Does a No Time to Die Rotten Tomatoes review matter anymore?
or did Hollywood destroy it?
shareDed to me. I pay no attention to Rotten Tomatoes anymore.
shareMe neither. It stopped being relevant long ago.
shareHow come it’s no longer relevant? Are the figures manipulated or something else?
shareThere came a point many years ago when RT decided that the merit of their selection of critics was not the best measure of quality. But instead they restructured their system based first and foremost on diversity instead of acumen. Before then there was aprox 50% studio schills and 50% discerning critique. Guess which half got replaced? You will never see a big big movie get a low score.
shareThank you for the education. I’m exhausted by all the corruption seeping into every aspect of life.
shareYeah, I stopped following rotten tomatoes when every big movie was conveniently over 90%.
shareWhich "every big movie" are you talking about exactly?
Venom at 59%?
Jungle Cruise at 62%?
Cruella at 74%?
Free Guy at 80%?
No Time to Die at 82%?
Rise of the Skywalker at 52%?
The Lion King at 52%?
Dark Phoenix at 22%?
Hobbs and Shaw at 67%?
Mulan at 72%?
Tenet at 70%?
Wonder Woman at 59%?
F9 at 59%?
Tomorrow War at 52%?
Black Widow at 79%?
It's more difficult to find big movies over 90% than to find below it, so why are you lying?
Cause the percentages drop over time obviously.
Stop being weird.
I would name drop the specific movies that dropped in at 90+, but I'll get some random person jump in and talk about how wonderful ____ movie was.
What do you mean they drop over time?
Venom was at 95% and then dropped to 59%?
Black Widow was at 99% and then dropped to 79%?
No Time to Die has just opened, it is at 82%. Was it 95% 2 days ago? I don't think so.
I'm trying to understand what you said "every big movie was conveniently over 90%", but I cannot see it in another way that you are just lying. Or are you just being ignorant? Hard to believe if that's the case.
I share that exhaustion.
shareThey were bought out some years back. That's when I noticed the change. I think the parent companies were bought and sold a few more times since then. It's all part the big cooperate umbrella now.
sharethe debacle of Captain Marvel pretty much solidified it. but yeah RT and IDMb ratings are pretty much worthless.
I dont think a true review site exists anymore... people vote with their money now a days...
No people can't fathom that a review site will not always reflect their own opinion. Rather than just say hey I disagree you say RT is useless because it does not coincide with your view. Now are there cases where I disagree with it? Sure absolutely but in the end no algorithm will ever fully coincide with your opinions. There is always going to be a bias one way or the other. Sometimes biases are less but they will always exist.
shareIt is quite a bit different than simply "wah, I don't agree with RT!"
shareHow?
shareIf you read more of what has already been discussed, you will discover that they are delivering unreliable rankings due to critics praising movies because they are being paid to do so. In addition to that, new measures of quality have supplanted traditional writing, directing, and acting as top considerations.
But hey, if it works for you then great.
I have read and apparently you failed to comprehend what I have said. Go ahead and prove to me that critics are being paid to give certain films favorable reviews. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Do I think their is a critical bias? Of course but this has existed long before Rottentomatoes was even thought of. It does not matter how well you make a fantasy, scfi, or horror film an Oscar bait film will always have the edge and higher odds of succeeding further with critics and collecting Oscars. There are rare exception of course in the case of Lord of the Rings winning best picture and something like exorcist getting a best picture nomination. For instance I did not think King's Speech should have beaten out Social Network but you know one is total Oscar bait and the other has hints but is not as Oscar bait as King's speech.
So to suddenly go oh the critics are bias it is like yeah congratulations captain obvious. Just like how you have right wingers on here that have a bias towards things they like. I think a movie can be good or bad no matter what it is tackling. For example Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film but it is well made and excellent. Ghostbusters 2016 is a feminist film and it is trash! Want a masculine film that is good? Predator is an excellent throwback to the Regan era of action masculine films. Dredd 2012 is an excellent masculine film as well. That is a good one as is Die Hard. Want masculine movies that are trash? All of the Expendables films. I had a user tell me that the Expendables films were better than Mad Max Fury Road. Even if you prefer those masculine action films seriously? I might lean a certain way but just because I prefer something or lean a certain way does not mean I will blindly support it because it is catering to my likes. That would be like a left winger claiming Ghostbusters 2016 to be better than Dredd, Predator or Die Hard simply because it is a feminist film. Expendables is trash because all it is is nostalgia bait.
In the end if you hate RT so bad do not use it. See what you want and move on with your life.
>Go ahead and prove to me that critics are being paid.
How do you think they make a living as "film critics" dumbass
This ^^^^^^^^^^
Randall, you totally own moviefanatic, keep it up and I agree he's a complete and total loser.
Did you see what he said about Candace Owens?
Sounds like we mostly agree on movies and the weird biases that sway people.
However, you obviously have some crazy bone to pick over RT and critics in general. If you don't agree that RT has shifted MUCH further into corporate schill territory and social quotas then more power to ya. I figured the answer was in the many posts herein but I see you like to bite.
