Slashdot Mirror
Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows? (digg.com)
Why do we never utter sentences like "'Cobra Kai' has been certified 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes?" or "'Stranger Things'" was rated 8.9 out of 10 on IMDb"? It's not because the reviews of TV shows aren't aggregated by these websites -- they are. Contrary to what you might think of IMDb, given that its name is Internet Movie Database, TV shows also occupy an essential, if relatively smaller, place than movies there. And the same thing goes for Rotten Tomatoes. An exploration: So if the lack of availability of TV rating sites isn't the issue, why is it that we hardly use critical or audience scores as a way to measure the quality of a TV show to our peers? Here are a few of my theories:
There Are Too Many Good Shows Out There
It's an odd dilemma to have, but it's true that when it comes to TV shows, there are so many high-quality programs for us to consume. People have been talking about Peak TV for a few years now, and a quick scroll through Rotten Tomatoes' website would seem to confirm that we've been offered an embarrassment of riches. [...]
The Price Of Admission Is Higher For Movies
Another reason why viewers might care less about a TV show's critical scores than a film's might be the high price of moviegoing. Tickets in metropolitan areas in the US can be extremely expensive, costing up to $25.49 if you're going for an IMAX screening in New York City unless you're subscribed to a service like Moviepass or AMC's new subscription program.
Networks And Platforms Market Emmys More Than Critical Scores Compared to critical scores on review websites, networks and platforms seem to place more stock on the Emmys when it comes to the marketing of TV shows. Despite the fact that the Emmy, arguably the best TV award, might not offer shows as big of a ratings boost as it did decades ago, the awards still play a crucial part in helping create social buzz around television shows, especially for shows with smaller audiences.
There Are Too Many Good Shows Out There
It's an odd dilemma to have, but it's true that when it comes to TV shows, there are so many high-quality programs for us to consume. People have been talking about Peak TV for a few years now, and a quick scroll through Rotten Tomatoes' website would seem to confirm that we've been offered an embarrassment of riches. [...]
The Price Of Admission Is Higher For Movies
Another reason why viewers might care less about a TV show's critical scores than a film's might be the high price of moviegoing. Tickets in metropolitan areas in the US can be extremely expensive, costing up to $25.49 if you're going for an IMAX screening in New York City unless you're subscribed to a service like Moviepass or AMC's new subscription program.
Networks And Platforms Market Emmys More Than Critical Scores Compared to critical scores on review websites, networks and platforms seem to place more stock on the Emmys when it comes to the marketing of TV shows. Despite the fact that the Emmy, arguably the best TV award, might not offer shows as big of a ratings boost as it did decades ago, the awards still play a crucial part in helping create social buzz around television shows, especially for shows with smaller audiences.
Certified Fresh = The Last Jedi with a 93% critics approval.
Put the exclamation point on that "Certified Fresh" doesn't mean anything.
My theory is that when a movie is bad, you still watch it until the end and feel entitled to evaluate it. For a TV show, on the other hand, if you don't like the first episode, you don't continue with the following episodes and feel then not entitled to evaluate the entire series.
This is true on Metacritic at least: check out critic reviews for any given weekly-broadcast TV show, and invariably you'll find that the review covers the first 1 or 2 episodes. In other words, they're judging the entire show based on just seeing one or two episodes. If it's a serial, that means not all of the main characters have likely been introduced, the premise hasn't even been fully revealed, and the story arc is just starting to develop and who knows where it's going or if it'll ever pay off.
Notice that the second season of a TV show will usually have a far higher critical review score than the first, simply because those reviewing the second season are actually reviewing the entirety of the first. If you want more accurate reviews of these shows (particularly the first season), wait until the season is done and then read user reviews.
The reason it is done this way is obvious: new stuff gets reader attention, since it's being currently heavily marketed; the reviewer doesn't have access to later episodes; people want to know if something is any good before they start watching it; and lack of reruns of weeks-old-episodes means you have to jump on board within a week or so of the show first airing.
Of course, with the Netflix-style releasing of a whole season at once, this upends the above, and makes critical reviews more useful.
Personally I rely on word of mouth, then research something I hear about. Read a variety of reviews -- for the worst drek imaginable, someone somewhere will say it's a masterpiece, just as surely as someone will say something is drek even if it's my favorite.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
My "price of admission" is the time I have to invest to work out something is rubbish. A movie could be as long as three or four hours, so do I really want to completely waste that time? A 20min TV show is a small (potentially wasted) investment.
