5 ms·

It’s extremely obvious that “top” means “popular and/or most advertised.” In RTs case, "Top" means films no one dislikes it and everybody thought it was at the

by dagw 8y ago

It’s extremely obvious that “top” means “popular and/or most advertised.” In RTs case, "Top" means films no one dislikes it and everybody thought it was at the very least OK. The "problem" with genuinely great films is that they can often be divisive and challenging and generate a lot of strong opinions in both directions, and thus they'll never rate as well on RT.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Which is totally fine, as long as it's understood that way. Nothing wrong with a 'consensus'-type rating.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
I think that's exactly the case the OP has: there's no lack of divisive news at the moment. It's a calm, balanced, quality journalism that's we all are missing.
- beat 8y ago
  I don't think there's any lack of calm, balanced, quality journalism. Rather, there's a lot of politicized rejection of calm, balanced, quality news. You don't have to look too far to find people who think AP (much less BBC or Al Jazeera) is part of some conspiracy or another. As Cobert (I think) said, "Facts have a known liberal bias".
michaelt 8y ago
Looking at the RT top 100 list, 76 films are from 2010 or later, 6 from 2000-2009, and 18 from earlier. Were films a lot more divisive before 2010?
- rhino369 8y ago
  RT top list appears to be more than just a ranking my Tomatometer score. It looks like they are somehow including popularity or number of reviews.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > Were films a lot more divisive before 2010? Honestly? Yeah, I think so. I'm not saying RT's rankings necessarily reflects this, but I think modern movies in general are a lot less daring than what hollywood used to produce. Probably after 2008 or so, but near enough to 2010, it seems they stopped taking risks on movies and really started to search out the lowest common denominator to have the greatest shot at mass market appeal, even when that meant gutting the plot, degrading the sophistication of dialogue. SFX budgets have gone through the roof, movies are filled with explosions and vivid colors, but little that stimulates the mind. Even the exceptions that most would hold up as poignant movies are generally quite mundane, almost always appealing to the most popular public sentiments. Consider Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) at number 7 on that list, and Mad Max (1979). 2015 has no shortage of explosions and vivid colors to keep anybody glued to their seat and eating popcorn; the movie watcher doesn't have to put forth any amount of effort to enjoy it, they could walk in half way through the movie, look at their smartphone 90% of the movie, and still enjoy the small slivers of the movie they did see because the movie was made to be as widely accessible as possible, even to philistines who don't pay attention to movies they pay to watch. Mad Max (1979) on the other hand doesn't make it onto this Top 100 list. RT gives it 90% from critics and 70% from audiences, which hints at why. 1979 is not as easy for the casual modern tech-induced attention deficit disorder afflicted movie consumer to enjoy. It's very far from non-stop action; it asks the viewer to pay attention even when things aren't exploding on screen. It's excellent, but the industry won't make another Mad Max like that again in the foreseeable future. They don't take risks like that anymore; not when littering the movie with 500% more explosions is so cheap and is so effective at shoring up the profit potential of a movie.
- goto11 8y ago
  If you look at the percentages you will notice the older movies have higher approval scores. But the algorithm also weighs number of reviews, and newer have more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by dagw 8y ago

TulliusCicero 8y ago

Which is totally fine, as long as it's understood that way. Nothing wrong with a 'consensus'-type rating.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

I think that's exactly the case the OP has: there's no lack of divisive news at the moment. It's a calm, balanced, quality journalism that's we all are missing.

beat 8y ago
I don't think there's any lack of calm, balanced, quality journalism. Rather, there's a lot of politicized rejection of calm, balanced, quality news. You don't have to look too far to find people who think AP (much less BBC or Al Jazeera) is part of some conspiracy or another. As Cobert (I think) said, "Facts have a known liberal bias".

michaelt 8y ago

Looking at the RT top 100 list, 76 films are from 2010 or later, 6 from 2000-2009, and 18 from earlier. Were films a lot more divisive before 2010?

rhino369 8y ago
RT top list appears to be more than just a ranking my Tomatometer score. It looks like they are somehow including popularity or number of reviews.
darkpuma 8y ago
> Were films a lot more divisive before 2010? Honestly? Yeah, I think so. I'm not saying RT's rankings necessarily reflects this, but I think modern movies in general are a lot less daring than what hollywood used to produce. Probably after 2008 or so, but near enough to 2010, it seems they stopped taking risks on movies and really started to search out the lowest common denominator to have the greatest shot at mass market appeal, even when that meant gutting the plot, degrading the sophistication of dialogue. SFX budgets have gone through the roof, movies are filled with explosions and vivid colors, but little that stimulates the mind. Even the exceptions that most would hold up as poignant movies are generally quite mundane, almost always appealing to the most popular public sentiments. Consider Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) at number 7 on that list, and Mad Max (1979). 2015 has no shortage of explosions and vivid colors to keep anybody glued to their seat and eating popcorn; the movie watcher doesn't have to put forth any amount of effort to enjoy it, they could walk in half way through the movie, look at their smartphone 90% of the movie, and still enjoy the small slivers of the movie they did see because the movie was made to be as widely accessible as possible, even to philistines who don't pay attention to movies they pay to watch. Mad Max (1979) on the other hand doesn't make it onto this Top 100 list. RT gives it 90% from critics and 70% from audiences, which hints at why. 1979 is not as easy for the casual modern tech-induced attention deficit disorder afflicted movie consumer to enjoy. It's very far from non-stop action; it asks the viewer to pay attention even when things aren't exploding on screen. It's excellent, but the industry won't make another Mad Max like that again in the foreseeable future. They don't take risks like that anymore; not when littering the movie with 500% more explosions is so cheap and is so effective at shoring up the profit potential of a movie.
goto11 8y ago
If you look at the percentages you will notice the older movies have higher approval scores. But the algorithm also weighs number of reviews, and newer have more.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]