How Do You Rate a TV Show/Game/Movie?

Zardnaar

Hero
These days there has been a lot of attention paid to things like Rotten Tomatoes with wildly divergent scores between critics and fans. This is both a positive score with critics and a negative score with fans along with critics hating something and fans loving it. Some things there has been a campaign of sorts to tank a score, while I kind of wonder the same thing with critics in regards. That or they just don't get some things.

I don't get some things either like animie so I tend not to rate it as I don't think I can do it fairly. Music that is not rock and metal is kind of in the same category.

Video Games are kind of similar but anything rating lower than say a 7 I probably won't buy while I might watch a TV show or movie rated lower than that. The reason for that is games tend to be a lot more expensive and require a greater amount of time. 6/10 is kind of average for a movie or TV show while 6/10 is bad for a game.

For some things I think a critic rates something on what I think that they think it should get vs what the product is, while other things are sometimes over rated. I am very strict with scores in my head if I watch something and enjoy it its probably a 7.5 or so while a something I really enjoy is 8.5-low 90's type score. 94 or 95%+ is very high for me and I would give almost nothing a score of 10/10 or 100%.

Now for example I will look at several thing with Rotten Tomatoes scores that are generally regarded as great by critics and audiences. The two scores I would use are critics first, audiences second.

The Empire Strikes back 95%/97%
This score for both I think is a good example. Generally considered the best Star Wars film and I would consider it one of the best movies ever but I'm a Star Wars fan and this movie is a prime example of why.

The Shawshank Redemption 91%/98%
Critics thought it was a very good movie, audiences loved it. I like this movie a lot as well, so would rate it a few points higher than 91% but not 98%.

The Wire 96%/96%
Generally regarded as one of the best TV shows ever made this is another great score. The show actually is that good IMHO, powerful, gripping, great story lines.

Breaking Bad 96/97%

If The Wire is not the best TV show of all time, Breaking Bad is another one in contention for it.

I put these example here of what I think great movies and TV shows are, kind of sets a baseline for very good/excellent.


Now I will look at several shows where critics and audiences diverge a bit or ones that have been targets of online campaigns torpedo them.

The Orville Season One 65%/94%
This is mostly because of season one 31%/94%, season 2 100%/94%. I think a few fans would say season one is better than 2. A rating of 31% is bad and that would mean borderline unwatchable for me. Season 2 is not that drastically different in tone or content though but 100%. This one here I think the critics got it wrong and the audience score is slightly high buy a couple of points for season one and maybe by 10 points for season 2.

Star Trek Discovery 82%/48%
This is one of those shows you think the score should be below 50% based on online reactions. Critics gave it 82%, fans 48%. However its one of those shows that has been targeted by online trolls but the critics are also wrong although the best episodes are around 82%. Personally I would rate it in the 60's overall the critics and audiences are both wrong, IMHO. A 75% score would be generous, below 60% well there is a lot worse.

The Last Jedi 91%/44%

Another movie targeted by online trolls, another movie with an over inflated critics score. Consider Return of the Jedi (81%/94&), or Star Wars 93%/96%. I think you would be hard pressed to claim this movie is better than any of the original trilogy. I found this movie OK on its on merits but bad as a Star Wars movie. Still the 44% score wold indicate its worse than The Phantom Menace 54%/59% and Attack of the Clones 65%/54%. Those two prequels I think the critics and fans are being honest, TLJ love it or hate it both scores are wrong IMHO. 91% is to high, 44% is to low. Not sure where I would put it it but its better than 2/3 of the prequels.

The Force Awakens 92%/87%
This score I think is fairly honest and accurate with the critics and audiences only mildly diverging. Not everyone likes Star Wars, not everyone likes this movie and it has a few minor problems and may not be that original. My personal views would line it up a bit more with the audience score and it sits in similar company to Rogue One and The Last Jedi in the Star Wars pantheon of quality IMHO.

Doctor Who 94%/ 56%
This is another show targeted by online trolls mostly because of Season 11 where they cast a women. Season 11 has a score of 91% and 21%. However season 10 has a score of 91% and 58%. Season 11 is marginally better than 10, but whoever gave season 10 a 91% rating fell down the stairs and hit their head a few times on the way down. The audience score for 10 is a lot more reliable IMHO (generous even). Basically beats me what the critics where thinking that being said the 21% rating is also very wrong IMHO. This is a prime example of critics rating a show based on what they think a show would get perhaps due to legacy value (earlier seasons were 91-94%). Its also a prime example of a vicious online campaign for season 11. The last good season was 7 or 8, the last great season was somewhere around 4-6 IMHO.