My enjoyment of something is not dependent on the score. Most people are idiots, so why am I going to take their word on anything?
For the same reason we don't give a smeg about this article.
I have my own taste. I don't care what you or some other muppet on the Internet thinks. You can't see with my eyes.
Glad I didn't do that with Black Mirror. The first episode was about the prime minister having sex with a pig. Then it good better, until the Americans got hold of it and cheesed it up.
A tip for others: TV shows are generally rated more generously than films. On IMDB for example, a film with a rating of 7 or higher is generally very good. For TV shows, I would say the same level of quality requires at least a rating of 8.
Listen, going to a movie is *going*.
As in, effort. Yes, money, but also time.
- You have to drive or take a train
- You have to stay out late if you're a working person
- You have to commit 1.5-2.5 hours
- You have to deal with significantly increased costs for the comforts of refreshments, even a simple drink if you get thirsty
- It's actually quite a pain in the ass
- And of course the ticket cost
With TV?
- "Can't find anything good to watch" means a waste of a few minutes at most
- There's no transit time or other significant preparation
- You can pause at any time and return; there is no set time commitment
- Food and drink = cheap
- You can multi-task with that time
- If you "abort" a show, you can immediately do something else, and you've not lost an investment of time, money, whatever
Basically, you're investing a lot (time, money, effort, lost convenience) to go see a movie. So you want to know if it's going to suck so that you're not stuck wasting all of that investment or having to sit through something you don't enjoy just so you *don't* waste all of that investment.
In combined costs if you have, say, a spouse and a kid and the kid gets thirsty or wants a snack, it's going to cost something like $50-$60 minimum, more if you have to pay to park, which is, like, half a year of Netflix.
People don't care about TV ratings but they do care about movie ratings for the same reason they don't bother to research pencils before they buy a 10-pack at the store but they do research fountain pens before they buy one. Anytime something costs an order of magnitude more, and involves significant additional investments beyond that, people are going to want value for money.
Make new releases $1.00 PPV and show them via streaming in living rooms and people will stop caring about reviews for movies, too.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Must be joking with "... too many good shows ..." and "Peak TV". The truth is the exact opposite. TV has never been worse. That is why everybody has, and still are, deserting TV.
But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)
So greater choice must either divide these pools over more programs or a greater percentage of shows must have no budget or talent. This only matters once you reach some critical value - budget left over simply becomes profit, not better shows, and writing talent left over becomes skid row. Though, not necessarily their lyricist.
So you can expand without harmful impact, and get greater choice, up to a point. After that, quality drops like a stone.
Britain had better programs when it had four or five TV channels. These days, quality is terrible. The U.S. and Australia have abysmal TV. You might feel like you've something to watch, now, and you do - but far from being the creme a la creme of TV, it's simply adequate. Your expectations have fallen.
This doesn't mean there weren't bad shows way back. Most were terrible, because good talent is extremely scarce and there wasn't enough material to create the profits needed to utilize the talent they had well. There's a sweet spot, where you get the money to make many good new shows. You are no closer to it with 1,000 channels as you are with 1. But you can't average them, it's not a Gaussian distribution. The maximum could be anywhere.
As evidence, I offer Megalodon (a fake documentary by the History channel), Ancient Aliens (a fake documentary by the History channel) and Human Planet (a fake documentary by the BBC).
Since when has the BBC needed to fake documentaries?
Since competition and commercial pressures made doing it right an unaffordable luxury.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I keep seeing this on my Apple TV - but the ratings and comments seem just stupid - either blabber from the studio or just blah !
Which Hollywood studios paid you to write this article?
:wink: :wink:
There are too many good shows out there.
Maybe if you're an average American, maybe. Everyone else, however, clearly sees that good productions are scarce (and usually paywalled) because big studios want to milk viewers at all cost before new stuff goes on torrents or streams.
The price of admission is higher for movies
Come on! Why on Earth would you still go to a theatre/cinema to watch a film if you're not on a date?
Networks And Platforms Market Emmys More Than Critical Scores
I can't remember a single time in my life when someone said to me "Oi, look - this film has won a zillion awards! It must be awesome!". It's like marketing for films. The numbers or recommendations do not mean a damned thing. They are there to make us believe something's good while its not.
