Why Rotten Tomatoes scores don't mean what they seem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2017
- It’s about consensus, not quality.
Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO
EDIT: At 2:57, a previous version of this video mistakenly featured a clip from Atonement. The video has since been updated to feature a clip of Dunkirk.
The Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer maintains high status in today’s Hollywood. A certified fresh badge can act like a marketing tool for a film. So filmmakers are sensitive to how their work fares on the platform. But the Tomatometer number you see measures something different than quality - it measures consensus.
Earlier this summer, some executives criticized the platform, saying that critics tanked their summer hits. Films like Baywatch, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, and The Mummy all performed below expectations at the box office. Hollywood needed a scapegoat. Because Fandango, one of the largest online ticket-distributors, features the tomatometer at the point-of purchase, Rotten Tomatoes seemed the perfect target for the ire of executives.
But when you look closely at how Rotten Tomatoes works, it becomes clear that the service is mainly good at measuring critical consensus, not quality. That’s due to how the Tomatometer is calculated.
To read more about how Rotten Tomatoes works, you can read this article from Alissa Wilkinson: www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/31...
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.
Check out our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
Or on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Read more on how Rotten Tomatoes works from Vox's Alissa Wilkinson: www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/31/16107948/rotten-tomatoes-explainer-critics-movies-aggregation
Vox great video , hey can you guys make a explainer video about Japan's snap Election there's new parties popping up making it unpredictable and don't understand who's who
Interesting that Alissa says in the article that "Most critics consider Metacritic a better gauge of critical opinion", yet the narrator seems to feel the opposite.
Why should I care?
Yer sayin' it wrong, like it's two separate words: tomato-meter. As a compound word, the strongest emphasis goes on the syllable in front of 'meter' so it rhymes with speedometer: TOE-muh-TAH-muh-ter.
Vox awesome video. I think this could also be extended to talk about how news organizations run stories. They want to give you the juicy details and often ignore context/nuisance.
Don't judge a movie based on a rotten tomato
Aaron Glisson i wish it was that easy!
Batman vs Superman was terrible. The direction was a mess, dialogue was awful, what a boring plot, too many unexplored subplots. BvS needs to go down as one of the worst movies of all time right next to Suicide Squad.
Benjamin Alan worst movie of all time? it was bad, but not that bad. You haven't seen any movies if you think that.
I think of that too.....im cringing again for that martha scene ugh
Aaron Glisson
Except the emojie movie
The problem with all these rating systems is this: Art is not mathematics.
I totally agree. Art is subjective. This is an idea I have been struggling with. If art is subjective... then does it mean no art can be objectively good or bad ? So depending upon the person who enjoys it anything can be good from that person's perspective even if other people think it is horrible.
Well the aspects of filmmaking most define as ‘objective’ are just many people agreeing on what they want to see in a movie. To most, stuff like a good score, fluid camera movement, and convincing acting are all paramount to a good film. However, there are plenty out there who don’t care about those sorts of things. So yes, all aspects of a film’s quality are technically subjective.
But consensus is
@@MrRdlv You get the point.
Art is still technically mathematical. You do realize that math is used in every aspect of life?
They gave Ghostbusters 2016 a higher rating than Forrest Gump.
Don't forget The Star Wars 2015-2019 Trilogy.
*WAIT WHAT*
It's because more people reviewd it, then a old movie that not Rotten Tomato didn't exist at the time
SYT94828 Gaming they put Black Panther number 1 on their top 100 best films of all times so that pretty much says it
It's all based on the amount of reviews, however they've been caught manipulating results as well. Captain Marvel, Star Wars, and Dark Fate brought that out pretty well. Even if they try to change rules and delete reviews it still doesn't change that woke trash is that... trash.
I find the rotten tomatoes score to be more misleading than IMDB.
@Xtina Rio or metacritic
@@user-iz3nt9fd2t metacritic is the worst in my opinion.
@@johnmccarthy4134 It's the best bro. It's got a rational scoring-system who doesnt give a film a full 10/10 just because it's a popular opinion just like RT. It's very rare for a movie to hit over 90 in MC which is a good sign cause hitting a bullseye on a production film should be equally as hard as winning the Ironman traithlon. And on top of that; all the movies I ever liked has atleast got a rating over 65. So MC is easily the best
Pro tip: read reviews for a different movie, and pretend they are reviews for the movie you're going to watch or have watched. You'll start to notice they never had any actual connection to the films they purport to review.
@@user-iz3nt9fd2t They gave Return of the Jedi 58 of 100
I watch the movie first and then see what the ratings are. I feel like if I look for other people's opinions then my opinion will be affected
U wasted ur money so many times on movies that sucked
Same I go to movies I want to see then read reviews.
