Joker "The Joker" in development with Todd Phillips and Martin Scorsese attached? - Part 2

[Hollis Mason]

They changed the BBC's review from a rotten to a fresh, so I guess they make changes when the critic contacts them. idk if they respond to normal emails though

They do answer. If you wish to send an email go to Contact Customer Service and choose the Rotten Tomatoes category. I know this because i once notifiied a mistake at Logan's RT score.

 

[Rodimus]

There's a big difference with being critical about a movie, and nitpicking and looking for reasons to dislike a movie. Many here have expressed concers about the film. But the fact that you are the only one that repeat s them almost every week, and every single one of your post is the same, kinda makes it look bad, doesn't it? Why do you think many of the users here seem to agree? The point is that you're not being critical about this film or it's quality. You're being critical about this film not not being what you want it to be and how you want it to be. And the reasons you're doing that aren't that good. I already said why they don't make sense.

You haven't answered to a single thing of what i said. Everytime i make a point you ignore it and repeat the same old argument. So i guess it's truth, you don't criticize this film because it isn't loyal to the comics. You criticize it because it isn't Ledger. Don't tell me you're one of those Nolan fans that hail TDK as the epitome of perfection and hate everything else because they feel threatened it *might* be better than their precious trilogy. You sound smart, and i think it's not like that. But don't get surprised people get annoyed with your attitude, or even offended.

I really didn't want to sound rude, btw. That's why i edited my post so much. But if i offended you, then i'm sorry.

I wouldn't worry so much about sounding rude, check certain poster's posts on here and you will build a picture of their "views".

Nothing you said has been out of order at all, whilst I may not agree with everything it's all been good natured. Some from other people can be quite infuriating.

 

[Yowza]

I never do this, but I contacted RT. I think everyone should. This is looking like actual bias now and its peeing me off a little bit.

Contact Customer Service

I clicked on that customer service link and lo and behold it brought me to the Fandango movie ticketing website! I didn't know that they were now owned by them. Funnily enough audience scores seem to be the RottenTomatoes scores shown on FandangoNow (TVOD service once called M-Go before Comcast bought them in 2016 renaming to www.Fandangonow.com in recognition of movie ticketing website www.Fandango.com).

 

[Yowza]

I thought it interesting to investigate the recent ownership behind RottenTomatoes per Rotten Tomatoes - Wikipedia :
*History Section link above for ownership pre-2010 and how user experiences changed during the years
*January 2010, Rotten Tomatoes has been owned by Flixster,
*2011 Warner Bros. acquires Flixster
*February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were sold to Comcast's Fandango. Warner Bros. retained a minority stake in the merged entities, including Fandango.go by audience scores it seems.

 

[Micromind]

I thought it interesting to investigate the recent ownership behind RottenTomatoes per Rotten Tomatoes - Wikipedia :
*History Section link above for ownership pre-2010 and how user experiences changed during the years
*January 2010, Rotten Tomatoes has been owned by Flixster,
*2011 Warner Bros. acquires Flixster
*February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were sold to Comcast's Fandango. Warner Bros. retained a minority stake in the merged entities, including Fandango.go by audience scores it seems.

It's well known that Comcast holds 75% ownership of Fandango and Warnermedia has 25% ownership of Fandango. And Fandango company owns Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[Yowza]

Yeah, Comcast is so big I didn't even think of Fandango being a parent company under them.

After looking things up some more I'd paraphrase for clarification's sake:
April 11 2007: Comcast Acquires Fandango
Jan. 2016 Fandango Bought M-Go (originally a joint venture of Technicolor SA and Dreamworks Animation) renaming it to FandangoNow
Feb. 2016 Fandango Bought Flixter and RottenTomatoes from WB with WB becoming 30% shareholder in combined Fandango company as part of the deal (*For RottenTomatoes history of ownership before bought by Fandango linked to in above post); For Fandango's subsidiary asset of RottenTomatoes in particular then 25% somehow goes to WB then while rest of 75% owned by Fandango (or parent company Comcast)

It's well known that Comcast holds 75% ownership of Fandango and Warnermedia has 25% ownership of Fandango. And Fandango company owns Rotten Tomatoes.

Of course it is. Still, I don't really pay much heed to Rottentomatoes all that much and a lot of sales overlapping everywhere now. This year I have been using the Fandangonow TVOD service off/on seeing all the Rottentomatoes scores on there as 1 filter they provide for viewing content.

 

[TheGuy]

Some men just want to watch the whole world burn.

 

[Guts]

They used a negative review quote again. The best part is that it's in a tv spot that only consists of Joker laughing.

 

[Closerframe]

I can't believe how much I love Phoenix's laugh at the end. Its almost identical to Hamill's, it might be my fave Joker laugh on screen.

First, that sequence with Murray has so many awesome parallels to The King of Comedy and will obviously make viewers question just how much of this movie is real vs in Arthur's head. Second, that laugh, as you stated is very reminiscent of Hamill and sounds incredible!

 

[Gothamsknight]

15 days!

 

[JoyDivision17]

Got my ticket

 

[hellblazer103]

15 days!!

Sennnnd IIIIN

THUH CLAAAAOOOOOOOWNSSSSS

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

Sorry have to bring this up again. This movie is certified at 80% with 97 reviews but Joker at 77% with 103 reviews is not certified. I can understand if they were holding off if the movie was at 75%.

 

[Boom]

I guess I'm unclear as to why it matters that much. Certified or not, it's at 77% positive with a 7.5/10 avg. That's what counts.

 

[Closerframe]

I've honestly never looked at Rotten Tomatoes as any sort of gauge for the quality of a film. The number of films I've seen that I thought were terrible are highly rated on RT and equally movies I love are panned on the site.