Personally, I use IMDB a lot - to scrape the titles I want to "get".
that's why I don't give a shit about what rating they give the movies -- their tastes are not representative of most of us.
Maybe it's because for most people, watching a movie costs extra money. Watcing a new TV show usually doesn't.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
for the worst drek imaginable, someone somewhere will say it's a masterpiece, just as surely as someone will say something is drek even if it's my favorite.
Of course. What you like is subjective.
This is why you don't read random reviews, you find a reviewer that likes the same things you like, and more importantly dislikes the things you dislike.
Then you read reviews from that particular reviewer.
We don't need reviewing sites that puts together an average for us.
What we need is a page that lets us input what we think about a variety of things we've seen and then matches us to a couple of reviewers that shares our taste.
if it does not hook you up in 2 episodes then they are doing their job wrong. A serial is not supposed to hook you up by end of season 3 episode 14, it is supposed to hook you up at the start. If it does not , then the show failed at its job. Life is short, I want to know from the start if it is going to suck 2 hours from my life and have nothing for me.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why would I give a shit about what random people think? What matters is what I think or what friends I know with similar tastes think. Some of the absolute shit that gets rated well makes sites like IMDB, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes all but completely fucking useless.
As recent as this weekend, I got a text saying "Did you hear of this show? 8.2 on IMDb. We're checking out the first ep now."
Leaving aside how inflated scores are in general – it's rare to see anything below 7 that's not pretty horrible – they serve pretty well as a rough indicator of overall quality. Or, to put it another way, an 8+ show might be worth checking out even if it seems a bit outside of what I'd normally watch. Likewise, low 7 or into the 6s is probably only worth checking out if it seems like just my thing.
Over the years, this has shown to hold pretty true in my experience. It's not perfect, but as a guide it works fairly well.
Rotten Tomato Scores suck, for both TV and Movies. There have been very many movies with high RT scores that were terrible, and just as many with low RT scores that were actually fairly good. The system is crap and instead when i want to know if a movie is any good I just ask if any friends on Facebook have seen it, and I can tell by their answer and who they are (ie things they like) whether or not to trust their opinion.
I mean movies require you to make a special trip somewhere, pay a relatively large premium for 1-3 hours of entertainment and do it on a schedule that someone else determines.
TV shows are generally consumed at your leisure in the place you desire and are either free or an already sunk cost.
In short, there is no reason why people won't simply try out a TV show and if they like it, great, and if not, no real harm done.
You're right about that. Definite decline in quality once it was Anericanised and I'm not British or American.
I personally, and most of my friends will not commit to a show with less than 7 on our aggregator of choice, usually iMDB, and that is of a topic that is interesting to us. The reason I don't watch Cobra Kai, for instance, is because even though I'm a sucker fo retro, I just don't like the narrative of that show. The same reason I quit watching the highly praised, good production-valued Orange is the New Black - it simply stopped appealing to my senses.
Granted, my social circle is mostly comprised of working-age geeks who micro-manage their free time, and even though we have some mainstream habits, we're not the type to turn on netflix and see the suggested stuff before a decent, out-of-band ratings/review fix.
This is exactly the same with movies. I'll give the popular example - I for one enjoy some Marvel movies, but it is a given that a high score on a Marvel movie usually means nothing. There are both good and bad Marvel movies out there with ratings completely opposite of their quality.
It's pretty simple. You don't read reviews for free stuff. What's the point?
There Are Too Many Good Shows Out There
Um, what? I don't even watch TV anymore because there is just nothing at all worth watching since big bang theory turned to trash. I really tried to watch Stranger Things, it was just so bad I couldn't; get passed the second episode. Same with Lost in Space which I was really looking forward to.
Why does *every* *single* *show* out there have to have a horrible dark tone to it. Everything is all angsty drama, horrible times we live, the government is out to get you, society is falling apart. TV is a miserable experience today. Hollywood is incapable of producing a light, fun show anymore. Compare ST:D to any of the previous Trek series and that difference in style shows exactly how TV has turned to complete shit.
And then there's the cinematic style in modern shows. The modern family style, where it looks like a shaky camera carried by a drunk monkey used to record nothing but a series of short vignettes in grotesquely over-acted snippets that make an average soap opera scene look subtle and nuanced. There is not a single show on TV today worth the cost of admission (even when the cost of admission is free).