Yeah I guess I'm easily influenced by other folk's opinions too, and if critics/audiences ratings are really high I might overhype myself and end up disappointed
That is smart
TheFairy39 agreed
User ratings >> Critic ratings
LotusEater Yeah I go by this as well. I prefer to know what the average person thinks of a movie... Not someone who's been trained and paid to dissect it in detail
Critics also look for different things. A casual watcher is looking to see if the movie makes sense and is enjoyable, while critics always seem to look for great story and action
The Negative One critical analyze the quality of a story and sceenplay. Audience reviews tell us if a movie is enjoyable
Critics analyse the editing, the scriptwriting, the pacing... These are things a casual watcher don’t notice right of the bat
Depends on who you are and who the user or critic is. If the users are mostly teenage boys and you are a teenage boy, then that would apply. If you are someone who has seen many movies and developed more of an appreciation for the nuances, then ratings from critics with similar experience/appreciation will be more valuable.
Rotten tomatoes gave Dave Chappell’s Netflix special sticks and stones a 35% when the audience score was 96%.
They gave cuties a 90% when the audience score was just 3%.
Let that sink in.
Rotten Tomatoes didn't give them anything bruv. It's all from critics. That's been explained to you.
Critic reviews are usually opposite of average person reviews
@@tom4150 The critics have at least usually seen the films they're rating. Can't say the same for the review bombers.
@@ghostnote1678 and critics get paid lol
@@kanoaikawach yeah and rotten tomatoes spawned a ton of critics after the woke backlash. So it is rotten tomatoes at the end
I want this dude to narrate my death
rotten
@@qtaro-7097 your analysis checks out.
ask Siri to do it. lol
Fr he’ll make me sound important and interesting
This is why you need a toothbrush.
EpicMarioBros #psat
S W E E T A N D VOLATILE
I came here looking for this
S Odeste same
toothbrush,baking soda,mouthwash,danmit tomatoes
Are "Rotten Tomatoes" name a reference to tomatoes that public throws at actors who made a terrible play?
smart
ThruThe9 he's a Rick and Morty fan. Of course he's smart.
SHADY3k I hope you meant this ironically.
90's Rick dis you ask a question that you already knew the answer to?
I asked a question, this is why I use question mark "?".
“Customer Reviews” are the best. I’ve seen films get a very low Rotten Tomato review, yet get a almost perfect customer review.
Kind of depends on whether your tastes align with critics or the everyday person. I'm super picky and need high-level craftsmanship most of the time, and for me the critic score has historically been a more reliable gauge. I also suspect that the audience score is more susceptible to low scores due to cancel culture.
@@itswrongtokillanimalsifyou2837 1. The name dude, are you one of those kinds of vegans 2. Rotten tomatoes can be right, but audience score will usually be more accurate because they aren’t deliberately looking for things to criticize, also the cancel culture thing usually isn’t true and you can just look at the actual reviews
I don't trust user reviews either. Get Out has a high audience rating and that movie is boring
Tom you thought Get Out was boring? That movie was freaking awesome. To each their own, I guess
It depends on what you want out of a movie. Critics watch movies from a different perspective than us average joes do. Critics are more focused on the art aspect of films, such as the cinematography, acting, storyline, music score, etc. Whereas when most of us regular people watch a movie, we just want to be entertained. If you’re someone who appreciates the art of films, then listen to the critics. If you’re a simple minded person who is just looking for entertainment, listen to the audiences
Rotten tomatoes is one of the main reasons there’s an epidemic of passable movies in Hollywood right now.
Audience score is worse in that regard
rotten tomatoes isnt the worst offender, netflix is when they changed their reviews.....
The new one's are horrible...
I will never stop being mad at Netflix for that. Now I have to check every show/movie on another site like IMDB first to see whether it's good
MrRedacto How many times do I have to point out that the star system on Netflix wasn’t the average rating that all users gave? It was the algorithm guessing what you were going to rate the film based on what you’ve watched and rated the entire time.
ok so now we cant even see that anymore? why did they get rid of it then?
Yes and it was great.
Rotten tomatoes is a distraction from the GMO grown tomatoes poor health rating.. When the files leaked from the EPA they conducted this website to distract us from it and make It look like they were talking about movies. Oh I also have no idea what I'm talking about. Keep asking questions
Tomatoes are only red because they put PIGS BLOOD IN IT! IT'S NOT VEGETARIAN SAFF!!!!! Lol idk
Damn the commies.
Also, tomato is a fruit, but them grocers treat it as a veggie, hence its place in the veggie section. Hey oh, hey ho,Racism gotta go! 🌚
Your channel... I think I love it
I'm here after I realized RT gave Interstellar 72% while Gravity got a 96%. Just angered me !
I like the movie gravity, but a 72% for interstellar is blasphemous
Gravity isn't a high concept movie like Interstellar. Maybe that's why...
that seems about right. interstellar is a good spectacle movie, while gravity is masterfully written and directed. the latter deserves a higher critic rating.
