# Rotten Tomatoes is not reliable.



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Okay, I've been arguing with bender for quite some time over this(No, this is NOT an Expendables Vs Scott Pilgrim thread), and I find myself wondering: Why would anyone take RT as reliable?

Oh, it's interesting, sure. I always check out the %'s. Also, I'm not one of those guys who bitches about how unreliable critics are. Critics aren't always right, but they always do provide interesting perspectives. However, RT completely beats the point of what a critic is supposed to do.

Originally, the point of critics is that you would find one that you tend to share tastes with and stick to them. So if you agreed with Roger Ebert or even Armond White, you'd stick with them. That was the point of a critic. 

But gimmicks like Rotten Tomatoes are hard to resist. So what's the problem? What qualifies as a rotten or fresh rating?

Ebert, for example, gives a 2.5/4 star rotten and fresh, which is just confusing. 2.5/4 usually means above average/decent. Does everyone go by that standard? (Personally, I'd do 0-2/4 a rotten. anything higher a fresh).

But most of all, think about this: If a movie is universally considered a 2/4 or 2.5/4, then everyone must give it a rotten. That means the rating would be 0%, indicating that it is the worst movie ever. 

But it's not. It's just mediocre. Hence, the % ratings are unreliable and give out different expectations.

I have given 2/4 star ratings to "The last Airbender", "Jonah Hex" and even "Dragonball Evolution"(although I was probably ultra kind on this) simply because my expectations were so low, that the films ultimately didnt effect me positively or negatively. 

This is why the % ratings cannot be trusted. Scott Pilgrim recieved an 81%, but for all we know, every rating might've been a 3/4 stars. The % indicates its great, while the rights might suggest it's just good. Furthermore, "The Expendables" only got a 42%, which can mean that every rotten tomato could've been a 2-2.5/4 stars.

I doubt this was the case, but it's a severe loophole in the tomatometer because what if this ever happened. This is why Rotten Tomatoes is not reliable in determining a movies quality.

Hell, I consider Imdb more reliable just because you can directly see every vote(the number of people who voted 1, 4,8, 10, etc.).


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Aug 17, 2010)

I actually have only been to that website once, and that was a year ago. It's a horrible website filled with horrible people. They don't know what constitutes a good movie anymore than they can tell their asshole from a hole in the ground.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Aug 17, 2010)

Yeah. They gave Paranormal Craptivity a freakin' 80% a long with James Cameron's Avatar . Lets not forget that Blade is rated a 50%,when it should be much higher.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Aug 17, 2010)

Paranormal Activity should be a 4%.


----------



## Taleran (Aug 17, 2010)

MartialHorrors FAVORITE MOVIE GETS BAD REVIEW, HATES WEBSITE

News at 7

(Why the fuck does this thread exist)


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Aug 17, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Paranormal Activity should be a 4%.


Exactly.
10char.


----------



## Shade (Aug 17, 2010)

Taleran said:


> MartialHorrors FAVORITE MOVIE GETS BAD REVIEW, HATES WEBSITE
> 
> News at 7
> 
> (Why the fuck does this thread exist)



/thread   ..


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Taleran said:


> MartialHorrors FAVORITE MOVIE GETS BAD REVIEW, HATES WEBSITE
> 
> News at 7
> 
> (Why the fuck does this thread exist)



Dont bother taking me out of context. It just makes you look stupid. Most of the movies I like on that site get decent reviews there.


----------



## Munak (Aug 17, 2010)

Can't the ratio be higher than 4/4, though? There's not a whole lot of difference going on there between a 3/4 and a 4/4.

(I'd give Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire a 2.5/4, The Prestige a 4/4, but the times I've watched those two movies are probably equal.)


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Sure. But that's the issue. Every critic has their own rating system and various ratings mean different things to people. 

To me, a 3/4 is a good and a 4/4 is great. But to some, 3/4 might be the equivalent to my 2.5/4. Its really annoying.


----------



## -Dargor- (Aug 17, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> I actually have only been to that website once, and that was a year ago. It's a horrible website filled with horrible people. They don't know what constitutes a good movie anymore than they can tell their asshole from a hole in the ground.