My theory is that when a movie is bad, you still watch it until the end and feel entitled to evaluate it. For a TV show, on the other hand, if you don't like the first episode, you don't continue with the following episodes and feel then not entitled to evaluate the entire series.
Plus, turning on a TV show is easy. Just push a button. You didn't spend any money, or even have to leave the couch where you had already planned to spend your time. You didn't have to plan it out, at this moment you decided you have the free time to spend. You are not committed either, you can turn it on, get interrupted and pause it/end it, and resume later.
Movies are big deals, particularly if you are a grown up, even more so if you are married or in a long term relationship, even worst if you have children. You're now talking about blocking out a 2 hr+ portion of your free time, which is a huge commitment on its own, and you have to commit to that 2 hours ahead of time (in the days of recliner seating in movie theaters, often days or even weeks ahead of time). If something comes up you have to make a decision, and that decision might involve flushing the money already spent on the movie. You have to leave your house, another really big deal. You have to go out in public and be around other people, this is more of a problem for some of us than others. And then if and when the movie sucks, you realize that you are out a heap of time and money you won't ever get back.
When you look at the investment you are making just to try out a movie, particularly given that most movies out there right now are beyond awful thanks to the need to capture chinese investment capital and hit a "global market" that may require concessions to the "harmonious society", you really want to be selective.
There Are Too Many Good Shows Out There
Yeah; that's it ...
Whether they are being gamed by the studios themselves or ignorant fans, BOTH those sites are worthless to establish the rating of a show/movie.
For example, Casablanca and Citizen Kane used to be much higher in the list, but because of the effect noted above, now Avengers Infinity War is #18 ?!?
OK, it's a good movie, but EIGHTEENTH???
These days, most people watch movies from the couch, and not even a tape or disc, but streaming. The effort to start watching a movie isn't high anymore.
On average, movies are still longer than TV shows, so you do put more effort in after it has started.
But I think the main reason for dscrepancies is that most movies are one-offs. TV shows, people either stop watching, or get drawn in, and then it will either be love or dislike. So reviews tend to be useless, because they'll either be followers or those who switched the show off and have no idea how it developed. With a movie, on the other hand, most reviewers will have watched the whole thing, and apart from a few franchises and cult movies, there's very little fandom going on.
You should look per season. Season 1, 2 and 3 of coupling where great. There is a reason 4 was the last.
If you do not know the show, it is Friends for grownups.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The book The Bell Curve made this point: all human attributes fit within a standard distribution, so there is always a shortage of higher expertise and an excess of lower.
Alternative Right.
Rotten Tomatoes has been gamed by industry for years, just like most online review sites are gamed. Who has a legion of employees who badly want for something to succeed? They all have internet devices and are busy posting away and voting up their own projects. If that fails, they can always buy vote blocks like they do on Reddit. Most of what we consider "free" social media is in fact simply propaganda; the difficulty is that the propaganda does not come from the publisher, necessarily, but from shills and brigades hired by a third party.
Alternative Right.
It will depend on how bad that first episode is. Normally the first few episodes are setting the stage, getting the characters in their spot, and the Universe they live in set.
Right now shows with story arch are kinda popular, but still the first few episodes may be, well, episodic, with events not really playing into the next episode as much, a bad guy of the week, a problem that get resolved in a neat little package, this can create some annoying first episodes, but they do make us understand the character and universe. For us to get really hooked on what else is going on.
That said if the first episode completely bores me or worst I get offended by it. I am not going to watch it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Actually the scores do matter and critics do useful work.
But it isn't an exact science and they can get things wrong.
Critics have to watch mountains of stuff all the time, That popular stoner movie may had got such a low review because they had watch 4 other similar ones before. However to the movie goers it was a big hit.
However there is too much stuff for us to view, and reviews and scores help us weed through shows. If there is a show that you want to watch don't like the score affect you, go ahead and watch it. But if you not caring, you might as well sort by review score, chances are you will get something better.
Now the score is only part of the review. If you are going to be critical about watching a show, then you should actually read the review, the actual text on how it is scored may mean the difference if you would want to watch it or not.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Probably because I don't give a shit about what other people think about a movie. Why would I give a shit about what they think about a TV show?