@@frogery
I think its the other way around
@@goat6354 me too
Ricegum took the L
DavidVsNorm so random
if he could pronounce it
And the D
You mean the R? ;)
what does this irrelevant comment have to deal with Vox or this video
I trust IMDB because most of the time after watch a movie, when I read about it online, their score seems to be more reasonable.
Just look at both site's top 250 Lists. IMDb is miles better simply because it uses everyone's 1-10 quality ratings, instead of simply good/bad which don't go into _how_ good or _how_ bad, and thus brilliant movies never ever make its Top 300 movies but consistently-rated 7/10 movies do.
if you look at the data its the other way around I think the average score on Imdb is 7, which says something
Mujtaba Ibrahim people are rating movies either a 1/10 or a 10/10 before the movie even comes out. I don’t trust it at all
Mujtaba Ibrahim I absolutely agree, IMDB is what I trust most when it comes to the audience in the movie industry.
IMDB "usually" plagued by fanboys who overrated their fave film so when the movie came out it's usually have high score but dwindle overtime after more people watched it.
What's the problem, the idea is fresh mean decent so take a chance. Rotten pretty much mean stay away. It's just for people who want to choose a movie and eliminate the worst at first glance.
Yeah I'm really not sure what the problem is that this video's trying to bring up. Like, sure, Alien: Covenant and Moonlight both got the Fresh label, but literally everyone pays more attention to the percentage. And in the Dunkirk and Get Out example, I mean, if there's less agreement among critics, then shouldn't that mean it's something you have more of a chance of disliking than a movie with full agreement of its quality?
MrLucarioisnumber1 problem why people don't go see their movies is because cinema is becoming restauration, food is so expensive + the price of the ticket. You become really selective about the movies you want to go see. Also like they say in the video there's much more movies made today so rotten tomatoes give you the opportunity to say I won't take a chance on this movie because the overall consensus is that it's bad. When they make the example of Alien vs Moonlight it doesn't matter which one is better, the fact that it's fresh only mean it's alright take a chance on it there's a good chance you might like it. It's not about which one is better since they don't appeal to the same clientele anyway, when people look for a movie they watch the trailer, oh that seem interesting oh it's fresh let's take a chance on it or oh it's rotten I don't know I might choose something else since I don't want to waste my money. Even if it get's a 98% approval it doesn't mean you'll enjoy the movie anyway. People who really enjoy cinema and are looking for the gems, special creative movies, are become really rare, because the cinema industries is a joke with the expensive prices. That's why great movies don't do too good at the box office.
The problem is that a good portion of the movies I like are rated rotten, and plenty I dislike are rated fresh or certified fresh. I don't even mean movies that aren't to my tastes, I mean movies I think were broadly bad. You shouldn't use any rating system as anything more than one data point in a web of information.
Drunken Master II Batman v Superman is rotten. But i like it, so did many other people. So their system is flawed.
I feel like that's not really the intended usage though. The percentage meter is almost like just a percentage of how many people liked the movie. Literally it says nothing about the quality or content, all it says is that a percentage people liked or didn't like it. The only way this kind of system can work is if you interpret it like a probability reading that you'll also like the movie. I mean, it's never going to be a certainty, obviously, but I don't think that's what they ever intended it to be. It's not a measure of a movie's quality, even if it's aggregating critical rating data, it's purely talking about how many people enjoyed it.
Sponsored by The Emoji Movie.
George Saville how
@@hi-cz8zd bc they got a 10% rotten tomatoe score
😂 I was looking for this
@@hi-cz8zd lol
@@evawoodcock6392 actually they got 7%
They gave the 2019 Aladdin a higher rating then the 1995 Jumanji.
2% rotten than a cash grabbing remake
Nothing wrong here
IMDB is the best. Here's a key to interpret their ratings for movies:
8-10 Guaranteed to be good at the very least, usually great, includes most of the best movies ever.
7-7.9 Usually solid, worth watching, can be great if it's your type of movie
6-6.9 Mixed bag, usually not great, but can be some gems if it's your type of movie
0-5.9 Crap, but can include some cult classics and all the best 'bad' movies
*Indian movies are skewed way higher so their ratings are unreliable when comparing with all other movies according to this scale. Also, some classics are highly rated largely because they're classics and don't stand up to our modern conception of what makes a good movie. Of course if a movie has less than 30,000 or so ratings it's also less reliable.
What about when lots of people spam one movie with the same rating? (RIP A Dog's Purpose whenever the book was written - 2017)
Nitro Indigo Yeah those exceptions happen sometimes, but it seems like they usually balance out after a while. For example wasn't The Dark Knight at like 9.8 for a while right after the release cause of all the fanboys?
