I don't understand why people will sometimes decide to see or not see a film based on it's Rotten Tomatoes score.

Since when did this become the benchmark for success?

I would rather see a film and judge it on my own tastes. If I went by Rotten Tomaotes scores I would have never watched something as great as "Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" because it's at 56% on RT.

However, "Sharknado" currently resides at 82%.

How can I trust a site that has "Thor 2" and "Iron Man 2" at a higher rating than "Watchmen"?

They have no brain of their own.

>>2
I can understand if you agree with a certain critic's taste. So you value their opinion and don't go to theaters to see a film because you know from experience you agree most of the time with "x" film critic.

However, to see a film dip below 60% on RT and then decide, "Guess I won't see that movie" is ridiculous.

*beep*

Only on rare occasions have I really liked a film that scored poorly on Rotten Tomatoes.

It's not that we can't think for ourselves, it's that movies are too expensive and too often disappointing for me to waste my money on a film most people think sucks.

To date, I've hated every Adam Sandler movie I've ever seen and he is the worst reviewed actor in history. When the critics mostly agree a movie sucks, they are usually right.

With the exception of Forget Paris, One Fine Day and The Three Musketeers (1993 version) I've yet to come across a film that was not certified fresh on RT that I was glad I saw in the theater.

The only movies I was disappointed to see at the cinema were the ones I didn't like.

wow, touché.

It has always been a popular source

But it's become the norm in society to look at the RT score now. They make news articles on the front page of Yahoo!, MSN, and other media websites that say "X" film has a low RT score"

So people say "I'm not going to see that". Why? If the subject interests you, then check it out for yourself.

I dont take any notice of Rotten Tomatoes really, if i like the sound of a film i watch it.

>>9
Unless it has a gay guy in it.

"Always" is an over-statement. The site has only existed for something like sixteen years, which means for the first hundred + years of cinema's history people were actually able to find and appreciate quality work without something as preposterously named as the "Tomatometer."

And I don't remember RT being bandied about like a biblical authority prior to 2007-2008 (once again The Dark Knight may have set the standard), and I've been using this site since 1999. It's very much something that's been embraced by people who know of no alternative; the generation that have grown up with it now see it as some kind of final word on a film's objective quality, oblivious to the fact that classic films as diverse as Greed, It's A Wonderful Life, The Long Goodbye, The Shining, The Thing, Scarface and Blade Runner would not have been peaking above 45% had Rotten Tomatoes existed in the late 20th century. Their appeal was not immediate and some works of art (whatever the medium) takes longer to find an audience than others.

The growing popularity of the site - in which the subjective consensus of no more than a few hundred individuals (less than 0.1% of the world's population), many without critical credentials or credibility, is now used as a factual guideline as to whether a movie is "good" or "bad" (meaningless, reductive terms that work to stifle discussion and analysis) - is part of a larger trend to embrace the popular consensus over individuality. The generation that have come of age with the internet are very slowly becoming a hive mind that need their peers to tell them how to think and feel and where going against the consensus isn't just an expression of personality but something potentially credibility destroying.

Like most things discussed on the internet, movie criticism has inevitably become a meme. A very destructive one, since such appeals to consensus make it easy for people to raise and denigrate a film without even seeing it for themselves. Once rated, all art essentially becomes canonical and/or disposable.

I have discovered the hidden truth of the universe, with /tele/ help. Which is -

People are fucking stupid.

>>12
^This

Critics always hate Adam Sandler movies, his movies always suck. I'd say that's a good barometer to judge whether to spend $15 on one of his movies.

I've never seen an Adam Sandler film, and couldn't have named one until I looked him up on Wiki just now. I don't need to know what critics think of him.

Punch drunk love is a great flick. But unlike all his others isn't a sandler production. It's a PTA gem. As all PTA films are.

And let's be honest (I know you haven't seen it) but happy Gilmore is a funny flick, as is the wedding singer.

