4 ms·

The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that - I suspect- the studios are perfectly able to influence the professional reviewers. Or, more probably, professional re

by Udik 11y ago

The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that - I suspect- the studios are perfectly able to influence the professional reviewers. Or, more probably, professional reviewers adjust their expectations and judgments on the type of movie they're reviewing. The end result is that every recent shiny pile-of-crap produced by Hollywood gets enthusiastic reviews and therefore excellent scores on RT. Gravity: RT score 97% 2001 A Space Odissey: RT score 96% The Martian: RT score 93% Blade Runner: RT score 89% If you're looking for an alternative, I use http://www.criticker.com http://www.criticker.com. It calculates expected movie ratings based on your previous ratings, it's a much better way to decide what's worth seeing and what is not.

ciaranm 11y ago
I thought the Martian was excellent. You'll notice that the user-rated % is higher than the critics, at 94%. From the video game aggregation space, you tend to see the type of thing you're suggesting (games that are big-budget-questionably-reviewed) have _much_ lower user-scores than critics. I would be surprised if user-rated movies was different.
- Udik 11y ago
  De gustibus non est disputandum. At least, not on HN. However, would you put The Martian almost on par with 2001? Would you rate it more than Blade Runner? I wouldn't do either, no way. As for the video games space, well, I don't know it enough. But I suppose you could argue that video games are different from movies in that they require a much higher level of engagement, both in terms of time and concentration - not to mention the monetary investment. So it is reasonable that they are evaluated more thoroughly by their users and that whatever hype surrounds them has a lower impact of their final rating.
  - octo_t 11y ago
    To be honest, I preferred the martian to 2001. Might have just been the mindset that I watched 2001 in, but it felt the like 3 or 4 films in one and sort of dragged. Although I would rate Blade Runner higher than the martian. Your mileage may vary, one size does not fit all etc etc.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, but it has some serious problems, almost all of which are due to it being based on a Philip K. Dick novel.
      - Jedd 11y ago
        Is the problem that it was based (rather than accurately translated from the book), or that the novel was written by Philip K Dick?
        moron4hire 11y ago
        PKD is the problem. Most of his stories are a few action sequences (where he ruins the pace with internal dialog and flashbacks) padded by the main protagonist sitting around in some altered state, complaining about the women in his life. His male villains are to be revered: they are cunning and intelligent. But even his "not evil" female characters are meant to be loathed: duplicitous, unfaithful, nagging. It would be one thing if this were just one book, you might argue those are just those particular characters. But it's a theme across his books, one that thankfully often gets removed or toned down in the movie adaptations. PKD is a misogynist. He is the author who changed my mind about how misogyny works and just how pervasive it actually is. In Blade Runner's case, "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" is not a coherent book. Blade Runner went a long way towards improving the cohesiveness of the plot, even regarding the ambiguous components: they are intentionally ambiguous now. The action scenes that Deckard practically walks through in the book have real impact and danger in the movie. And Ridley Scott thankfully just killed Deckard's wife off completely, making her a symbol of nostalgia and mourning, rather than contempt. Oh, and they completely skipped the weird religious VR experience sub-plot that never amounted to anything in the book anyway.
  - lmm 11y ago