Are Korean /Japanese movies are skewed too? since I saw their IMDB are quite high.
i find that 6-7 is a good solid rating for horror films, anything higher than that is ussually overrated imo
enas .kusuma For the ones I've seen the ratings were justified IMO. Check out Oldboy (the original) or Memories of Murders. If you're talking about the older ones I'd say any gripe with their rating has more to do with their age than their nationality.
i like rotten tomatoes. if the movie is rated fresh you can at least be sure that it's worth looking into individual reviews to see if it's something you would like.
Not always the case. Great films have gotten rotten status.
Maria Cruz I can't think of a single rotten film that I've seen that was "great". Maybe there are some that have cult followings but nothing that is widely considered to be good.
Krombopulos Michael
Taken is considered good( The first one. The second was mediocre and the third was bad).
Krombopulos Michael the only time i don't trust rotten tomatoes is when it comes to comedies. There have been several great comedies that have gotten "rotten" statuses
JackBinger
Rotten tomatoes is often biased toward emotional poignancy so generally, the people who review these comedies there see them as flippant and fleeting and therefore give them bad ratings, even when they could be funny because they value that less.
IMDB'S viewer comments are the best! The comments are always on point and reliable.
The audience score is more accurate imo
Ur rite It is ur getting opinions from all over from different ppl in different life styles an yet they can still come to the same general conclusion about a movie that says alot ... Most time the rotten tomatoes will only have like 17 to 20 reviews from "professionals" an give a horribly slow score bt yet u look at the audience reviews there will b like well over 40k of them an the score will be significantly higher so which one is more reliable something reviewed 20 times or something reviewed 20k or more times scientifically it's the one that's been put to the test more by more then a couple source an a multitude of different scenarios
satougaile If you seriously think that, you probably have an awful taste in movies.
That’s not entirely true. Look at the audience score from rise of skywalker
Nah
I can't believe so few people know how the system works
It's hilarious how some people get mad at Rotten tomatoes specifically for certain ratings..They can disagree with the system but some treat it like a single critic
Yeah I already knew all of this before watching.
I don't believe they don't. I think everyone already does know this.
little people... is that a midget joke?
To be fair, RT makes the Average Rating very hard to spot on Desktop, and doesn't even show it on mobile. If they'd just make it easier to find and see then it'd probably help a lot.
"Why Rotten Tomatoes scores don't mean what we think you think they mean"
Radix lol, so accurate!
Rotten Tomatoes skews ratings. 👎
I so agree they aren't true and only love movies from 2016 which I think is stupid
It seems like they slap a certification on any kids movie with... restroom humor, but if something is legitimately funny without a fart joke every 2 minutes, it gets a rotten score!
Example: The normal people who have watched Ernest movies (including me) absolutely love them, but the critics hate it. I don’t know why? And that unfortunately makes people skip on it, because the select few critics know more about a movie than the many thousands of people who have watched it and laughed over it their entire lives.
it's based off critics. and critics can be bought
@@cypherusuh I think you are exactly right. Rotten Tomatoes gave Widows, Bumblebee and the new Spiderman cartoon a rating in the 90's! I thought all of them stunk. I just saw the new Spiderman and I want to give you a warning...if you are even Close to being epileptic, don't see this movie. Flashing lights, 4 screens at a time, Spiderman can turn invisible (since when?), sticks to everything, (except his tennis shoes), fight after fight after fight . .. I felt sorry for parents who brought their little kids to this movie. I almost got a headache, yawned, could not wait for the ending, but felt obligated to stay. A sad send off to Stan Lee. IMHO.
Man are you like a profit or something because you definitely predicted the future
*Thank you because I never understood the rotten tomatoes rating!!!*
IMDb is by far the best movie rating system. Go ahead and compare IMDb's top 250 with Rotten Tomatoes top 100. You'll see that RT's list doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is because RT translates every "critic" rating as like or dislike as opposed to IMDb's 1-10 rating. Like the video says, this is a very vague representation and ends up with inaccurate scores. IMDb's ratings are higher at first because the people most hyped about the film see it sooner. It doesn't take long for the score to stabilize. I'd rather have my rating based on >1,000,000 detailed scores vs 3,000 vague ones where the score detail is lost.
Also fan ratings on IMDb can change gradually over time whereas critic reviews basically all come out the moment the movie comes out.
That's why some films are rated rotten in their times, but then are later seen as classics, and vice versa.
Imbd top 250 is the bottom of the barrel
IMDB uses the best model, but it has the worst userbase. There are alternatives with a better userbase though. Way better than Rotten Tomatoes or any other alternative.
I think the end of this video really wraps things up nicely. There is no perfect system. For IMDB’s 1-10 system, a person may have a completely different expectation for what a movie that is say a 6 compared to someone else. It’s completely subjective
RIP IMDb forums. Sigh.