However sandler might be a genius for all we know . He is one of the richest men in film if not the richest. And people pay to watch his crap.. People are idiots. And he knows it. And he makes money of them .

I've never seen a PTA film either, and had to look him up too. But I do actually have one of his films on DVD (There Will Be Blood), and will probably get around to Inherent Vice one of these days as well. I suspect the latter is probably more likely to be to my taste.

People just don't want to use their own judgment regarding what is good or bad, and they want others to do the work for them. Why bother making an opinion if it's already made for you by some "experts"?

I just use it for recommendations. I make up my own opinion.

Since When did RottenTomatoes Become the Criteria for Film?

it's quite basic, really. RT is the main site for calculating the percentage/ratio of positive to negative reviews from all the critics, both prolific and relatively unknown. Generally when one is about to watch a movie, that person wants to at least have a fair idea if said movie is good or bad, and given that RT is the main site for accurately counting/calculating reviews, it only follows that people will take into account it's percentages...

They are correct when a movie is good or bad most of the time. 45-65% movies can go either way for me but apart from that, it becomes clear which movies I should spend my time and money on.

Take a look at this weekend, do you really think Hitman and Sinister 2 will be good movies? Shouldn't I just go see Straight Outta Compton for a good time at the movies?

I completely agree. Except for the inexplicable score of 28% for The Three Musketeers (1993) I've never seen a movie score below 45% that I even remotely enjoyed.

When most critics think a movie sucks, it almost always does.

I've seen a few movies in the 50% range that I really enjoyed, most notably the wonderful Forget Paris and the very entertaining One Fine Day.

I think many people have always taken critical consensus as a factor in what they're seeing. It just didn't used to be so neatly and digestibly wrapped in a RottenTomato Score.

Theoretically, RT is merely a collection of individual critics reviews...and their percentages are based on good vs bad reviews. So RT is much like a poll or survey in that regard. It should never be the be all end all for any film lover...but it could give you an idea of what the masses thought of the film.

It should be noted also, that the majority (if not all) of critics quoted on RT rate films based on only a single viewing. How many of them never bother to watch it a second time to see if it holds up well/ ages poorly/ gets better with time?
RT is amusing, but little more.

Never liked the rating style of Rotten Tomatoes.

People who are daft enough to decide to pay to see a film based on RT or Imdb ratings can't complain if they don't like it.

I don't follow the RT score since I've had strong disagreements with them. I find the IMDb scores much more reliable.

I would rather see a film and judge it on my own tastes

With over 200 000 title and thousand of new release every year I doubt you go by alphabetical order, read every movie released plot summary, trailer and some picture to decide what to Watch totally indepently of the reaction of the people that have already seen the movie.

You also use some form of curative process (maybe let the theater near you decide, friend, big name director, message boards, awards, festival, critics) influence what to consider to see.

People do the same with rotten tomatoes, looking at the thousands of movie with a good score what sound fun to me from those.

Ultimately you never saw a movie before seeing it for the first time, so it is hard to use your taste as the only factor of decision.

It's not surprising at all.

It may be human nature to try to simplify things into a quantifiable, numeric index if possible.

Think of the Rotten Tomatoes as the S&P 500 of movie reviews.

The fun part is, that if you are a betting man, you can wager with your friends on the over/under of the average score and freshness percentage. Make it interesting and bet $1000 per tenth of a point.

For example if I bet a friend that Straight Outta Compton would have an average RT index of OVER 7.0 by Monday, he would owe me $4000, since the actual score turned out to be 7.4.

I often disagree with it, but it's a good indicator of a movie's quality, i.e. I often like movies with low ratings, but they very rarely become one of my absolute favorites.

On Sharknado - It was not reviewed by as many critics as Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and the general consensus is that its "so bad its good", plus with a title like "Sharknado" how can anyone take it seriously.

>>28
IMDb is a better judge. It's very rare that I like a flick that scores below 6. Although there are exceptions and I don't watch a film based on a score. RT is a bit weird. It's a yes or no vote. I don't take any notice of RT scores.

