The Great "Rotten Tomatoes" debate

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

A. They're not right about everything.

B. Who says I wasted my money on it?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

A. They're not right about everything.

You're right, but with that mentality you'll see ten horrible films to get to the one they were wrong about. It isn't nearly worth it, at least not to me.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I don't think I need RT to tell me which movies are good and which ones are bad.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't think I need RT to tell me which movies are good and which ones are bad.

I never said that.

But when there are two movies you are interested in seeing and you only have the time or money to see one of them, and one gets 90% and the other 10%, you're an idiot if you pick the 10% one. Could it happen that you like the panned movie better than the popular one? Sure, but the odds are so astronomically against it that it would be foolish to go against them.

 

[Mace Dolex]

I go to see a movie first, and based on MY opinion, because that's the only one that counts, I look up reviews that confirm it, since it's all subjective anyway. Rotten Tomatoes just gives me access to more reviews that I'd find otherwise.

Same here.

And if it's any movie with Rob Schneider and Pauly Shore I know they suck anyway.

 

[Team Andino]

The only time that Rotten Tomatoes has ever affected my wanting to see a movie was with "Source Code". The trailers looked simple and it wasn't enough to garner my interest but after having a 90% rating after a few weeks then finding out it was made by Duncan Jones then I had to see it.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I never said that.

But when there are two movies you are interested in seeing and you only have the time or money to see one of them, and one gets 90% and the other 10%, you're an idiot if you pick the 10% one. Could it happen that you like the panned movie better than the popular one? Sure, but the odds are so astronomically against it that it would be foolish to go against them.

Fair enough, to your point there are few movies on RT that get above a 60% [as the % increases even less likely] that I didn't like at least a little.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

The only time that Rotten Tomatoes has ever affected my wanting to see a movie was with "Source Code". The trailers looked simple and it wasn't enough to garner my interest but after having a 90% rating after a few weeks then finding out it was made by Duncan Jones then I had to see it.

That's funny because I had no interest in seeing the movie at all, 0. But I saw that it had a 90% and was like, wtf? Well there must be something to this.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Today, I saw the new X-men first class tv spot with all the positive reviews, and at the end it said "certified fresh by Rotten Tomatoes" as part of the marketing. Whether we like it or not, Rotten Tomatoes has affect movie marketing, but will certified fresh movies in the future also add that? Will it catch on?

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Ugh, really? Most likely yes, because similarly CNET has the same influence when it comes to consumer electronics.

It's not entirely bad but it's not entirely positive either. But for those that don't want to research on their own, or don't have time or don't care to, I can imagine it having a very big impact on their movie making decisions.

 

[Spider-X]

I think Rotten Tomatoes is often, if anything, just a good indication of the over quality of the film. Films can have poor qualities and still end up having enough redeeming value for tons of people to find plenty of personal enjoyment.

Example: Punisher 2004 got 29%

I acknowledge that really in the grand scheme of things, it's not a great movie. It's not exceptionally well made and the acting is hit or miss...but me being a massive comic fan, I love it.

On the other side of things Hero (Jet Li) got 95%

I found it to be beautifully filmed and choreographed...but ultimately quite a bit boring and really freaking cheesy at times (the water fight was a perfect example of this IMO)...bottom line, I didn't care for it.

So I look at it this way...if I'm not excited about the movie, but I know of it and it gets a high RT meter...I'll check it out. If I'm already super excited for it, I really don't care about the RT meter, I'm seeing it.

 

[Spider-X]

also...i credit RT with helping me find some of my favorite movies that I wouldn't have seen without seeing the RT meter.

Example: Slither got 85%

I saw many trailers for this movie and thought "this looks like the DUMBEST and grossest movie ever made...why would anyone watch that." Later, I looked on RT and saw that it has Nathan Fillion (should be obvious why that's a draw to me) in it and it got great reviews. So I gave it a shot...it's now on of my favorite movies and the movie I use to measure all other gross out horror movies by.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I never knew Slither had an 85% on the tomatometer.

 

[Spider-X]

I never knew Slither had an 85% on the tomatometer.