This exactly.

Not to mention these folks more often than not take themselves way too seriously. Apparently being a movie critic on the internet is serious business.


----------



## Koi (Aug 17, 2010)

I think all movie review/rating sites and systems are generally unreliable.  If you're interested, go see the movie and decide for yourself.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Aug 17, 2010)

-Dargor- said:


> This exactly.
> 
> Not to mention these folks more often than not take themselves way too seriously. Apparently being a movie critic on the internet is serious business.


I currently have 7 neg reps from RT for my review for Watchmen. evidently,they didn't like that I said it was like a Lifetime movie with super heroes .


----------



## Lamb (Aug 17, 2010)

Isn't Rotten Tomatoes just Metacritic with less class?


----------



## illmatic (Aug 17, 2010)

Metacrtic gives 0 - 100 scores next to every review


----------



## Lamb (Aug 17, 2010)

illmatic said:


> Metacrtic gives 0 - 100 scores next to every review



But it's still just an aggregate review, right? I mean, just because they don't make up some number to put next to a review, doesn't make it not the exact same thing.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Aug 17, 2010)

Koi said:


> I think all movie review/rating sites and systems are generally unreliable.  If you're interested, go see the movie and decide for yourself.



this i can agree with


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

Koi said:


> I think all movie review/rating sites and systems are generally unreliable.  If you're interested, go see the movie and decide for yourself.



lol, so you're saying that everyone should see "The Last Airbender" if they were interested, knowing that it would suck?


----------



## Koi (Aug 17, 2010)

No.  If you think a movie is going to suck-- and shit, you could tell that BEFORE the Avatar reviews came out-- then why see it?


----------



## Taleran (Aug 17, 2010)

Yeah come on Martial its not that hard. If something looks interesting go watch it, else don't.


----------



## -Dargor- (Aug 17, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> lol, so you're saying that everyone should see "The Last Airbender" if they were interested, knowing that it would suck?



50 people on a website saying it sucks doesn't mean you won't like the movie.

Watching the trailer should be enough for people to make up their mind as to wether or not they're willing to pay to see the movie.

Paying too much attention to "critics" can make you miss a movie you would have otherwise enjoyed.

Opinions differ way too much from a person to the next for reviews to be reliable. It does give a general feel of what to expect, but more often than not the negativity will get to the reader.


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

WOW....MH this is pathetic.

Boo-hoo hoo RT gave my movie a bad rating that means it can't be trusted.

 I mean just plain fucking pathetic. I can't believe I was actually arguing with you. 

Come on people plz do not buy into MartialHorror's crap. Rottentomatoes is a VERY credible movie review site. Martial is still bitching because "The Expendables" has a 41% on the site.




CrazyMoronX said:


> Paranormal Activity should be a 4%.



It's percentage is determined by top critics rottentomatoes community/T-meter critics.


@ Dargor 

The Last airbender was bad. Just plain terrible. Especially with M.Night Shamylan being behind it.



Lincoln Rhyme said:


> I currently have 7 neg reps from RT for my review for Watchmen. evidently,they didn't like that I said it was like a Lifetime movie with super heroes .



Not everyone on Rottentomatoes is a saint. I mean their community is filled with assholes like Cole Smithey (the same douchebag who along with a moral guardian brought Toy Story 3's 100% down to a 99%). People on Rottentomatoes take their reviews seriously similar to how people on Naruto forums  do with anime/manga/comic book section.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

> WOW....MH this is pathetic.
> 
> Boo-hoo hoo RT gave my movie a bad rating that means it can't be trusted.
> 
> I mean just plain fucking pathetic. I can't believe I was actually arguing with you.



Taleran beat you too that. But what both of you have failed to research is that I've been explaining this for quite some time. I simply never made a thread of it. Hell, the last time prior was when discussing "The Last Airbender".

Both of you seriously need to stop whoring presumptions and start focusing more on fact.



> Come on people plz do not buy into MartialHorror's crap. Rottentomatoes is a VERY credible movie review site. Martial is still bitching because "The Expendables" has a 41% on the site.



another example of how you dont try to even shoot down my claims. You just resort to your personal vendetta.



> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No. If you think a movie is going to suck-- and shit, you could tell that BEFORE the Avatar reviews came out-- then why see it?



Hmmm fair enough. But what about the movies that do look bad but suddenly get critical attention. I thought Kickass looked awful, yet it is one of my favorite movies of the year.

Furthermore, critics tend to be pretty good at flushing lesser marketed but great movies into the mainstream(I would've never had heard of The Hurt Locker if it wasnt for them).

So they do serve their purpose.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Aug 17, 2010)

Koi said:


> No.  If you think a movie is going to suck-- and shit, you could tell that BEFORE the Avatar reviews came out-- then why see it?





Taleran said:


> Yeah come on Martial its not that hard. If something looks interesting go watch it, else don't.



is this a difficult concept to understand? i thought that was how normal people go to see movies


----------



## Butcher (Aug 17, 2010)

I never trusted RT to begin with.


----------



## illmatic (Aug 17, 2010)

Transformers 2 was a example of how people just go & see movies they assume will be good from impression of the trailer


----------



## Shock Therapy (Aug 17, 2010)

If a movie looks good to me in the trailer but there's a feeling in my gut that it will suck, then I usually resort to critics (mostly RT and IMDB). And even then I don't really care about their opinions, it's just if I see a really horrible rating, like Airbender's 6% or something, I know to stay away. OR, the second option would be to, if you don't really care for spoiling the plot much, wikipedia it.


----------



## Bender (Aug 17, 2010)

Btw it's not that RT takes things to seriously it's that they're very passionate about their work.


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Aug 17, 2010)

RT is a terrible site full of retards

lol@people who go by their ratings


----------



## jdbzkh (Aug 17, 2010)

RT isn't reliable? Since when? Avatar got a 80 something okay why? Read the actual reviews visuals for the movie are amazing expendables got a 40% why? Well cause the movie is horrible if you just want to see a bunch of people die then yeah sure this is your movie if you want a good plot with good actors and a storyline you'll actually care about that isn't your movie. That's why it only at 40%, Scott Pilgrim has a 80% why cause the movie was really good. 

Now if you don't agree with 100 something critics then sucks for you. I mean seriously I look at the rt meter and see that a movie has a 80% that means chances are I'm gonna like it as well. Does that always happen of course not at the end of the day its your tastes that's going to determine your movie going experience. So if you are just making a thread cause one of your favorite movies got a low score deal with it, Expendables is an action flick with poor character development, story, cgi, acting and so on.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 17, 2010)

jdbzkh said:


> RT isn't reliable? Since when? Avatar got a 80 something okay why? Read the actual reviews visuals for the movie are amazing expendables got a 40% why? Well cause the movie is horrible if you just want to see a bunch of people die then yeah sure this is your movie if you want a good plot with good actors and a storyline you'll actually care about that isn't your movie. That's why it only at 40%, Scott Pilgrim has a 80% why cause the movie was really good.
> 
> Now if you don't agree with 100 something critics then sucks for you. I mean seriously I look at the rt meter and see that a movie has a 80% that means chances are I'm gonna like it as well. Does that always happen of course not at the end of the day its your tastes that's going to determine your movie going experience. So if you are just making a thread cause one of your favorite movies got a low score deal with it, Expendables is an action flick with poor character development, story, cgi, acting and so on.



You didn't even read my argument....did you......


----------



## Emperor Joker (Aug 17, 2010)

Meh...never been to RT anyways. so I should care less about it. I don't even generally read reviews anyways, unless i'm uncertain about the movie itself.


----------



## Bender (Aug 18, 2010)

jdbzkh said:
			
		

> RT isn't reliable? Since when? Avatar got a 80 something okay why? Read the actual reviews visuals for the movie are amazing expendables got a 40% why? Well cause the movie is horrible if you just want to see a bunch of people die then yeah sure this is your movie if you want a good plot with good actors and a storyline you'll actually care about that isn't your movie. That's why it only at 40%, Scott Pilgrim has a 80% why cause the movie was really good.
> 
> Now if you don't agree with 100 something critics then sucks for you. I mean seriously I look at the rt meter and see that a movie has a 80% that means chances are I'm gonna like it as well. Does that always happen of course not at the end of the day its your tastes that's going to determine your movie going experience. So if you are just making a thread cause one of your favorite movies got a low score deal with it, Expendables is an action flick with poor character development, story, cgi, acting and so on.