It seems like whenever I watch a movie and I really like it (which is rare), I ot on the internet to read about it and find it was poorly reviewed and/or did not do well, and I think, "WTF?? How is this possible??" Similarly, if I think a movie totally sucked, I will find it was wildly successful.
If I relied on movie reviews to determine what to watch, it seems like I would only end up watching stuff that I think sucks. Why would I want to do that?
Movies cost $10. If you are like me, you go for the experience so it's another $10 for popcorn. On top of that, there is a 15 mile drive for me in my F-150. So that's about $5 in gas.
So it's $25 for a 90 minute movie. I don't want to "waste" my money.
So let's look at TV. FREE!!!!! I don't mind trying out a new show because there is no financial hit. No risk.
1) When I decide to see a movie, I can see ANY movie. So going to a review site makes a lot of sense. Anything they rate highly, I can go see. Anything they downrate, I can avoid.
Not true about TV. I do not get all channels, I only have so much money. Cobra Kai sounds good, but I don't get YouTube Premium and I don't get that.
Going to Rotten Tomatoes means looking at things I can't see. This makes it significantly less useful. It becomes an exercise in disappointment, not a helpful decision aid.
2) TV shows are much more variable. Movies are almost all fiction, and mostly in just a few categories (Drama, Action, Comedy, Horror, Child are the main categories, with sub-categories). People like those entire categories more often than just a subcategory. If they want an Action movie, they often don't care whether it Crime/Spy/Superhero. It makes it easy to pick a show - first pick your category than compare among them. TV shows are different. People that like a crime TV show are not interested in a superhero TV show and vice versa. We would need categories for News, Reality, Game, Drama, Crime, Lawyer, Hospital, Comedy, History, Animals, Sports, Kids, Soap, Travel, Cooking, and Talk. And all of those have sub categories.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Glad I didn't do that with Black Mirror. The first episode was about the prime minister having sex with a pig. Then it good better, until the Americans got hold of it and cheesed it up.
It was an interesting show, but I think Black Mirror is one of those shows that people rave about that I just didn't find all that enjoyable... I mean, a lot of the ideas behind the show were interesting and could have been very promising... I think I got through about 5 episodes- but I found the actual writing of the show to be a little below par. It's something I would watch in the old days before Netflix and choice and it came on, but not something I'd actively seek out.
My problem with most ratings is this:
Critics; critics watch too many movies and shows. They're too jaded and their choice in movies reflect in that. They also seem to be too much up their own arses. Any time a film comes out that is about Hollywood, or about making movies- it's all thumbs up and 10 out of 10; even though the film is almost always horrible. Films about films or Hollywood are almost always awful- but critics love them.
Random Joe reviews I find are the opposite extreme- the average cinema goer is a dunce and likes dumb shows.
I don't find Critics or Random Joe as much of a useful metric on how to decide what I will like to watch.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
On top of that, there is also a restricted choice. It is no use finding out that TV show X is brilliant if it s not on at the time that you have free to watch something or it is not available on whatever streaming services you have access to.
It will depend on how bad that first episode is. Normally the first few episodes are setting the stage, getting the characters in their spot, and the Universe they live in set.
Right now shows with story arch are kinda popular,
"Kinda" is an understatement, a big reason why I stopped watching TV years ago was because nearly every new series feels the need to have an arc and I just don't have time to follow and track all this stuff. I also don't enjoy binge-watching on Netflix either so as a result I'm simply ignorant of most newer series in the past several years. I'm just glad that the Marvel films don't tie in much to the various TV series so I'm free to pass on them without feeling like I'm missing much.
Haven't watched network TV in decades. Don't plan to start doing so. So why should I give a rat's ass about Rotten Tomatoes' reviews of TV shows?
That said, I used to enjoy more than a few shows that were cancelled quickly. Which means that other people's opinions of the shows generally didn't match mine. So, again, why should I give a rat's ass about Rotten Tomatoes' reviews of TV shows?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If I like it, I grab the DVD of it and put it in my media library. If not, oh well. At least I'm not paying $5 for a single popcorn and $5 for a single soda. Especially when back in the day my Dad and I paid $10 for tickets, drinks, and popcorn.
Because you don't pay for individual TV shows you are okay with enjoyable cheesy garbage. TV gets easier grading anyway.
Critics can be snowed. Audiences who pay for their own tickets and are likely more familiar with the subject matter have different opinions.