I do appreciate how Metacritic has numbered scores beside each reviewer instead of just a tomato or a splat.
Where are the imdb users at?
IMBD let's users review the movie before the movie is even out and a lot of movies already have thousands to tens of thousands of votes before the movies is even out.
BvS got rated to 9/10 before the movie even came out.
365+ films with 100% scores
36+ with 0% scores
436+ with scores from 60% to 99%
For years I've noticed correlations and exceptions regarding my tastes Vs. the user ratings on IMDB. I came to understand a couple of things and now I usually know what to expect based on the combination of movie genre, synopsis and user ratings.
LOL. I just look up the IMDB score. If its 7.5+ its worth watching, 8.5+ I buy a ticket to watch it.
Gursimran Sethi 8.5+ is way too high a standard man. With that criterion, you wouldn’t have watched any of the Harry Potter movies.
I use IMDB. My formula
Amr Momtaz bruh there ain’t no 10s in IMDB
Dylan Gill yeah 10 is just for me (my top 10 fav movies)
My dad does this: if it's anything less then 7 he doesn't even bother with it. 7 to 7.5, he bases if he wants to see it on the summary of the plot. 7.5 to 8, he suggests it to us. Anything over an 8 he will eventually want to see.
I can think of two films off the top of my head that were initially certified "Fresh" and then lost their certification as more reviews came in.
Those two were "mother!" and "Vox Lux".
Gladiator-77%
Interstellar-71%
Forest gump-72% And...
Ghostbusters 2016-74%
Cuties - 88%
I would call film critics sell outs but I can't think of a time when this type of "journalism" ever was what it pretends to be. It's ALL about politics and promotion. They get all their power out of the fact that there's way too much movies out there and people need some direction. That's it. That's all they have.
3:45 you missed a "t" in Seattle Times
seat times
If it looks good, I watch it. Who cares about ratings?
…
_2 hours later_
…
I regret everything. There goes 2 hours of my life…
i only use imdb if it's a movie i haven't heard anything about and if it's above a 7 ill watch it
*when your movie or show gets 0%*
Just to throw it out there... a 6/10 is what counts as a positive review. BvS had a rating of 27% but an average score of 4.9/10. RT can be brutal to okay films. The highest rated films aren’t necessarily the greatest but the ones that are undisputedly good. ToyStory2 had 100%
If you’re not sure on RT look up the scores of movies you have seen and compare those scores to the movie you’re about to see and your own thoughts.
The Shawshank Redemption has a score of 91% and
Forrest Gump had a score of 72%,two of arguably the greatest films of all time doesn't even have a perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Sarcasm ! even the best movies tend to not appeal to literally everyone. I for example dislike Inside Llewyn Davis and it is a very well received movie. The current record though for the largest amount of positive reviews and no negative ones is for Paddington 2 (205 fresh ratings). It has an average rating of 8.7 though, which - while still very good - is not the best from the website.
This video show really what the reviews, break down and concensus of the average really is. Understanding the complexity of those RT scores and what it is or what not. Worth watching.
Between Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and Metacritic, it all depends on your tastes and how you analyse movie.
If you're just an average person who just watch movies for fun and stuff like that, go with IMDB.
If you're looking for people who actually know how to analyse well (for the most part), go with Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Both websites are very similar but, at the same time, very different.
I already have seen a lot of people here who say that IMDB is better than RT. People, this is all just opinions from critics and audiences. Of course, most people would prefer IMDB because they can mostly agree with their opinions. But you guys know that RT and Metacritic are not websites just for critics, right (RT has the Audience Score and Metacritic has the User Score).
Critics and Audiences don't always agree with each other. That's because Audiences don't know how to analyse a movie well. They mostly don't care if the acting, the visuals, the editing, the action scenes, (in action films) or if even the characters are crap as long as there's a plot twist with an emotional music in the background. IMDB user reviews, for example, don't always get what a movie is trying to say and give it a 1/10 and call it Overrated (War for the planet of the Apes is an example).
Critics talk about the entire film and explain why it works/doesn't work for them.
A lot of people don't get them and even say "F*ck you, critics" for not liking a movie they like. Critics don't exist to judge a opinion, they're here to share their opinion.
Critics are not perfect people and i even dissagree with them sometimes but i respect them for what they do.
A normal Guy it is not so much about professional critics or not. The Problem is that the system in itself is not accurate as you can see when you look at the top 100 list of RT. 'Get out' currently on the third place?
Get outta here! You still need to find a professional movie critic that has this movie even in his top 30!
This is where things go wrong. People Only Want to watch, not to Analyse Like a GOD Reviewing the Film. Film is for taking people Easy. The reason people like IMBD Is because they thinks that they Analyse What Fans Really like. Unlike RT where they applaud The Last Jedi for GREAT Writing which we didn't need, considering i'll Predict people wants Badass Lightsaber fight ? Idk.
