The Rotten Tomatoes/Critic's Reaction Thread

[jmc]

You might want to read the site's new rules better. Lowest review score allowed is 3½/out of 5.

That is absurd. If someone genuinely thinks a movie is a 1 star film they should be allowed to say so.

 

[jmc]

Review-bombing after release makes less noise because the movie's out for people to see for themselves and so ACTUAL word-of-mouth is in full effect. Like, nobody cared about Black Panther's low audience score once the movie came out. Right now, it's just people online who haven't seen the film (and insisting they won't) vs. people online who have, competing to be heard, and so the narrative people are getting regarding "reviews" just depends on what sites people are reading. But when the movie's out, those people who HAVE seen it will be a much bigger part of the population, and will be spreading the word the old fashioned way as well, and those troll voices start to get drowned out. So they can spin whatever narrative they want after the release - by then, the movie will be doing most of the talking at that point.

Not to put to fine a point on it but if the media simply ignored this nonsense no-one would care about it. I'm sick of this crap whereby the media is too stupid to realise they are helping to feed these trolls. They are helping to create the very monster they are trying to fight.

 

[flickchick85]

Not to put to fine a point on it but if the media simply ignored this nonsense no-one would care about it. I'm sick of this crap whereby the media is too stupid to realise they are helping to feed these trolls.

Amen!

 

[flickchick85]

You might want to read the site's new rules better. Lowest review score allowed is 3½/out of 5.

I think you misread. 3.5 stars is just the lowest score for a "Fresh" review. Anything lower is a "Rotten" review. People can still give films 1 star reviews.

 

[jmc]

Ah, that's good.

 

[flickchick85]

Yeah, they were just saying the "Audience Score" will be the percentage of 3.5-star+ (aka, "Fresh") reviews, just like the Critics' percentage.

 

[Abudefduf]

Another reaction.

Spoiler

EDIT: Spoiler-tagging it just in case, but seriously, is Goose's little secret even a spoiler at this point.

 

[Holy Slapper]

I think you misread. 3.5 stars is just the lowest score for a "Fresh" review. Anything lower is a "Rotten" review. People can still give films 1 star reviews.

Shh, you're ruining the fun. He already bought it without checking himself.

You're no fun anymore.

 

[Shuri]

but by that point it will be too little too late for the trolls to have any real impact on the film

them giving the movie negative reviews would be pointless since The masses would have already seen the film by that point and if the box office is massive they know their reviews will quickly be overshadowed by the films success.

review bombing was the only real weapon they had against movies like captain marvel and they know it. It will be a lot harder for them to pull this with future superhero films staring woman and people of color

The trolls know this, that's why they are so angry that RT got rid if it.

 

[Shuri]

I think you misread. 3.5 stars is just the lowest score for a "Fresh" review. Anything lower is a "Rotten" review. People can still give films 1 star reviews.

Is this rule for the audience or critics?

 

[Iceman]

Have troll actions ever worked anyway? So far I’ve just seen them help films break box office records. The main thing they are doing is raising awareness, which as always is a key metric. I wonder how many people who would have seen a film, don’t as a result of actions like these.

 

[Zyraquis]

I’d say % wise next to zero. In fact i have not seen anything to suggest causation between audience rating (or even critics rating) and BO performance. Not even more reliable correlation. Maybe there are studies out there or someone should embark on one.

From what I see review site is a place for people to rant. I can’t take it seriously even I have done it myself too once.

 

[Kuwolski]

I don't see the point of RT's actions. These same people will now just spam the reviews. They know it's coming, just holding off the inevitable for a couple.

 

[flickchick85]

Is this rule for the audience or critics?

Audience. Nothing appears to be changing for the critics scores (that is, they can either self-submit their reviews as fresh or rotten, or leave it to the RT curators to determine).

 

[Claude_Speed]

If it SUCKS under 50%.
But, I don't see that happening.
It will be certified Fresh.

I really doubt a Marvel movie with a female lead could be below 50%, even if it sucks.

Yeah, it will be certified fresh. No doubt.

 

[metaphysician]

I suspect that even if Captain Marvel is "bad", it will only be bad in the sense of being a poor quality MCU film. Which is to say, at worst it will be incoherent and messy like Iron Man 2 or Thor 2.

 

[Donner]

I really doubt a Marvel movie with a female lead could be below 50%, even if it sucks.

Yeah, it will be certified fresh. No doubt.

Can't win hey? Even if the movie is good and you personally believe it sucks, you would think there was some sort of conspiracy to make it seem better than it is.

 

[Claude_Speed]

Can't win hey? Even if the movie is good and you personally believe it sucks, you would think there was some sort of conspiracy to make it seem better than it is.

Given it's a Marvel movie with a female lead, the bias will be inevitable. That doesn't mean I can't recognize if the movie is good.

 

[Donner]

I'm going to guess that you won't. Just a hunch.

 

[Playco Armboy]

I love how veteran, seasoned critics, who are paid to watch hundreds of more films in a year than this clown @Claude_Speed will ever see in twenty and don't give a rat's ash about Marvel vs. DC or anything like that, are somehow going to be more biased than the guy who actively posts on a Superherohype forum.

 

[Claude_Speed]

I love how veteran, seasoned critics, who are paid to watch hundreds of more films than this clown @Claude_Speed will ever see in ten years and don't give a rat's ash about Marvel vs. DC or anything like that, are somehow going to be more biased than the guy who actively posts on a Superherohype forum.

Here come the emotionally invested fanboys.

Yeah critics aren't biased. They aren't humans who are subject to social pressure, beliefs, ideologies, personal preferences, etc. Keep telling yourself that, lol.

 

[samsnee]

If anything their actions gave the movie free advertising because of how RT had to react.

 

[Claude_Speed]

I'm going to guess that you won't. Just a hunch.

K.... any reason for that?

 

[Playco Armboy]

Here come the emotionally invested fanboys.

Yeah critics aren't biased. They aren't humans who are subject to social pressure, beliefs, ideologies, personal preferences, etc. Keep telling yourself that, lol.

I didn't say critics can't be biased.

They're certainly going to be less biased than you are. Already you've demonstrated some level of investment into whether not Captain Marvel is received well by critics, by virtue of discussing it on an online forum. Captain Marvel doesn't even register on these critics' minds until they see it. They straight-up don't care about comic book movies the way you and I do.

 

[Claude_Speed]

I didn't say critics can't be biased.

They're certainly going to be less biased than you are. Already you've demonstrated some level of investment into whether not Captain Marvel is received well by critics, by virtue of discussing it on an online forum. Captain Marvel doesn't even register on these critics' minds until they see it. They straight-up don't care about comic book movies the way you and I do.

Eh... You don't even know me.