The Justice League General & Speculation Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 31

[Limonade]

It won for quality make up, which it deserved. It didn't win best picture.

:|

...

You understand my point of view, though, right?

 

[misslane38]

Your 2 hours is spent in the same exact amount of time regardless of the type of film you're watching. I don't know why you're so hung up on this. Have you ever enjoyed a 2hr cinematic classic? And have you enjoyed a 2hr throwaway fluff? If so, I don't know how you can differentiate between those 2 hours in any significant way. What more do you need to get out of that other than 'time well spent'?

That's not the distinction I'm making. I'm saying there are cinematic classics and fluff that are both equally good in terms of quality, and I will happily spend my time and money on both. What I'm saying is there are mediocre Oscar bait films and fluff films that get the same RT rating as the aforementioned good ones. That's why the RT system does not guarantee me a time well spent.

Because those numerical values are subjectively assessed and translated by a single editorial team. There's no way to objectively collate different gradings consisting of letters, stars, numbers, thumbs, etc. into a single universal scale. From the onset you're already contaminating the samples with subjective scoring.

Another reason why the system sucks.

Binary systems based on a single criteria (is it worth it?) are far more accurate in gauging a large consensus.

I have found the system to be anything but accurate in terms of matching consensus to my experience as a viewer.

Then your tastes don't align with majority. Its success doesn't revolve around the minority like you.

That's not true. The audience scores are different than the RT scores too.

Ok. Well be sure to let the millions of people who visit that site on a regular basis. It'd be a shame for them to continue on oblivious of their time-wasting.

So dramatic.

 

[Bagide]

Those videos are being taken down quick..

 

[misslane38]

:|

...

You understand my point of view, though, right?

Not even a little. SS winning for makeup wasn't an endorsement of the film's overall quality, so I don't see how your analogy applies.

 

[gerrym51]

Those videos are being taken down quick..

here's a vimeo one that is clearer

https://vimeo.com/240725294

 

[Nemeres]

Can't see the clip anywhere.

 

[Nemeres]

Ah, there you go.

 

[Jekecy]

That's not the distinction I'm making. I'm saying there are cinematic classics and fluff that are both equally good in terms of quality, and I will happily spend my time and money on both. What I'm saying is there are mediocre Oscar bait films and fluff films that get the same RT rating as the aforementioned good ones. That's why the RT system does not guarantee me a time well spent.

Of course it's not a guarantee. But you're directing your frustration at an algorithm, which is inane. If your tastes don't align with the mass critics, then fine. Don't use the RT aggregator. Target individuals who share your interests and taste. I'm just not understanding your critique of pure math.

Another reason why the system sucks.

You suggested it (?). This is exactly how MetaCritic operates.

I have found the system to be anything but accurate in terms of matching consensus to my experience as a viewer.

Well then that's unfortunate. Again I wouldn't gauge the success of a system based on individual results, or even small sample sizes. RT has been so prominent and successful for a reason. If it were truly a flawed system, the people who rely on its general accuracy wouldn't place such high importance on its existence.

That's not true. The audience scores are different than the RT scores too.

Apples and oranges. One's a film rating, other is an audience consensus.

 

[dhandler01]

Jesus...the only thing more annoying than rottentomatoes are when people break it down like it is the flipping Davinci Code. Some people find value in it and some people dont...it really isnt that much deeper than that.

 

[Limonade]

Not even a little. SS winning for makeup wasn't an endorsement of the film's overall quality, so I don't see how your analogy applies.

Ah, I see. That wasn't the point I was making at all.

RECAP:
It made no sense to you that fewer critics recommend some Academy Award nominated films than Thor: Ragnarok.

But I pointed out a movie that did both. You still managed to dismiss it by saying it was the exception... as if The Dark Knight will be the only movie to achieve an Academy Award nomination.

I pointed out Suicide Squad, yet you dismissed THAT as well saying it's not an endorsement of the films overall quality.

Dismiss those examples if you want. I see where you're coming from now--and the sense you're trying to make will make anyone goes nuts, as there's no easy answer to what you are looking for.

 

[Steyin]

Yes, and I'm saying an average of yays/nays is not a useful tool for me as a consumer in any possible way.

And if you were getting the results you wanted from the site, but still ended up not liking those films and felt you wasted your time and money then what?