Peace and love. Peace and love.
Okay humor me what are some films you feel they were schilling on? Give me a list of them if you would be so kind.
shareNah. Lets give you the blue ribbon and Ill say "wow, you are so right." You're weird on this and a little hostile.
shareHow so? I actually think we have some things in common. Go ahead which ones?
shareNice deflect, to not admit you were wrong.
shareDon't' worry about moviefanatic505, he is on a mission to troll whatever board I post on because he has some kind of weird obsession with me. He doesn't actually mean the crap he's spewing out. It looks like you're doing a good job of owning him intellectually however.
shareOMG .... that proof trash. You dont need any proof if your brain is working. The correct term for todays art journalism is access jorunalism. Thos journalists get access to movies before they are starting. That was called media previews in earlier days. Without this access you cant keep your job, cause you have to write about the hype when its already dying.
And now guess how this business works. Im sure you will find that out by yourself. At least I hope so.
The one making the claim has the burden of proof. Never once did I deny a bias critics have as stated above. However I noticed when critics give a film a positive review that a person doesn't like they jump to that argument immediately. How about I disagree with the critics and that be it? Nope gotta jump to that conspiracy theory. I'm not just going to take your word for something without proof.
shareYou havent noticed that woke movies got better reviews from access journalism? Really? Never go all the discussions about the huge difference between the audience score (the people which financing thos movies) and the access journalism scores (the people which got their jobs only cause of the movie studios)?
There once was a time when media companies were mighty enough that they gave a sh*t about a movie studio announcing that they dont get access to media previews anymore, cause in such a scenario they would have destroyed this movies within an instance. Thats why such a thing wasnt possible in earlier days. But today, with weak media companies (take a look at CNN or Fox .... noone cares about them anymore), movie studios could state that they stop access to movie previews and the journalist will get fired.
Thats the status of movie access journalism today. Movie critics arent existing anymore.
Again what did I state above? There is bias towards films this has gone on before woke movies even existed. Certain films are engineered to win Oscars and are Oscar bait. Prime example of this is the King's Speech. I thought the Social Network was a better film. King's Speech checks off every box to get an Oscar you can think of. Films that are horror, fantasy, or scifi have less chance of succeeding with critics or winning Oscars than films like a King's Speech. Do I think it is crap? Yep I do but this not new. Thing is though there is bias on the other end of the spectrum as well it just that critics lean politically where the majority of Hollywood does.
A good feminist movie is Mad Max Fury Road, a bad one is Ghostbusters 2016. A good classic macho action film reminiscent of the Regan era is the original Predator. bad masculine film is any of the Expendables films. Straight up nostalgia bait garbage.
What you are describing is a complete different thing. In the "god, old times critics were powerful and could, within limits, influence the success of movies. Thos critics were most times leaning to era movies or new age movies. Or movies like Kings Speech with a lot of character development. But thos times are gone. Access journalism not only means that you have to like woke movies (if you like to become access journalist). It also means that you have to give good reviews for each and every AAA movie (especially if they are done by Disney, cause Disney is really fast with revoking licenses ; . Take a look at the Anaheim case) . Otherwise you will lose your preview access and therefor your job. In such a scenario there is on the side the audience (indeed with different opinions) and on the other side thos poor people which knows that they lose their job if they make a valid review. Thats access journalism (and not the old intellectual critic which prefers Kings Speech :) ).
shareSee this is my problem with your theory. Okay so all Disney movies get a pass then? Okay so why did the live action Lion King, Aladdin, Dumbo, and Star Wars Rise of Skywalker get lackluster reviews from critics? Often the average person does not care about what critics think. Why does garbage like the Transformers movies make gobs of money despite getting slammed by critics? What is woke about John Wick? What is woke about Dredd 2012? Both those movies get good reviews from critics. People will say oh the reason Expendables gets bad reviews is because it is not woke... Or it could be that the Expendables is just a badly made film?
King's Speech is Oscar bait. Is it competently made? Yep but it is no doubt Oscar bait. The purpose of that movie is to win an Oscar. It is why it annoys me when that succeeds over something more creative in the Social Network. Is that award friendly as well sure but it at least feels like it is trying to be a film first. King's Speech is basically yelling the whole movie give us Oscars.
Take a look at RT and the scores for their usual Disney blockbusters. They are almost everytime way, way higher then the scores from the people whom financed thos movies. That doesnt mean, that the movies always got 100% :) .
And yep, Expendables is boring and could have been really good. But the script had no groove and the actors didnt have their karma anymore.
So this shows that woke movies are not always going to get favorable reviews then? More likely but not always. Let me ask why is it okay for critics to have a bias for things like the King's Speech then? I never said they always got 100%. I said some of them got straight up panned. Such as the live action Lion King, Aladdin Dumbo and Rise of Skywalker.
Expendables was absolute trash! I hat those movies with a passion. They are nothing more than nostalgia bait. Why watch that when you can watch any John Wick films, The Raid, The Raid 2, Dredd among many others that are far better than that trash.