Oh and btw Martial Horror it's amusing to hear you talk about unreliable movie reviews.  If I recall correctly you said:

I love me some "Meet the Spartans" "Epic movie" and gave moderately good reviews for both "Transformers Revenge of the fallen" and "Dragon Ball: Evolution".


----------



## Ennoea (Aug 18, 2010)

Wow you two children need to learn to get along.

Noone takes RT seriously, anyway the site gives you a general account of what type of film to expect and atleast it does that right.


----------



## Bender (Aug 18, 2010)

^

Sometimes I don't rely on Rottentomatoes. Though it's given me a rough-cut of how to look at a movie.


----------



## Zeroo (Aug 18, 2010)

the only site I rely on for reviews is spill.com....now those guys got class


----------



## Johnny Rotten (Aug 18, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Paranormal Activity should be a 4%.



I've never understood the hate for this film. It was decent. I jumped. Which is a lot seeing as I happen to love the torture-porn and splatter genres. Just because you don't agree with one movie they have on their site does NOT mean every other review is useless. I believe Avatar should have >20% but again, my own goddamn opinion.



Lincoln Rhyme said:


> I currently have 7 neg reps from RT for my review for Watchmen. evidently,they didn't like that I said it was like a Lifetime movie with super heroes .



Well that's very true. The RT community is composed of mostly idiots. Any action movie gets 80% or higher by their rating system.



-Dargor- said:


> 50 people on a website saying it sucks doesn't mean you won't like the movie.
> 
> Watching the trailer should be enough for people to make up their mind as to wether or not they're willing to pay to see the movie.
> 
> ...



Paying attention to even one critic would be smarter than going by the trailer. Trailers are made by people who are paid by the producers of said film to make it look cool so you waste money on it. It's why "Gamer" (and don't anyone even say it was good), and "Revenge of the Fallen" look so awesome. And where am I? Out twenty bucks. Not including popcorn which was the best part of the movies.

As for RT itself, it's only useful if you *read* the reviews. I'm fond of Travers and Ebert, but if I'm on the fence about a movie I'll read both positive and negative reviews to see if it's worth going to see.


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 18, 2010)

Aggregators are bad due to letter grades and none five or ten point systems. The ideas sound but the difference in score system, or lack of a score, make them a bit pointless.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 18, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Wow you two children need to learn to get along.
> 
> Noone takes RT seriously, anyway the site gives you a general account of what type of film to expect and atleast it does that right.



Meh, he's a troll who obsesses about my opinions, despite apparently hating them.


----------



## nightmarebegins (Aug 18, 2010)

I wouldn't ever go to that site for revews...Normally just go to see what kind of rating they give movies.


----------



## olaf (Aug 18, 2010)

shouldn't this be in science section or place like that? since OP is filled with so much math jibberish that it can't really understand anything else besides 'reviev aggregates are bad'


----------



## Zhariel (Aug 18, 2010)

Well, their reviews are ones I often don't agree with. For me, The Spill gets it right. By "right" I mean they just have a similar taste to mine, which is all you can ask for.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 18, 2010)

Your face isn't reliable


----------



## R00t_Decision (Aug 18, 2010)

I use imdb for fans opinions and rt for "quick one time synopsis" and overall reviewer review ratings.

 If the movie ranks high enough between the two sites averages, I'll watch the movie.


----------



## illmatic (Aug 18, 2010)

I look at top critics reviews on RT first


----------



## Nodonn (Aug 18, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Your face isn't reliable



Your mom didn't mind that last night!


----------



## Aristides (Aug 18, 2010)

I just go on spill.com. At least their ratings are amusing and helpful sometimes.