Disagree, because if after you analyse thoroughly and conclude that it is a good film (e.g. good transitions, dialogue or whatever), then surely a person not analysing thoroughly and just sort of sitting through it would also think it a good film. Because the more intricate parts of a film that needs analysing to see it IS what makes a good film, isn't it? Even if the average watcher might not realise it, it still has that effect on them.
Wrong
Critics are not the basis of a good movie. And Rotten Tomatoes lost all credibility at this point because they sell out for money.
Black Panther is #1 movie ever according to the top 100 Rotten Tomatoes... something is wrong.
Grumpy Sorc It’s not rated #1 on Rotten Tomatoes, it has a 8.3 average rating, which I think is more accurate
@@HugoSoup57 it used to be first and it’s second now in their top 100 which makes no sense at all
This is so dumb... we are aware that it’s percentage of critics who give the movie above a 6/10. If you can’t tell a difference between Moonlight and Alien: Covenant, you don’t need to be watching movies.
If you can't tell the difference then the chances are you have lost your eyesight
It's supposed to be a system for people who haven't seen the movie yet
Thanks for this Vox! I go to the movies pretty often and I probably rely on these ratings a little too much.
Is the rating system the same for flixster users? Users of the website flixster can review movies as well and there is a seperate rating system just for them. I often take the average of the critics score and the users score to determine how good a movie is.
M
Cool bot
Mr. Creasy wow. You're such a tool.
Vincent Champloo lol how so?
Mr. Creasy keep using rotten tomatoes. It's still pretty good. It gives you a sense of what people thought of the movie. If you want to dig deeper just click on the reviews to read what they say, and/or look at other sites to confirm what you found on rotten tomatoes. Also, knowing which actors, directors, cinematographers you like can also lead you towards movies you might enjoy.
Nothing Alissa says holds any value in my book for her take on Alien: Covenant that you displayed. Prime examples of why critics are the weathermen of the film industry where they can be awful at their job and nobody really holds them accountable.
The difference between a weatherman and a film critic is that a weatherman gives you the best guess as to whether you should bring an umbrella out on a given day. A film critic gives you an opinion as to whether you should see a particular film or not. It’s literally objectivity vs subjectivity. Without meteorologists, you’d likely not prepare for a cold night and bring a jacket with you to work. Without a media critic, you wouldn’t have an experienced analysis of a film when you are trying to choose to see one
4:15 Ay that's at the store Uniqlo. I'm pretty proud of myself for catching it.
I believe that people should just rate the movie after they exit the theater. I don't want people to think they have to hate a movie just because a small of people did. I also fear that rating organisations like Rotten Tomatoes may have a political bias, but I am unsure and it is a huge accusation to be made.
That's CinemaScore.
If you can sum up all your thoughts on a movie the second you walk out then you must be watching some very simple very vapid empty movies.
After TLJ its not an accusation xD
I got a tomato sauce ad before this...
I think the problem is just critics who are full of themselves.
Thanks for making this clarifying video; I was under the impression that rotten was just a negative average (e.g. on a rating scale of 0 to 100, 50 or lower) of the reviews, and fresh was a positive average of the reviews. Turns out, that's completely wrong.
The second best way to determine wether you'd like a film (the first best being that you go watch it) is imo to read the best and the worst metacritic summary on imdb. Or look at a critic who generally has the same opinion as you (luckily Metacritic always tells you who wrote the review summary, so you can determine, if you're going to trust their opinion).
Check out the score for "Sharknado." Rotten Tomatoes is to motion picture criticism what Wikipedia is to reliable news sources.
MGR1900 trash sharknado has 82% bu its 3.3 on IMDb..yeah critics are so smart
I don't understand what you are saying.
Tomatometer: 82%
Audience Score: 32%
Critic Consensus: Proudly, shamelessly, and gloriously brainless, Sharknado redefines "so bad it's good" for a new generation.
That all seems to give an accurate representation of the movie.
That's why it's called "Rotten"
Ghostbusters (2016) 74% Certified Fresh... Trolololololo
*100% REAL,*
Nassi ^ well that's the critics, you can't trust them. They are just liberals pushing feminism
Cj Iscool okay mate
It got alot of 6s and 7s
Cj Iscool edgy
I agree, that right-off-the-vine tomato taste is golden #PSATs
I TURNED ON MOST RECENT COMMENTS IN SEARCH OF THIS
Rottentomatos be like: Yeah, we Love Cuties over Mario Movie! *IT'S FOR KIDS!!!!*
The Mario Movie isn't good
The music at the beginning of the video is the same as the "Eyehole" ad from Rick and Morty. Is that tune from some licensed stock source?
How about if a movie looks interesting to you, just watch it and make your own choice whether it's good or bad.