    I haven't seen The Martian yet but I'd put Gravity well above Blade Runner. I found Blade Runner really dragged, and I found the characters impossible to relate to or care about. I was actually quite surprised as I'd expected to enjoy it (e.g. I loved Ex Machina). I think it's easy to miss how much general improvement there's been in moviemaking. I accompanied my mother to see The Transporter Refuelled a few weeks ago, and by 2015 standards it's dreck. But at the same time I was amazed by how polished everything was; the pacing, the movement, even the terrible dialogue was only terrible because it was doing clunky exposition. In some ways it was better than a good film from 20 years ago, and compared to a bad old film like say Armed and Dangerous it was night and day.
    - cdelsolar 11y ago
      Gravity is one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen. So yes, agreed.
  - EdiX 11y ago
    At least, not on HN. However, would you put The Martian almost on par with 2001? Would you rate it more than Blade Runner? I wouldn't do either, no way. If you interpret the rating as probability of that a randomly selected person will enjoy the movie then yes. I would probably rate it higher than both.
animal531 11y ago
You select some odd movies to pick on. 2001 was a classic. Sure, for viewing it as a modern audience it has way too many issues to score anywhere near a 90, but for its time the score was more than warranted. The Martian I haven't seen yet, but according to general consensus it seems to be pretty good. Blade Runner is another classic, the fact that it didn't score in the 90's is surprising. Some people didn't like Gravity at all, but I really did. I would easily have given it a 90 myself.
- Lewton 11y ago
  It wasn't completely clear from his post but he was saying that Gravity shouldn't be in the same ranks as 2001, and that The Martian shouldn't be in the same ranks as Blade Runner.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bcgraham 11y ago
RT's Tomatometer or Metacritic's Metascore are not measures of film worth as a kind of "atomic weight." Tomatometer, in particular, is a statement about how many reviewers gave a positive review, without regard to each reviewer's depth of feeling. Imagine three movies: First: 90% of reviewers gave 5/5, 10% of reviewers gave 1/5. Second: 90% of reviewers gave 3/5, 10% of reviewers gave 2/5. Third: 80% of reviewers gave 5/5, 20% of reviewers gave 1/5. First movie: Almost all reviewers raved about the movie - it's probably good. Second movie: Not a single reviewer loved or hated it; it's probably pretty bland. Third movie: vast majority of reviewers loved it, and the rest hated it. It's not as sure a bet as the first, but all of the reviewers reacted strongly to it. Would you rather see the second or third movie? I'd rather see the third. For example, is The Avengers (92%)[1] really a better executed, more worthwhile film than Cloud Atlas (66%)[2]? Metacritic handles this a little better, because the reviewer score is weighted, not just a +1 or -1. However, it still has the problem of 90%/10% and 60%/40% both averaging to 50%. No number-crunching, but I have a suspicion that studios are getting better and better about shotgunning out enough chum to different types of reviewers to effectively game those numbers, which is how you arrive at RT scores like those you present. [1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/ [2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloud_atlas_2012/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloud_atlas_2012/ Roger Ebert wrote about Cloud Atlas: "Surely this is one of the most ambitious films ever made. ... Anywhere you go where movie people gather, it will be discussed."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- isleyaardvark 11y ago
  Exactly, it's more a measure of broad appeal than quality.
chrismcb 11y ago
One thing to keep in mind is Rotten Tomatoes isn't a ranking. A movie that gets a 100% rating COULD be just a "good" movie, but not a perfect movie. 100% just means that every review consider it in a "positive" light. Not that every review thought it was the best movie ever made. The numbers can't really be compared to each other. Another thing to keep in mind is the number of reviewers. 2001 had 70, while Gravity had 306. 2001 had 3 "negative" reviews while Gravity had 10.