I still haven't made it to the second episode yet. It's nice to know it at least got better. But I hadn't written it off or given up yet - just wasn't ready yet.
Reviews in general reflect one person's highly subjective opinion and reflects their individual bias and interests. Also there is a built in bias towards negative reviews. When people are angry, agitated or just disappointed, they're much more likely to leave a review. I will say this about movie reviews: I have to go to see a movie I am interested in myself because rotten tomatoes has trashed movies I've actually liked.
This is true on Metacritic at least: check out critic reviews for any given weekly-broadcast TV show, and invariably you'll find that the review covers the first 1 or 2 episodes
I think a quick take is usually still pretty accurate. A good show has great cast chemistry from the start. And most of my favorite shows have taken less than 5 minutes to make up my mind. There are exceptions. For some reason, I really enjoyed Buffy and the acting was beyond terrible for the entire first season (possibly longer). By all accounts, it was terrible and I shouldn't have liked it.
Maybe it takes longer to decide to love a show if it gets the casting and characters right but the plot meanders too much. It depends on how episodic you like your TV in the first place.
To get a Netflix-style release on broadcast TV, I have to start recording before the first episode airs. If anything what we need is more reviews or unbiased overviews before the first episode even airs. I'll record an entire season before watching even one episode. Until then, I have last year's recorded shows and Netflix. Falling a year behind on broadcast TV was a great move. And if a show gets canceled mid-season I can decide to never start watching.
Nobody give a fuck about TV show reviews. The idea is there is too much good content is laughable.
"Rotten Tomatoes" has been unreliable for a long time. Most critics fall into a demographic that are biased toward movies that they like, but if you're not part of that demographic, their reviews are not very reliable.
It feels like I'm trying to decode a secret message to get the right rating. If it's below 30%, it's probably bad. Above 30%, I compare it to the audience rating to see if there is a large discrepancy. If the critics score it 98% and the audience scored it 70%, it's probably bad. If the critics scored it 60% and the audience scored it 95%, it might be a really good movie that just doesn't appeal to the tastes of a critic. You also have to be careful that the audience giving it a good review isn't someone who didn't realize that it was a rehashed copy of an older movie that might have been otherwise good, but when recognized, it's annoying. The older you get, the more you realize that Hollywood keeps recycling plots/cliches instead of something truly fresh.
Critics seem to love well written dialog, which I do too, but not if that's all there is. A movie can meander without any plot, but if the dialog is great, it's a 98%. It's strange how they point out "plot holes" or lack of tempo in movies they hate, but if they love it, not a problem.
I'll spend 15 minutes on a show on my DVR and decide if I like it. minimal investment on my part.
Movies:
10 minutes checking reviews
5 minutes buying tickets online
$30 spent
[mumble-mumble] minutes getting the wife ready and into the car
20 minutes driving to the theater
10 minutes getting snacks and seated
15 minutes of commercials and trailers
$20 spent
2-2 to 2.5 hours of time watching the movie
20 minute drive home
So yeah, movies are worth checking scores on and TV isn't. Why is this at all surprising to anyone, and why on earth did they think they needed to come up with 3 possibilities in the summary?
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
I guess movies that are already on netflix/prime I don't bother looking at rotten tomatoes at all. I've already paid for those services, if I'm bored I'll fire up the movies.
But in terms of actually going to the theater, I always look at RT. I won't see a movie that has no rating, and if its really bad and I'm just not a series fanatic for the movie, I also won't go.
You have to leave your house, another really big deal.
Only on Slashdot would this be said without irony.
I use IMDB all the time to check the scores on movies and TV-shows, I don't want to waste my time watching something that I won't like. I usually wait until there's like 2000 scores or more on IMDB for a show/movie before I decide whether to give it a try or not. I do occasionally use Metacritic, too, but on Metacritic I completely fucking ignore critic scores: those fuckers are more interested in trying to look smart and intelligent, than actually reviewing the movie/show properly, and this shows constantly in how the audiences give shows/movies entirely different scores.
I check the user reviews of RT and Metacritic. And I ignore the critic reviews.
I used to pay attention to IMDB score too, but I've found that after they ditched the forums their most competent users must have left and so the quality of their scoring took a dive.