It's always going to be a gamble; perhaps a better informed gamble, but a gamble nonetheless. There is no way there will ever be a "tool" that ends up with you feeling successful in your film ventures 100% of the time.

 

[misslane38]

Jesus...the only thing more annoying than rottentomatoes are when people break it down like it is the flipping Davinci Code. Some people find value in it and some people dont...it really isnt that much deeper than that.

True. I do hope that it improves someday, though. It's not an altogether bad idea or bad system, but it does have flaws. I do a lot of grading and examination of grades in my profession, and I think subscores and a composite score are more helpful. For films, separate Tomatometers for things like Aesthetics, Story, and Cohesion that are averaged together for a Total Tomatometer score might be more useful than the binary system they have now. Even the Metacritic system is better because it at least allows for mixed scores that represent the review rather than a recommendation to see a film or not. The RT number rating system is another matter altogether, and that seems less problematic than the meter is.

 

[Ultra Nolanite]

Don't let all this Rottentomatoes talk distract you from the fact that if in roughly 24 hours we don't hear anything about the screenings the movie is most likely a bust.

 

[misslane38]

Ah, I see. That wasn't the point I was making at all.

RECAP:
It made no sense to you that fewer critics recommend some Academy Award nominated films than Thor: Ragnarok.

But I pointed out a movie that did both. You still managed to dismiss it by saying it was the exception... as if The Dark Knight will be the only movie to achieve an Academy Award nomination.

I pointed out Suicide Squad, yet you dismissed THAT as well saying it's not an endorsement of the films overall quality.

Dismiss those examples if you want. I see where you're coming from now--and the sense you're trying to make will make anyone goes nuts, as there's no easy answer to what you are looking for.

When I said Academy Award Nominated films, I meant nominated for Best Picture. As in, the whole film is good. The Tomatometer only reflects the whole film; it doesn't single out merits of a film's separate elements.

 

[SamuraiAdams]

Don't let all this Rottentomatoes talk distract you from the fact that if in roughly 24 hours we don't hear anything about the screenings the movie is most likely a bust.

 

[Jekecy]

They will say whatever they need to, in order to sell things to the audience. He said before that BvS was one of the best scripts he has ever read. Now he is riding the course correction narrative, as that is more popular. I dont have any problems with what Henry says.

The movie will be the real indication.

I wouldn’t quickly harp on Cavill (or any actor) as being a studio stooge for rescinding on his remarks about the film. A lot can happen in the long process from script to screen. Henry could have been completely earnest in his assessment of the script and still be disappointed with how it all came together.

I recall Terrio himself noted how much of his script got cut out, so it wouldn’t be surprising if such an epic tale suffered as a result of dramatic snips to its length.

 

[Borden]

is that Superman ?
look left

 

[BH/HHH]

is that Superman ?
look left

Huh?

 

[Tra-El]

No doubt that's Joker. There, to the left. In the mist.

 

[Bren]

is that Superman ?
look left

Odd, I can only see Venom.and Aunt May having tea.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Odd, I can only see Venom.and Aunt May having tea.

Interesting? Is she Carnage yet?

 

[Clark Jo]

is that Superman ?
look left

Not gonna lie that looks like Cyborg to me. Even has the blue light on his forehead.

 

[heatvision38]

It isnt rating...just a level of spoilers.

Yeah, that's what I thought was funny.

 

[Bren]

Tbh, I could imagine that was a parademon that just did something naughty, and Clark is about to go all Aggrieved Superman on him.

(that is Clark, right?! )

 

[heatvision38]

Well, it's essential to take average scores into account when judging the quality of a movie. I can merely "recommend" people to eat pomegranate. It's a tasty fruit. But how tasty is it ? Is it as tasty and enjoyable as banana? Or it rivals chocolate or ice cream in taste? Average scores answer this "how". I often see that when people attack RT, they ignore the fact that the website also provides average scores by both critics and audience. Since they focus on just one subset of data that RT provide and ignore others, their criticism of RT as a whole is invalid even though their criticism of a subset (tomatometer) may be valid. But the purpose of tomatometer was never to answer the "how" question.

True. Unfortunately too many people don't understand its purpose and only want to focus on a rotten tomato score as a movie's validation or why it's better than another movie. It's used as a pissing contents amongst fans, unfortunately.