by Udik 11y ago

ciaranm 11y ago

I thought the Martian was excellent. You'll notice that the user-rated % is higher than the critics, at 94%. From the video game aggregation space, you tend to see the type of thing you're suggesting (games that are big-budget-questionably-reviewed) have _much_ lower user-scores than critics. I would be surprised if user-rated movies was different.

Udik 11y ago
De gustibus non est disputandum. At least, not on HN. However, would you put The Martian almost on par with 2001? Would you rate it more than Blade Runner? I wouldn't do either, no way. As for the video games space, well, I don't know it enough. But I suppose you could argue that video games are different from movies in that they require a much higher level of engagement, both in terms of time and concentration - not to mention the monetary investment. So it is reasonable that they are evaluated more thoroughly by their users and that whatever hype surrounds them has a lower impact of their final rating.
- octo_t 11y ago
  To be honest, I preferred the martian to 2001. Might have just been the mindset that I watched 2001 in, but it felt the like 3 or 4 films in one and sort of dragged. Although I would rate Blade Runner higher than the martian. Your mileage may vary, one size does not fit all etc etc.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, but it has some serious problems, almost all of which are due to it being based on a Philip K. Dick novel.
    - Jedd 11y ago
      Is the problem that it was based (rather than accurately translated from the book), or that the novel was written by Philip K Dick?
      - moron4hire 11y ago
        PKD is the problem. Most of his stories are a few action sequences (where he ruins the pace with internal dialog and flashbacks) padded by the main protagonist sitting around in some altered state, complaining about the women in his life. His male villains are to be revered: they are cunning and intelligent. But even his "not evil" female characters are meant to be loathed: duplicitous, unfaithful, nagging. It would be one thing if this were just one book, you might argue those are just those particular characters. But it's a theme across his books, one that thankfully often gets removed or toned down in the movie adaptations. PKD is a misogynist. He is the author who changed my mind about how misogyny works and just how pervasive it actually is. In Blade Runner's case, "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" is not a coherent book. Blade Runner went a long way towards improving the cohesiveness of the plot, even regarding the ambiguous components: they are intentionally ambiguous now. The action scenes that Deckard practically walks through in the book have real impact and danger in the movie. And Ridley Scott thankfully just killed Deckard's wife off completely, making her a symbol of nostalgia and mourning, rather than contempt. Oh, and they completely skipped the weird religious VR experience sub-plot that never amounted to anything in the book anyway.
- lmm 11y ago
  I haven't seen The Martian yet but I'd put Gravity well above Blade Runner. I found Blade Runner really dragged, and I found the characters impossible to relate to or care about. I was actually quite surprised as I'd expected to enjoy it (e.g. I loved Ex Machina). I think it's easy to miss how much general improvement there's been in moviemaking. I accompanied my mother to see The Transporter Refuelled a few weeks ago, and by 2015 standards it's dreck. But at the same time I was amazed by how polished everything was; the pacing, the movement, even the terrible dialogue was only terrible because it was doing clunky exposition. In some ways it was better than a good film from 20 years ago, and compared to a bad old film like say Armed and Dangerous it was night and day.
  - cdelsolar 11y ago
    Gravity is one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen. So yes, agreed.
- EdiX 11y ago
  At least, not on HN. However, would you put The Martian almost on par with 2001? Would you rate it more than Blade Runner? I wouldn't do either, no way. If you interpret the rating as probability of that a randomly selected person will enjoy the movie then yes. I would probably rate it higher than both.

animal531 11y ago

You select some odd movies to pick on. 2001 was a classic. Sure, for viewing it as a modern audience it has way too many issues to score anywhere near a 90, but for its time the score was more than warranted. The Martian I haven't seen yet, but according to general consensus it seems to be pretty good. Blade Runner is another classic, the fact that it didn't score in the 90's is surprising. Some people didn't like Gravity at all, but I really did. I would easily have given it a 90 myself.

Lewton 11y ago
It wasn't completely clear from his post but he was saying that Gravity shouldn't be in the same ranks as 2001, and that The Martian shouldn't be in the same ranks as Blade Runner.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

bcgraham 11y ago

RT's Tomatometer or Metacritic's Metascore are not measures of film worth as a kind of "atomic weight." Tomatometer, in particular, is a statement about how many reviewers gave a positive review, without regard to each reviewer's depth of feeling. Imagine three movies: First: 90% of reviewers gave 5/5, 10% of reviewers gave 1/5. Second: 90% of reviewers gave 3/5, 10% of reviewers gave 2/5. Third: 80% of reviewers gave 5/5, 20% of reviewers gave 1/5. First movie: Almost all reviewers raved about the movie - it's probably good. Second movie: Not a single reviewer loved or hated it; it's probably pretty bland. Third movie: vast majority of reviewers loved it, and the rest hated it. It's not as sure a bet as the first, but all of the reviewers reacted strongly to it. Would you rather see the second or third movie? I'd rather see the third. For example, is The Avengers (92%)[1] really a better executed, more worthwhile film than Cloud Atlas (66%)[2]? Metacritic handles this a little better, because the reviewer score is weighted, not just a +1 or -1. However, it still has the problem of 90%/10% and 60%/40% both averaging to 50%. No number-crunching, but I have a suspicion that studios are getting better and better about shotgunning out enough chum to different types of reviewers to effectively game those numbers, which is how you arrive at RT scores like those you present. [1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/ [2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloud_atlas_2012/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cloud_atlas_2012/ Roger Ebert wrote about Cloud Atlas: "Surely this is one of the most ambitious films ever made. ... Anywhere you go where movie people gather, it will be discussed."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
isleyaardvark 11y ago
Exactly, it's more a measure of broad appeal than quality.

chrismcb 11y ago

One thing to keep in mind is Rotten Tomatoes isn't a ranking. A movie that gets a 100% rating COULD be just a "good" movie, but not a perfect movie. 100% just means that every review consider it in a "positive" light. Not that every review thought it was the best movie ever made. The numbers can't really be compared to each other. Another thing to keep in mind is the number of reviewers. 2001 had 70, while Gravity had 306. 2001 had 3 "negative" reviews while Gravity had 10.