Rotten Tomatoes is the most rudimentary dumb rating system available

Submitted by t3_12757rh in movies

Just wanted to express how I hate Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, how can people take seriously a system based on Good or Bad as the only options of rating? If a movie is good but not excellent it will be just be seen as a bad movie. I can’t even count the amount of excellent movies that have bad rating in Rotten Tomatoes. Akira Kurosawa’s Dreams and Kikujiro are just some examples. MUBI and IMDB are probably the most accurate websites in my opinion

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

t1_jecobs3 wrote

It's simply what percentage of critics recommend seeing it, how can that be a bad rating system? If you don't care about critics recommendations then you shouldn't be looking at any rating system to begin with.

31

t1_jecr8he wrote

I find that how much I like a movie usually coincides pretty close to RT ratings. Pretty much any movie I hate is below 25% and almost any movie I love is above 75%.

People love to dismiss it, but I find it helpful.

That said, Metacritic ratings make me think "seriously?" though. It takes a lot to break 80% there.

4

t1_jecwfj4 wrote

Fuck me with a pitchfork, I wish mods would ban these threads on sight.

Don’t make the fact that you don’t understand how Rotten Tomatoes actually works everyone else’s problem.

15

t1_jecmqyy wrote

You should never take any rating system seriously as your preferences can differentiate from the ones that critics have. IMDB ratings are just as flawed from a qualitative standpoint

14

OP t1_jecnb8y wrote

At least gives IMDB usually give films a reasonable score, since it’s not very limited. It understands 5 as average, 7 as good, anything over 8 is great. Nothing reaches 10

−11

t1_jecnmv1 wrote

The problem is movie studios use shills to fill IMDB ratings with 10’s and critical users use shills to fill them with 1’s. IMDB is very-much bottom tier when it comes to rating manipulation.

10

t1_jecpt03 wrote

IMDb isn’t terrible but you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt.

Nerds review bombing things over their various dumb outrages has become a bit too common on IMDb lately too.

3

t1_jeco7iz wrote

Absolutely this. It seems imdb ratings almost skew to average being around a 7 and anything bad is a 6 or below. All of these sites leave me wanting but some are easier for shills to manipulate.

2

OP t1_jecnujr wrote

That’s why the best overall is MUBI. It’s just people who like movies and take it seriously

−2

t1_jecovb3 wrote

I just looked into Mubi and they display nothing but art house and classic films on the site. Can’t even find user reviews. How is this more reliable for major films?

9

t1_jecrdps wrote

It’s a rating of what percentage of critics think it’s worth watching, not a rating of how good the movie is on an objective scale.

That’s a useful tool.

A movie can be fantastic but only for a very limited audience. A movie can be ‘ok’ but a fun watch for everyone.

Also remember that the older the movie, the fewer reviews tend to be available, especially for foreign films. Additionally all reviews are products of their time.

8

t1_jecn64l wrote

Yet I still heavily rely on those ratings scores. I'm ashamed of myself.

3

t1_jecp352 wrote

Why do you need anything from critics other than “yeah I think it’s worth watching” or “no i don’t think it’s worth watching.” That is the purpose of critics. That is their only purpose.

3

t1_jedd87r wrote

You can see at a glance the reviews and scores that make it up you know.

3

t1_jee5n1k wrote

The problem is you not understanding how Rotten Tomatoes works. If a hundred critics saw a movie and 60 did not like, Rotten Tomatoes said 40 percent. It means 40 critics liked a movie. It is not a fucking grade like high school and doesn't represent overall quality of said endeavor. It also doesn't mean you can't like something critics did not.

Furthermore, critics don't need to justify their existence when you disagree with them. That is an annoying side effect of this argument. "I disagree with the critics on said movie, and because I'm the only one with a brain, the critics are wrong. Therefore, they don't need to have a job."

Have you ever thought you are in the wrong if you like something critics didn't? You obviously like garbage and they don't.

3

t1_jedc4r6 wrote

Newer movies have more reviews.

Overall, it shows how popular or mass appeal a movie has. The likelihood that a person likes it.

Another reason why comedy movies are so divisive.

2

t1_jedg7a6 wrote

Because the Tomatometer is not a rating system.

They actually so show the average rating when you click on the score for more info, but no one really talks about that.

2

t1_jeconzu wrote

I don't use Rotten Tomatoes nor IMDB tbh. I can never trust these so called "critics". It just gives you a ballpark of the quality of the movie but try to find a critic you like and resonate with and watch their reviews for movies.

1

t1_jecqpt7 wrote

IMDB is absolutely useless for anything with a woman or anybody not white in the marketing. The split second some Youtube grifter plugs that title into his madlibbed ragebait for the week, it's over.

1

t1_jed4htg wrote

I've never given them a thought. Pretty worthless rating system.

1

t1_jecq0as wrote

Well prior to this system from somewhere around 2000 , you had Siskel and Ebert on the local news or Sundays. Sooo for the time it was an improvement. The question now is , what’s better? Movie phone?

0

t1_jeco8ye wrote

People with an IQ above 100 switched to Metacritic years ago.

−8