Even though IMDb isn't perfect it's better.

DID WE JUST BECOME BEST FRIENDS???
YEP

THANK YOU

People with a brain know R T is lame and not something to be a measuring stick of anything.

Most people who see movies DONT POST ANYWHERE on the INTERNET.

They have lives, sex , jobs , friends etc etc

Most internet losers....I mean...sheep.....I mean Posters.....don't get it.

IMDB is what I sometimes look at for ratings.
I never judge anything on what STRANGERS think....lol...most sheep do...its sad.

My friends...that's how I sometimes judge....on taste.

Not strangers lol

BOX OFFICE MOJO for box office INFO

The end

some youtube stuff for movie talk and rumours...that's all you need.

RT is crap. lol

Well the Sharknado's score is to be taken as succeeding in a "so bad it's good way".

Of course Tomatometer is not a very reliable estimation of the acclaim of a movie, but it's very hypocritical to say that you only decide on the movies you watch by yourself. Nobody does that. Because that would mean basically watching them randomly, or just by reading the synopsises but having no way to know wether it's supposed to be good or bad. In the end the choices in the movies we watch are almost always influenced in some way by those who have watched them before. That's the whole concept of culture.

It's a good tool if you know how to use it.

If all you're doing is looking a the percentage at the top, then you're not using the site properly.

Well that's a bit the concept of the website though.

It's not supposed to be taken too seriously, it's just an indication for people looking for a movie to watch in theaters and who don't have the time to look anywhere else to make up their mind.

You think all the reviews linked there are just for decoration? The numbers don't mean much, but actually reading the reviews, which Rotten Tomatoes helpfully gathers all in one spot, is how you really determine whether or not a movie is worth your time. Roger Ebert once said something to the effect of that even a well written negative review of a film could still convince someone that the movie is something they would enjoy (and a positive review for something they wouldn't). Granted not all the reviews are going to be like that, but enough are and as a result, the site is a very useful resource that goes way beyond a mere percentage score.

Yeah of course, by "not to take too seriously" I mean this is not representative of the overall acclaim of a movie, as it's just a limited number of people (generally no more than 300) at one specific point in time.

Metacritic is more accurate and I always refer it before RT.

>>41
No.

i use it as a base line to see if there's anything good i've missed.

like The Gift i wouldn't have seen but it got a good RT rating and a positive Slant review, so i figured why not.

other times, i'll see something like To the Wonder or something with a poor rt score because of my personal interest.

as with anything it's never going to be bad if used properly, it'll only expose you to good stuff, and the stuff you're interested in you should see regardless of rt percent.

Personally, I don't pay attention to RT scores, I saw a lot of good 'rotten' movies and a lot of bad 'fresh' movies. But still it's highly unlikely that I'll spend my time for something like Sinister 2 or Hot Pursuit.

Since when did this become the benchmark for success?

It's weird considering the fact that a lot of critics on RT are dumb, biased, pretentious and woefully unprofessional.

However, "Sharknado" currently resides at 82%

Because it's a trashy TV movie about flying sharks. Nobody expected it to be the next Citizen Kane. They enjoyed it for what it is.

How can I trust a site that has "Thor 2" and "Iron Man 2" at a higher rating than "Watchmen"?

RT counts reviews of various bloggers who are Marveltards or just nerds and who will give a pass to any Marvel/DC film.

I trust their ratings all the time, far more accurate seeing critics reviews than IMDB which allows anyone to rate anything

I don't think it's the criteria for choosing a film to see over the weekend, but for some people RT's is just that.

It's actually good to know when a movie is stinker. Any film that has a percentage in the 10's, I tend to find sucks, or is just plain awful.

I go by the Empire reviews. And only then if I'm in two minds whether to see something. The only name critics whose opinions mean anything to me are Mark Kermode and Kim Newman.

How can I trust a site that has "Thor 2" and "Iron Man 2" at a higher rating than "Watchmen"?

Really?