Put simply if you rate something over 90% it needs to be really really good with scores of around 95% being near perfect or at least as good as it gets. Below 60% is getting into unwatchable and its where I would rate shows on the decline that I have stopped watching (or on the borderline) or shows that were bad to begin with. Video games get less and I would only pay a sub 70% game if I knew the scores were wrong or the game was free/very cheap (gift, steam sales, or package deal). Shows also tend to start going downhill after season 4 or 5 (Dexter, Doctor Who, How I met Your Mother, Sons of Anarchy, Stargate SG1 etc etc).
 
Last edited:

ccs

39th lv DM
I rarely pay any attention to sites like Rotten Tomatoes. Between the bought & paid for critics + the trolls, what's the point?

If a movie or show looks interesting? I'll watch it (or in the case of a show, a few episodes & then decide wether to watch more.).
Then I ask a simple question: Was I entertained?
Followed by: Was I entertained enough to watch it again/another seasons worth/buy it on DVD-BR?

Odds are if I'm recommending it to you {I} think it's worth about 80%+/at least the price of a tkt.
Unless:
1) I know the type of stuff you like. Then I'll recommend stuff I've see that I personally might not have liked all that much.
2) You want bad monster movies. These entertain me greatly but I'm not going to lie to you & claim them to be some kind of masterpiece. Calling some of them B movies would be quite generous..... (go ahead, watch Robovampire)
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I watched Pacific Rim and enjoyed it. How does that fit on your monster movie thing.

Otherwise I basically agree with your post.
 

Imaculata

Adventurer
The Last Jedi 91%/44%

Another movie targeted by online trolls, another movie with an over inflated critics score. Consider Return of the Jedi (81%/94&), or Star Wars 93%/96%. I think you would be hard pressed to claim this movie is better than any of the original trilogy. I found this movie OK on its on merits but bad as a Star Wars movie. Still the 44% score wold indicate its worse than The Phantom Menace 54%/59% and Attack of the Clones 65%/54%. Those two prequels I think the critics and fans are being honest, TLJ love it or hate it both scores are wrong IMHO. 91% is to high, 44% is to low. Not sure where I would put it it but its better than 2/3 of the prequels.
Movies are often rated on their own merits, and not in comparison to other movies in the series.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
Kind of but its part VIII of a series over 40 years and I think that is a big part of the backlash against it. If you switch your brain off it works, when you think about the plot holes, and how it relates to the other movies it has issues even if you only use TFA as a comparison point. It passes muster as a semi mindless action flick like Independence Day something like that. Somewhere in the 6-7 range for me personally, AotC would be in the 50-60 mark by comparison.
 

Legatus_Legionis

< BLAH HA Ha ha >
I thing is that people automatically will claim the reason the fan score is SO LOW compared to the "critics" is because of trolls is FALSE.

Their have been reports that this year a film that complained about trolls have themselves used troll to raise their scores. This makes fans scores meaningless.

I would say the reason the critics rate something so high above fan scores is because in order to see advanced screenings/etc. they have to give a score the studio can accept.

If a critic rates a film/tv/music low, then the producers would not want that rater on other projects, regardless if what they were reviewed was PURE CRAP!

This makes critic's scores meaningless too.

Can we can see that same thing with regards to the awards shows.

Nominations and winners are so politically motivated, that they have a waste of time.

The Lord of the Rings, all three of the original Peter Jackson movies SHOULD have won best picture each year, plus a whole lot of other awards too. But because of the biases in hollywood/award shows, they would not do the right thing.

So when it comes to critic reviews... their opinions are worthless to me.


I like what I like.
I dislike what I dislike.
 

ccs

39th lv DM
I watched Pacific Rim and enjoyed it. How does that fit on your monster movie thing.

Otherwise I basically agree with your post.
I quite enjoyed the 1st one. Giant mecha vs giant monsters. DVD on the shelf. :)
PR:II? Nope. Same concept, and I've certainly enjoyed even worse, but II was just missing something.
Not really a monster movie IMO though.

When I say monster movie, think of things like The Meg, Sharktopus, Deep Rising, etc. Maybe some werewolves & such.
 
Last edited:

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Not sure what the point of this post is? Here are some ratings, and here is what Zardnaar thinks they should be rated?


;)


FWIW, I have found that, as a general rule, the critics' ratings and reviews (especially in aggregate) tend to be a very good guide as to whether or not I will enjoy something.