Cause Kings Speech was a good movie :) . I even got that one on BluRay. And their bias back then was also a problem, cause they usually hated entertainment movies. Or at least gave them lower ratings. Whats indeed incredible stupid, cause both kind of movies can be, within their parameters, good or bad. For example Raiders Of The Lost Ark was way, way better then a good character centred movie like Kings Speech. On the opther side a movie like "The old man and the sea" was way better then Casino Royale (just to show that neither entertainment nor "serious" movies are better per se). That was the problem with the real critics back then. But this behaviour had at least one advantage: Raiders of the lost ark had a huge PR budget. So it didnt mattered anyway what they stated about this movie. But small movies like "Kings Speech" need any support they could get. And thats why their support for "serious" movies was a good thing and helped kickstarting the indie movie scene.
But todays access journalists on the other side are just afraid about their jobs. You could see their frustration when they sometimes get movies from smaller studios and try to destroy them with everything they have. Cause this small studio doesnt mean any risk for their jobs at all :) . So yes, real critics back then ha their problems too indeed-. But at least they had some good side (wouldnt had seen many good movies otherwise).
BTW Interesting discussion. Not so common on such platforms :) . Especially when woke is on of the topics of the discussion :) .
King's Speech is a good movie but my issue is I feel it is a very fail safe film. You have all the pieces in place all you have to do is not screw up and do it competently. Where as a film that is scifi, horror or fantasy leaves no room for error. Even the slightest problem you will get dinged on. See so to be honest I used to always get annoyed by this bias. Why did The Dark Knight not even receive a best picture nomination? I can even see it not winning but no nomination? Black Panther broke that mold in but unfortunately it was for political reasons rather than the quality of the film. The Dark Knight should have received a best picture nomination. I would even been fine with Logan getting a best pic nomination.
Casino Royale I love. Anyways any movie can be good or bad. Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film but it is good. Ghostbusters 2016 is a feminist film but it is trash. Just because something is big budget or mainstream does not mean it is by default worse than some indie film as you said. The LOTR trilogy is a prime example of great films that are high budget fantasy.
I get your point. I just wish people would try to be more fair. I mean I have my preferences but I try to remain logical when measuring quality. I enjoy a film that is well made regardless of what it is. I like Ripley as a action heroin because even though she is female she is not overpowered.
I understand your point. But I was really surprised when Lord Of The Rings (I presume it was part III) won an big Oscar. It was an unwritten law back then that entertainment movies dont get the main Oscar. I dont say that Lord Of The Rings movies were bad (Iliked them all, beside that im not a fan :) ). Cause there were (IMHO :) ) better movies which also lost against "serious" movies. I took a few years to "forgive" Gandhi that it took the Oscars away from E. T. :) (to be serious E. T. was an awesome movie, cause it was done for group of ages. That story of the divorced single mother for adults. The SciFi parts for the teens. And E. T. itself for the kids. so smart and so fine connected by the master himself).
However :) ..... I would like to state Thelma and Louise as an awesome feminist movie. Indeed men are not often as bad as they were shown in this movie. But that doesnt matter at all, cause this wasnt a documentary ;) and it was about the friendship between this 2 women.
And yep, Ripley (or also WonderWoman) has shown that female main characters are awesome within action movies. Cause the story and the character development is believable. Whereas most of todays female main character movies are done by people .... which obviously never had visited a movie college before.
For the love of Christ dude, all the OP was doing was pointing out how RT doesn't seem to reflect audience/fan opinions much these days. Get off your pedestal.
shareF9, Live action Lion King, Live action Aladdin, Live action Dumbo, Space Jam a New Legacy I could go on but yeah.
sharesame with imdb , even the user reviews.
imdb deletes user reviews they don't agree with.
Who "they" are is still a mystery, but must be someone with ties to the movie business/Hollywood
yup, usually they will mass delete 1 Star reviews...
shareThat's because 1 star reviews are usually from troll mobs wanting to down-vote a movie on purpose.
You may hate a movie but very rarely it will actually warrant a classification of 1 or 2 stars out of 10.
Do they delete 10 star reviews for the same reason?
sharewhat if I dislike a movie and want to give it a 1?
if movies dont deserve a 1 rating then likewise neither should a movie get a 9 or 10.
so basically the rating system would have to be changed to 3 thru 8, but then again 3 would be the lowest and then that would get deleted to, so we would have to change it to 4,5 or 6. certainly no movie deserves a 4. so basically all movies would get a rating of 5.
There are fairly common algorithms that can identify troll accounts, that only vote 10s and 1s.
Normal people can vote 1 to a movie, which will be about 2 or 3 movies in the hundreds of movies they've seen, and it'll be ok.
seems disingenuous of public rating sites like RT though, if they can delete ratings, then whats the point and what is the true rating? after the debacle of Captain Marvel, I think a lot of people realized that rating sites are meaningless.
even The Interview was artificially inflated to a 10, because everyone was upset that it wasnt be released in theaters. I am guessing all the high reviews were deleted cause now its a 6.5.
but anyways, using RT as source for how successful or not a movie is pointless now.