I'd say it's for the exact same reason we don't care about the Rotten Tomatoes score of movies. It doesn't take a lot of complexity to understand why people take aggregate numeric ratings with a grain of salt: you don't know that the other people who rated, care about the same things that you care about. Preferences are too diverse.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
When I look at reviews on RT, I'm generally most interested in reviews by professional critics rather than by the general public. This is no guarantee of a rating I would agree with. Many of the highest critics ratings are for documentaries, for example. Also, a mediocre aggregate critics rating along with a high aggregate audience rating often signals a less serious movie that I might find amusing. But for insightful, specific observations about a movie, I look to critics whose opinions I tend to agree with.
When it come to TV shows, however, are there many professional critics writing reviews?
I don't feel any compulsion to track RT because there's absolutely no hurry. When there's room in my schedule for another show, I can see what's become available, whether people liked it, make sure it didn't die an untimely death, and stream it when I feel like it. There's no urgency anymore.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Movies in theaters tend to be more social than TV. People invite friends to something that they haven't experienced yet. Inviting someone to a good movie improves your status with them. Wasting your friends' time and money with a bad movie makes you look bad. It's worth checking a review to be certain that everyone else will have a good time.
TV tends to be more solitary. You can watch the first couple of episodes on your own to try it out with no loss of social status. Once you're sure it's good, then you can invite your friends and family to watch with you. There is no need for a review, if you're only wasting your own time.
So ... find a critic with my tastes in humor and scifi and chics and politics. Cast chemistry matters too.
I figure any show costs $100K to make, minimal, so there is at least that barrier to entry.
Next I look at the subject matter. Sitting in a cafe or apartment talking isn't very interesting to me, so I missed Friends and Seinfeld for the first few seasons. Word of mouth got me going on those shows. Friends never became interesting, but Seinfeld was great!
Hot girls might get me to watch 2-3 episodes, but if that doesn't pan out or it is boring, I'm gone.
I'm a sucker for most SciFi. Make it funny and put 1-2 hot girls and I'm watching. Firefly. Killjoys, Darkmatter, The Orville - all shows I enjoy.
A hot chick can override stupid. Stitchers and Bitten and Buffy. I find supernatural a waste of my time almost always. I have zero interest almost always. Forget ghosts or religion - those get negative ratings that nothing even ElizaD or Jennifer Love can fix.
Hard Scifi is almost always a win. The Expanse. I'm less interesting in fantasy scifi like Star Wars, Star Trek, or GoT or BattleStar Galactica. I check out a few episodes and decide.
Politics is almost always a turnoff, but spy stuff is fun. Burn Notice, for example. I'll drop Dexter into that group too. These are impossible for a critic to know my tastes about. I can say what I like and what I don't like, but the cast chemistry is very important.
No more NCIS-crap. It can't be about the police. I've heard cop stories for decades (family), the real stories are better.
Lost - the stories screwed with the viewers constantly. Hot chics didn't make me like it. Mystical powers don't do it for me.
Smart cartoons work for me too. Pinky and the Brain; Rick and Morty. Cartoons with dumb characters staring don't work.
My rule is to give any show that raises an interest 3 episodes to decide if I want to continue.
There are some great movies out there with three out of five stars, because someone watched a movie in a style or genre that they don't generally care for.
So you get people who don't like peanut butter giving a rating for a peanut butter sandwich.
That, and for some reason, people like to feel important, with opinions that they're sure everyone wants to hear.
Like A/C's on /., for example.
It's a cheap, shitty experience. Don't waste your time. I'm as hardcore of a nerd that can exist and I couldn't stomach any of it. Shitty costumes, stupid characters, and low budget effects. The story is what I hear everyone tout but I never figured out what the "story" was. The entire show had dialog reminiscent of a Shakespeare play complete with pompous british accents and slang, but with the actors wearing muppet costumes instead of pantaloons. Pure drek, imho. I imagine B5 fans love them some Hamlet and Midsummer's Night Dream. Also drek.
I care a huge lot but the feed owners (Netflix, etc) make it very hard to sort of use sensible filters. Actually Netflix has become a B-movie site with a few A exceptions. Finding the right thing is tortuous and the B Movies get shoveled in my face. Prime is better but makes all the content I âoecould buyâ a top choice
The premise is all wrong. The vast vast majority of TV shows and movies are total garbage. IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes scores are pushed up by fans, or down by SJWs, and thus meaningless except in a very few exceptional cases.
Mostly because RT reviewers are morons.