Unfortunately, the audience reviews are garbage due to trolls.

That's true for everything listed up there, and in general. The only example I can think of of the top of my head that wouldn't fit in that category are the occasional "so bad it's good" type of movies, but those are few and far between.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
This makes critic's scores meaningless too.
No. It may *reduce* the meaning, but it does not eliminate it entirely.

Do some reviewers slightly inflate their reviews so that they continue to get early access? Possibly to probably. Do they all do so massively? Probably not.

Critics also need their reviews to at least vaguely track with public perception, or people will stop reading their reviews, and they lose their jobs. If John Reviewer constantly gives 4.5 out of five for movies that the rest of the world thinks is a 2 out of five, John will quickly become irrelevant and not get paid. John wants to get paid.

This will especially be true for truly bad movies. If a reviewer gives an awesome review to a movie that you find was merely okay, you can chalk that up to differences of opinion. If they list a movie that is trash as being "OK+", and you went based on the strength of the review, you're going to hold the nausea you felt watching it against the reviewer, which the reviewer really doesn't want.

Which brings us to how I tend to use such things as Rottentomatoes: If the overall score for the movie is really low, it is pretty reliably crud. If the overall score is 90+%, I am pretty sure I will not regret paying the ticket price. If the score is in the midrange, it is a toss up - and unless there's a reason to do otherwise, I can probably wait until it is on Netflix or something.

And really, what more do you want out of a review?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
I quite enjoyed the 1st one. Giant mecha vs giant monsters. DVD on the shelf. :)
PR:II? Nope. Same concept, and I've certainly enjoyed even worse, but II was just missing something.
Not really a monster movie IMO though.
I LOVED the first one.

The second one? Eh.

So what was it missing?

- Too much daylight. Look, you have nice CGI. The darkness covers a lot of sins, though, and it shows.

- Not enough identification with individual Jaeger. Each of the Jaegers in the first movie had a real personality, even if they were short-living, and it was reflected in the people piloting them (and vice versa). In the second movie, nada. I mean, can you even remember who piloted the Jaeger with the ball and chain? Do you care?

- Not enough Kaiju or buildup. Really. The first one had a succession of beasties, so when a Cat V Kaiju emerges you're like .... WOAH! In the next, it's all, megakaiju, whatever.

- The Kaiju sucked. Again, the first movie not only had mechs with personality, but monsters. This one was as bland as a Michael Bay movie without explosions.

- The plot. Just terrible and overcomplicated. Look, the first movie wasn't exactly Inception or anything, but it was good fun with outsize characters, despite the charisma-suck in the center of the fil (Charlie Hunnam). The second one had a likable lead (John Boyega, ATTACK THE BLOCK!), but the plot ... it was both overstuffed and under-full, like someone had made a Thanksgiving Dinner that consisted of only tasteless corn pudding.
 

GreyLord

Adventurer
I think you give online trolls to much credit (not unusual, MANY people do, some for nefarious reasons as to try to reason out that their show or shows are not as good or bad as a general rating says it is). Once something has over 1000 ratings, and especially one it has over 5-10,000 ratings, it's going to be very hard for online trolls to actually change the general consensus.

That is a general idea (not Rotten Tomatoes specific, RT has different flaws inherent with it's system on both sides of the equation) in regard to public ratings.

When going purely by ratings, I'll take an audience or unprofessional group rating over a critic rating any day of the week. It is more reflective of the quality, enjoyment, and probability of something being good or bad.

Never trust an actual critic rating itself. Critics seem to get more wrong when one relies on their actual ratings rather than other things. RT is a prime example of this. RT sometimes is completely off of what a critic states, giving the critic either a positive or negative rating, making it a black and white affair instead of what is a more nuanced effect.

HOWEVER, if I want to actually know if I will really enjoy something, I'll turn to a critics review. The reviews by critics normally express far more information in to the specifics of an item and how good or bad it truly is than a numerical or star rating that is given afterwards. Reading an actual review normally gives me a better idea of the content or how useful something is than a numerical rating could envelop on it's own.

This is where the numbers type idea of ratings falls down. Numbers may give an instant idea of how many actually like or dislike something, but it cannot really tell you if YOU will like or dislike something. Critics almost never simply give something a rating or number and that is it. They will go into depth of why or why not. If one really wants to know if they will enjoy or find something useful, reading the reviews will probably be FAR more useful than simply relying on a numerical rating.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top