----------



## R00t_Decision (Aug 18, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Your mom didn't mind that last night!



Oh snap a mom joke used quickly and effectively.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 18, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Your mom didn't mind that last night!



MY MUM IS DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD!


----------



## Aruarian (Aug 18, 2010)

Eh, I'm pretty sure the percentage is a rating of how many critics review the movie as a positive film, rather than what they consider it as a whole. Misunderstanding something =/= reliability issues of said something.


----------



## Parallax (Aug 18, 2010)

It's a solid site to find out a general consensus but nowhere near the gospel for what a good movie is or isn't.  But I'd rather listen to that site than most of the members here for what a good movie is


----------



## olaf (Aug 18, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> MY MUM IS DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD!


now you know who fucked her to death


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 18, 2010)

olaf said:


> now you know who fucked her to death


----------



## Butcher (Aug 18, 2010)

Aristides said:


> I just go on spill.com. At least their ratings are amusing and helpful sometimes.


They're funny,but not helpful on reviews.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 21, 2010)

lol, I have to honestly question RT's reliability just because they rated Piranha 3D positvely(Same % as Scott Pilgrim, btw). 

Why do they hate every other non-pretentious horror film out there, but then love Piranha motherf@cking 3D!

Dont get me wrong, I adore the movie.....but it's just porn except instead of cum shots it's piranhas that kill them all in super gruesome ways.......

Therefore, the truth is that rotten tomatoes critics are porn addicts with sadistic tendencies. Then again, they hated Sorority Row, so I JUST DONT KNOOOW!!!!! !


----------



## Parallax (Aug 21, 2010)

just go watch the movies you want to see


----------



## Dash (Aug 21, 2010)

Its probably the closest thing to reliable as far as movie critic sites go.


----------



## Bender (Aug 21, 2010)

^

THANK YOU

MH stop bitching because The Expendables got a bad rating


----------



## typhoon72 (Aug 21, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> lol, I have to honestly question RT's reliability just because they rated Piranha 3D positvely(Same % as Scott Pilgrim, btw).
> 
> Why do they hate every other non-pretentious horror film out there, but then love Piranha motherf@cking 3D!
> 
> *Dont get me wrong, I adore the movie.....but it's just porn except instead of cum shots it's piranhas that kill them all in super gruesome ways.......*



It's rated well because that is exactly what Piranha 3D was meant to be. You're the one who's missing the point.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 21, 2010)

> THANK YOU
> 
> MH stop bitching because The Expendables got a bad rating



I think you're bitching at me because SP bombed. Anyway, I'm now bitching that a MOVIE I LIKED got a super high rating. 



> It's rated well because that is exactly what Piranha 3D was meant to be. You're the one who's missing the point.



Good point. Or it would be..........If I DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE! I did get the point, which is why I liked it. 

But why do they like that and hate nearly every other horror movie out there? "Friday the 13th" was what it meant to be, and that got a bad rating. 

The only justification I can think of is that Piranha uses vibrant colors instead of the usual washed out look of horror films, and that Piranha is not like your usual splatter film(its been years since the last horror movie that took place on water.....at least one that was released in the theaters).

But point is, RT is unpredictable. "The Expendables" was what it was meant to be, and they didnt care for that. So your reasoning is flawed.


----------



## The Bite of the She-Wolf (Aug 21, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Dont get me wrong, I adore the movie.....but it's just porn except instead of cum shots it's piranhas that kill them all in super gruesome ways.......



Just my kind of movie.

Watched the original a long time ago btw.


----------



## Bender (Aug 22, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> I think you're bitching at me because SP bombed. Anyway, I'm now bitching that a MOVIE I LIKED got a super high rating.



Like I care.

The rating for your movie keeps dropping is more than enough for me. 

The more viewing "The Expendables" get the more proof that viewers are idiots.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> Like I care.
> 
> The rating for your movie keeps dropping is more than enough for me.
> 
> The more viewing "The Expendables" get the more proof that viewers are idiots.



Excuses, excuses. You're still just mad because Scott Pilgrim flopped hard. It's 2nd week already has it about to drop out of the top 10. 

Now stop trolling me. It's gotten old.


----------