Saw (2004) has a 49%... Do I need to say more?
Billy Cobb yes. I can't really see your point. Did you not watch the video and still don't how how it works? Do you really think thay Saw is a good movie that deserves approval of 100% of the critics? In this case, try watching some more movies that are actually good.
Billy Cobb That's very different from my rating of the movie "Saw", and the movie "Get Out" was not great to me, either, but everyone has (at least slightly) different preferences. That is why I only sometimes base movie viewership by ratings of other people
Horror movies almost always score low with critics, unless it becomes a cult classic, such as The Thing, then it will get revisited years later and given good reviews.
Saw was a masterpiece that may not deserve 100 but still deserves a better score
Outboard's Shack well the average rating is at 7.1 so it's right there where you want the movie to be ...
When I look at reviews, I usually look at the advertising and think about the type of person I expect it to attract (and whether they want to same things I do), then I look at the rating, then I look at what the positive and negative reviews say and see whether the positive and negative raters seem like me, whether the complaints seem like legitimate concerns, legitimate concerns I just happen not to care about, or whining for stupid reasons unrelated to quality, and whether the praise seems like senseless hype, enjoyment of something I don't have in common, or praise for things I could actually enjoy. Or I'll wait to hear from someone with similar tastes I actually know.
It takes a bit of work, but I think the results so far have been pretty good.
The problem I have with IMDb is that they are so often stuffed. And they don't start to become "stable" until several weeks after the movie has already been released. Usually a movie will start high and then drop as it ages. But some films will start really low and then rise as it ages.
Rotten tomatoes gets it right sometimes but rarely. They gave "The joker" a 68% rating and everyone knows that movie is one of the best movies they've ever seen.
I will say ‘joker’ is an interesting case. Not necessarily the movie itself (though yes, thought provoking and great) but because metacritic and RT gave it low scores but an overall star rating was 4 out of 4.
joker wasn't that good.
@@dmc1943 it was a masterpiece
@@ericc5749 it’s a good film, definitely not a masterpiece. It’s just a rip off of taxi driver and king of comedy.
Exactly , and trash movie's like captain Marvel , thor Ragnarok , star war has more scores than it 😭😭😡😡😡
"Is there a better way?" Uhm, IMDb?!
Uuum. No
Kosta Jovanovic You don't know how to do math. IMDb is accurate, all you need to compare are both sites' top 250 lists. IMDb hits it out of the park. Rotten Tomatoes is a joke, completely flawed, watered-down rating system.
Fairytale Overworlds IMDB is accurate? HAHAHA a few days ago I checked the site for Justice League and saw a rating of 8.5 when the movie wasn't even out yet. Its the worst because majority who review them are biased.
"The Promise" disagrees.
I would say Rate Your Music. Especially if you’re into discovering cult films.
I mainly review a movie by it's strengths and weaknesses does it have convincing acting , is it rushed,slow or balanced. Is the story explained well enough or are there plot holes, etc people tend to be looking for different things when they see a movie
in my opinion the emoji movie did NOT need the rating it got, its a KIDS movie and they should’ve based their ratings on what different kids thought about it. an 8% would mean it’s somewhat inappropriate for kids leading parents thinking they shouldn’t show it to their kids.
Adam Sandler has like 50+ movies with less than 30% it's crazy. Thought I'd just tell yall
Deachelo ! Blended was a good one, but it got %14.
Deachelo Maybe because his movies are terrible and poorly made. Critics judge based a film on how good the acting, writing, cinematography, pacing, and how much cliches are present. Audiences are overly forgiving to some movies because of their entertainment value.
@@abandonedaccount1643 Pixels was also good, but sadly it got 16%.
excUSE ME DOES THAT TOMATO HAVE VOLATILES
I TURNED ON MOST RECENT COMMENTS IN SEARCH OF THIS
Please elaborate, is this a meme i have to be atop of?
Siana Gearz it’s on the Texas PSAT all of us took yesterday there was a article about a tomato thing idk
It's on the North Carolina PSAT too
Christine Lawrence I think it’s all PSAT, I got it for the VA PSAT too
Growing up is realizing that a random person on the street probably has a more valuable opinion about movies than critics
Anyone know what's that little song at the end?
Dead as thought this was a PSAT meme
Alison Harris are your tomatoes VOLATILE enough
LMAO
Saw these on PSAT
I TURNED ON MOST RECENT COMMENTS IN SEARCH OF THIS
What's the song name at the end of the video?
Everyone knows the critics have no idea and the tommoatometer is useless but the audience rating is what you wan to look at .....
Anyone else here digs the ending music?
Totally, found it with assistant : Summer Songbird - Peter Winslow
I thought it was just me! I posted if anyone knew what it was before I saw this. At the end it says 'Summer Songbird by Peter Winslow' but I can't find it. That music stood out for some reason.
