98% on RottenTomatoes????? Sleeper hit?

Hahhahah, you are *beep* retarded. Dickface. Go back to your Superman and Star Wars-movies.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yeah but crucially that's not the case with Paddington. It also received an average rating of 7.9/10, which indicates it received high ratings from critics as well as a unanimous positive consensus. Metacritic shows the individual critic scores, and its lowest rating so far has been 60/100, averaging at 77. Basically nobody is calling this a bad movie; the only disagreement is over how good it is.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Re: 98% on RottenTomatoes????? Sleeper hit?
by egyption_goddess2002 » Wed Jan 21 2015 23:12:51
IMDb member since July 2006

There's a large misconception about how Rotten Tomato scores work. The minimum threshold for a score to be considered "fresh" is 60%. So if you see a tomatometer at 98% it just means 98% of all critics gave the film a minimum of 60% or 6/10. It is entirely possible to have a film at 100% with nothing but 6's

Yeah...

No.

Many of the critics who have reviews that appear on 'Rotten Tomatoes' do not give movies a numeric score. These critics simply give a yes or no opinion and many times a review that 'Rotten Tomatoes' considers to be positive will actually read as negative while on other occasions a review that reads as positive will be counted as negative. In addition to that there are critics who give a 'A-F' style grades.

There are also examples on 'Rotten Tomatoes' wherein the critics score that is above 60% but 'Rotten Tomatoes' counts the review as negative. For example 'The Dark Knight' has a couple of reviews that work out as 62.5% yet 'Rotten Tomatoes' considers those reviews to be negative. Conversely there have been reviews in the past wherein reviews that worked out to 50% were counted as positive.

For a movie to be considered 'Fresh' on 'Rotten Tomatoes' 60% of the reviews have to be what 'Rotten Tomatoes' considers to be positive. While, because of basic math, this more often than not works out to most critics giving what amounts to an above 60% positive rating it is not necessary for an individual review to have a 60% rating to be considered positive.

To make this simple;

1. Many critics don't give any sort of numeric rating or grade to a movie. They merely review the movie and 'Rotten Tomatoes' decides if that review is positive or negative.

2. Many other critics give a letter grade and not a numeric grade to a movie.

3. There have been reviews posted on 'Rotten Tomatoes' wherein the critic did give a numeric rating and that rating was above 60% yet 'Rotten Tomatoes' lists the review as 'Rotten'.

4. There have been reviews posted on 'Rotten Tomatoes' wherein the critic did give a numeric rating ant that rating was below 60% yet 'Rotten Tomatoes' list the review as 'Fresh'.

So, again, while basic math more or less dictates that most positive reviews will achieve what works out to at least a 60% rating what the Tomatometer is actually recording is simply the positive vs. negative rating.

It is entirely possible to have a film at 100% with nothing but 6's

This would be true enough if all critics gave numeric ratings. As we have already determined this isn't the case. And as we have also determined a movie can get a rating above 60% and still be counted as 'Rotten'. But even if all critics did give numeric ratings the odds of such a thing happenng, while mathematically possible, would be so extreme that you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning on the same day.






http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/chrisau214/Scribbles-Ep04.jpg

Chris

reply share

add reply

formatting help