That it does, my friend. Give it a try...if you aren't easily grossed out, you won't be disappointed. It's hilarious and has several genuinely intense scenes. A criminally underrated movie IMO.

 

[Bunker]

The tomatometer is right 97.8% of the time. I think the only time I've seen it way off is with Man on Fire.

 

[Max J Power]

To all of the Rotten Tomatoes purists, the site isn't accurate at all and this is why:

The means that certify a movie as "fresh" are too absolute. Let's say FILM A is released and it ends up being a front runner for Best Picture at the Oscars. Let's say that 20 critics made up the reviewers of the film. Let's say that 16 of those 20 critics thought the movie was either one of the best films of the year or among the greatest films they've seen in the past decade while the other 4 thought the film was either flat out bad, had sub-par directing, or was pretentious. That means that the movie got a 80% rating.

Now let's say there was another film that opened around the same time. Let's say FILM B was a November blockbuster that was a fantasy film. Those same 20 critics review this film. Let's say that 18 of those critics say gave the film favorable reviews. Half of the 18 thought the film was a visually stunning and entertaining film but the story wasn't exactly cerebral. The other half of those 18 say the film was an effective film that was a great use of 2 hours. The other 2 critics absolutely hated the film. That means the film got a 90% rating.

FILM B is better than FILM A? Come on now.

This is why I prefer Metacritic; I'm more interested in the degree to which the critics liked it, rather than the number of critics who did (I still look at RT too though). And since Metacritic displays the score each critic gave a movie, it is easier to see that a movie that got a mediocre or lower-than-expected score was widely disliked or polarizing.

The drawback to Metacritic is that it assigns numerical values to reviews that aren't always numerical, and that can lead to misrepresentations.

 

[brett66]

Eh, it's a good general indicator. Most of the time I agree with the ratings but sometimes a film will get an inexplicably good consensus and fool me into seeing it... ie Paranormal Activity. For the most part though I can tell if I'll like something from the trailers.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I say either or are decent gauges, but that's it just a gauge.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

This started in the Lone Ranger thread, but I feel as though it's a good time to bring back this thread.

Does critics hold too much power over the success of a movie? Does it affect how people go out to see a movie in droves?

 

[jacobed]

No not at all. People go see movies they want to see. If it looks good than they'll go. Lone Ranger looked god awful thus noone went.

 

[Octoberist]

You see, I think it's just hard to gauge movies in general. It's not really worth doing tons of research anymore because..it's not worth it. Just LISTEN TO YOUR HEART!

BTW: If you look at Amazon, you can't look at a movie by their star system because sometimes:

a.) The reviews are strictly for the DVDs/Blu.

b.) Sometimes, the reviews get mixed up. Like a review for Fright Night from the 80's would magically be included for the remake.

Also, the general public can be....a tough nut to crack. You got trolls, people with bad taste, people with unrealistic expectations, etc so they'll give a film like 'There will be Blood' 2 or 3 stars because they don't 'get it'. But that's how the general public rolls. Samething with reviews from Netflix users; just wanna pull my hair out sometimes!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I hate when Amazon reviewers do that. If a movie is good, but the packaging is bad, the movie gets bad reviews.

And I do agree about that. There are several movies in the past few years that have gotten Rotten ratings that I liked. Transformers, Tron Legacy, and Man of Steel are the non-comedies that come to mind for me.

 

[jmc]

There's a part of me that is glad that a ****** $250 million film savaged by critics flopped. I don't like seeing mediocrity in film rewarded because all it does is allow studios execs to pump out the same crap next time. Blame the critics all you want Mr Depp, they did most people a favour and saved them their money.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

edit

 

[Teelie]

I think regardless of the critics this movie would have flopped. The critics certainly didn't help but when you sink that kind of money into this kind of movie and the audience gives a collective "meh," you can't finger-point at any one thing and say that's the culprit.

This movie was nearly cancelled/was cancelled at one point for the expense, it's hard trouble for a very long time and the audience, despite being "stupid" knows trouble when it sees it.