That's why I just watch whatever I'm interested in. instead of just piggybacking off supposed experts who dictate what's good and what's bad like I need their opinion to validate mine.
Preach!!
Their opinions are supposed to be worth more than his tho
There are people were/are confused that tomato % represent "Percent of reviewers who liked this film" and not "This film is % good"?!?!
Sometimes I just watch random films. Without reading critics, watching trailers and reading the plot description. Just for the purpose to break the bubble and to experience completely different films. And sometimes there are little diamonds
Moonlight is a film which everyone talks about but virtually no one has watched it
@onyourleftbooob HUH ? ever heard of Black panther
I hope this video doesn't go 'sour'.
That was a *rotten* pun
*Bad-um tsss*
Hey sour is my first name
Anyone know what the song playing at the end is?
What music did you use at the begining
65% is enough for me. Metacritic is kind of random and IMDB is just madness
madness? I doubt it, most of movies are fairly rated, with some exceptions
IMDb is the best
Imdb usually has the best one. Rotten tomatoes is horrible to use, over 300 films have 100%
Metacritic is better, shows you HOW good a movie is not just the chance it’ll be at least okay
Metacritic is full of 0's. 0/100. That's something I would only give to the worst of the worst. I mean they can't be _that_ bad
Leo McKay metacritic gave black panther more than any other mcu movie ahahahaha
The movie theatre at 4:22 is in Pasadena, California on Colorado Ave. right in the middle of Blaze Pizza (Heaven) and Vroman's Bookstore.
1:12 Who the heck was the sound producer of this schlock?
It just sounds bad, and it's mostly coming out of only one speaker. I was wearing headphones so it made it more obvious.
The heirloom tomatoes
Sharknado 82% BvS 29% 😏
The clear distinction here is that Sharknado knows its bad and capitalizes on it. Making for a genuinely its-so-bad-its-good movie while BVS thinks its good but is unintentionally bad.
AlienMagi I thought he was the best part about that film.
How could Sharkado have should a high score? It shouldn't have this score. That's why I don't believe in this stupid system. I judge a movie by my own opinion not what people say or what the stupid score says. A lot of the movies they put high scores on are over rated and over hyped anyway.
@@rumblefish9 Sharknado 82% Avengers: Infinity War 82%
Alvin Capalad Venom 29%, that’s so stupid, Venom was so awesome
The only real critic is yourself. Actual critics are reviewing as part of their job, and not for their personal entertainment. They're taught what to look for, whereas us everyday moviegoers just watch the movie, and don't nitpick every detail that's wrong with it.
I don’t read aggregators but I had no idea that Metacritic has so few contributors. No Sight & Sound, no Australian or NZ publications (or Canadian unless I’m mistaken).
I always consult IMDB 🤷🏻♂️ I never trusted rotten tomatoes
And so you end up watching a bad indian movie that has a score of 8.6?
Kosta ,being a part of the Indian userbase,I cannot agree more.
Kosta Jovanovic stfu
But do the tomatoes have volatile organic compounds?
I TURNED ON MOST RECENT COMMENTS IN SEARCH OF THIS
Another thing is critics never want to appreciate anything they see as low brow or accepted highly by the masses. They knew mario was gonna be liked by a majority of people so they judged it on a different standard. Its like they wanted to reality check anyone wanting to watch the movie. Oh and don't make movies that have have harsh takes against the establishment. Joker was reviewed poorly by critics and anyone regularly on tv but after regular people saw it everyone pretty much knew why.
A program that identify's the key terms of reviews and then condenses into a short paragraph would be able to show what most people thought of the movie. Putting that alongside the rating would give context to the score and you can then get further context if needed by reading reviews.
Whether or not something like this is feasible I'm not sure of but it would be a very good solution.
I use IMDb because DEMOCRACY!
90 out of 100 times I agree with IMDB. But how the hell did Mad Max get such a high rating? It had 9 points for months but it was the most boring movie I saw in 2015.
“Democracy is mob rule” - Founding Father Benjamin Rush
99th like
Same
derkhaslol Mad Max is great, that’s why it has a high rating, you just didn’t care for it because it’s not your type of movie. It deserves a high rating, just because you didn’t enjoy the movie doesn’t mean it’s bad. IMDb is also pretty inaccurate if you want the true quality of a movie.
More vague = anticonsumer.
your equation is also kinda vague...
Anti consumer is the person selling the product missleading the consumer. I like the system because it is saying is it worth your time, if it's fresh it probably is.
I was thinking about seeing FANT4STIC...09%
Though I do wish they were more upfront with how form a score. Like if they had a bar graph showing all the scores or at least a box and whisker plot.
When I look for a movie to watch, I make sure the audience and the critic ratings are both similar.
Thank you Vox!!!
Your channel is my FAVORITE. Excellent teaching, every video.