 

[Hollis Mason]

Yeah, I don't HATE RT as much as others do, but they really messed up this time and made me a little mad. First, they shouldn't have accepted so many random bloggers as critics, and second. they have a lot of bugs in their site and they seem to don't give a ****(Top Critics AR should be 7.9 or 8.1 or higher. Many critics aren't being counted as top critics).

Still happy cuz Filmaffinity, my favorite website for reviews, has this one with 8.1. Same score as TDK and Fight Club.

 

[dhandler01]

I guess I'm unclear as to why it matters that much. Certified or not, it's at 77% positive with a 7.5/10 avg. That's what counts.

I dont get it either. I mean I get that it looks weird...but so what the numbers are fine overall and the film is set to crush. RT will update it when they choose to and no one will really notice.

 

[Holy Slapper]

I've honestly never looked at Rotten Tomatoes as any sort of gauge for the quality of a film. The number of films I've seen that I thought were terrible are highly rated on RT and equally movies I love are panned on the site.

Just checking, you do understand that it's basically math "panning" the movies? Are you saying you hate math?

 

[Hollis Mason]

Just checking, you do understand that it's basically math "panning" the movies? Are you saying you hate math?

Where the heck did he imply that? RT system is deeply flawed by many reasons (one considering not all reviews give a rating so the AR isn't perfect, and other that a big majority of the critics are random bloggers) Thinking it's perfect math is just plain stupid. If you want a better system go to metacrtic or filmaffinity.

Also, the percentage is a representation of the critics that liked and disliked the film, so what he is saying is right. If a movie has a percentage of 0%-30%, it means it's getting panned by critics.

 

[Dr.]

Ostensibly, RT just objectively aggregates critics’ scores. So if you disagree with a rating, your issue is really with the critics, not with the system that merely collects the raw data.

But with borderline cases (mixed reviews), it appears that RT becomes more actively - and therefore more subjectively - involved. To wit: they’ll either 1) interpret the review as either fresh or rotten (so as to conform to their own, internal binary scheme); or 2) reach out to the critic to clarify how the review should be tabulated (again, using the binary scheme). Thus, sometimes 3/5 or C+ are recorded as fresh, sometimes the same scores are rotten.

In my view, RT should avoid “interpretation” as much as possible. So a 3/5 should always be recorded as fresh - because 3/5 is 60% and 60% is fresh according to RT’s own criterion. And if a critic objects, the onus is on them to score the movie with a rating that’s unambiguously below 60%.

 

[Micromind]

Ostensibly, RT just objectively aggregates critics’ scores. So if you disagree with a rating, your issue is really with the critics, not with the system that merely collects the raw data.

But with borderline cases (mixed reviews), it appears that RT becomes more actively - and therefore more subjectively - involved. To wit: they’ll either 1) interpret the review as either fresh or rotten (so as to conform to their own, internal binary scheme); or 2) reach out to the critic to clarify how the review should be tabulated (again, using the binary scheme). Thus, sometimes 3/5 or C+ are recorded as fresh, sometimes the same scores are rotten.

In my view, RT should avoid “interpretation” as much as possible. So a 3/5 should always be recorded as fresh - because 3/5 is 60% and 60% is fresh according to RT’s own criterion. And if a critic objects, the onus is on them to score the movie with a rating that’s unambiguously below 60%.

The problem (as I see it) with this suggestion is that RT employs another "parallel" rating system, which allows a Critic to give high score to the movie (could be based on some criterion, for example - maybe the movie deserves high rating due to excellent cinematography or something) but allows Critics the room to "Not recommend" the movie. That is, it allows the Critic to give the movie a "Rotten Tomato" despite high rating by the same Critic.

If there is a "fixed rule" to always grant a Fresh Tomato to a movie that receives (3/5 ) rating then it takes away Critic's personal choice to give a Binary verdict (Rotten or Fresh) which is what the site is all about.

 

[Holy Slapper]

Where the heck did he imply that? RT system is deeply flawed by many reasons (one considering not all reviews give a rating so the AR isn't perfect, and other that a big majority of the critics are random bloggers) Thinking it's perfect math is just plain stupid. If you want a better system go to metacrtic or filmaffinity.

Also, the percentage is a representation of the critics that liked and disliked the film, so what he is saying is right. If a movie has a percentage of 0%-30%, it means it's getting panned by critics.

Still better than Metacritic. At least they can decide if a review is positive or negative which is the main point of the site. Metacritic is worse because of the varying scoring system or lack of by critics. It skews the system when you lump together review systems with 4 and 5 star no star systems.

Because RT's whole system is just simple math, blaming the site for that is a not very logical.

 

[Holy Slapper]

The problem (as I see it) with this suggestion is that RT employs another "parallel" rating system, which allows a Critic to give high score to the movie (could be based on some criterion, for example - maybe the movie deserves high rating due to excellent cinematography or something) but allows Critics the room to "Not recommend" the movie. That is, it allows the Critic to give the movie a "Rotten Tomato" despite high rating by the same Critic.

If there is a "fixed rule" to always grant a Fresh Tomato to a movie that receives (3/5 ) rating then it takes away Critic's personal choice to give a Binary verdict (Rotten or Fresh) which is what the site is all about.

I would't put it past the critics to do it on purpose, knowing how anal some people are about this. I know if I was critic that was on RT, I'd totally mess with people's heads by rating a 4/5 review Rotten or a 1/5 review Fresh.

 

[antsman41]

Has anyone purchased the “suit” on eBay yet for Halloween? I found a couple under $80, but sizing is weird when coming from China/etc.; so I’m hesitant.

 

[TMP98]

New official posters: