh - and it ends up with deceiving a "Certified Fresh" score (80%+).

Even movies with high 90s scores can be forgettable. Best example, IMO: Chicken Run (2000). It had a 100% score at the time (since dropped to 97%), so we went to the theater expecting a can't miss, must-see movie. We were totally underwhelmed. It was good but not a "100%" movie, and I haven't watched any of it since.

To be fair, the audience score doesn't get it right all the time or tell you what you need to know, either. Case in point: Guardians of the Galaxy vs. GOTG Vol 2. Most people would agree that the original was superior, but the audience scores are identical at 88% (coincidentally, the different RT scores were better indicators.)

Those audience scores combined with the RT score do give you the best picture of what's going on - but even that still can't tell YOU if you're going to love the movie or not. Until we're all hooked into a "matrix" that literally charts everything we all think and feel while watching a movie and does some kind of genetic/environmental mapping of our lives, our opinions will always just be good as a study of one.

The Critics and public seem to be disagreeing on many things.

The Orville, 20% critics vs 93% public.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

vs

STD - Star Trek Discovery, 82% critics vs 55% public.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

The Critics and public seem to be disagreeing on many things.

The Orville, 20% critics vs 93% public.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

vs

STD - Star Trek Discovery, 82% critics vs 55% public.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

RT, for very good reason, splits ratings for paid critics and its userbase at large. For any genre movie (and Bright is all-in Fantasy Sci-Fi, with a splash buddy-cop action), if you are a fan of that genre you should never look at the critic's reviews.

So yeah, Richard Roper and the reviewer from Uproxx (who loved "Tully" and the Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic and the My Little Pony movie) didn't care for it, and neither did most of their colleagues. I don't really care.

The fans, the people who wanted to watch it in the first place without being forced, gave it an 86% positive rating. I'm one of those folks, so what they think is a much better guide. If I'm being dragged to a random movie I wouldn't normally chose, *then* perhaps the critics' reviews are more relevant.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

praised by critics, not loved by trekkies, fans, the audience: https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 82% vs. 55%

1-5? We're not looking at the same site. The Rotten Tomatoes I know rates on a percentage scale, 0-100%. But that rating is not a measure the quality of the film, it's a measure of the degree of consensus between reviewers.

So a mediocre movie which everyone agrees is a little above average, but which no one thinks is great - that will score very high. While a controversial movie, which some people think is fantastic while others think is bad (or even just a little below average), that will score in the middle.

Zero fucks were given about critics

--
Hey Hollywood, stop making the same shit over again