Zardnaar
Legend
S1 Discovery isn't that bad relative to TNG and Voyager.
New Star Trek Cinematic Movie Coming to According Deadline
S1 Discovery isn't that bad relative to TNG and Voyager.
Does anybody value Rotten Tomotoes scores any more? Or any crowdsourced scores? I think such things have been widely recognised as being highly manipulated these days. I view crowdsourced ratings as essentially valueless, whatever the platform. At this stage in the game, it's a case of identifying specific reviewers you trust.Fair, and as I said, it's always a matter of taste. That said, I enjoyed it, and appreciated the levity of those same antics (which were in contrast to the prior movie) to the same extent you didn't.
The box office indicates that more people align with your opinion. Weirdly, I just looked up the Rotten Tomatoes scores ... and Beyond (aka Kelvin 3) is actually the third highest ranked Star Trek movie ... behind Kelvin 1 and First Contact, and ahead of .... wait for it .... Wrath of Khan.
I would say that it is complete BS, but then again, they do have Star Trek V at the bottom.
Clint_L
Hero
I definitely value RT critics rating, top critics in particular. And I like that you can combine them with the critics' average ratings out of ten to get a more nuanced metric. In fact, in the era of crowdsourced ratings I consider the opinions of professional critics more valuable than ever, and I like having them in aggregate.
Ryujin
Legend
Not really. I never found the critic ratings to be of very much use, personally, because I find that many critics' takes are so at odds with my own. And now that we're seeing more and more manipulation of the audience scores, they're equally useless to me. I find it best to rely on the word of people I know, whose tastes are known to me.
Bedrockgames
Legend
We will always have II and IV
Bedrockgames
Legend
I use it a long with a lot of other sources to get a general sense of things, but you have to take it all with a grain of salt. I review and discuss a lot of movies on may podcast and usually make a point after we have recorded to check out Rotten Tomatoes and read reviews (I also go back and watch TV reviews like Siskel and Ebert, Leonard Maltin, etc). The divide between audience and critic score is always interesting to examine. It is also interesting when I watch movies I remember from the past but see the consensus that has formed around them since I viewed them (for example Boondock Saints was a pretty film I remember a lot of people liking through word of mouth, but in the wake of the internet, it has a different reputation I think). With movies I think it is always best to just start with your own genuine reaction. These days, I think due to the internet, a lot of reviews feel like they are written to please an audience and stake out the exact right territory for the reviews brand.
The challenge is when you see a movie sometimes you want a general sense of what the reaction has been. Crowd sourced reviews are one way to get a sense of that. Generally though I get a feel from the people around me to see how close it is. I do find these days on Rotten Tomatoes I am much more likely to be on the side of the audience score than the critic score
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I think that this is overstating it. I think it is more accurate to say that as certain crowdsourced ratings became more important, there became a greater incentive for people to try and manipulate those ratings. And for that reason, you have to be diligent when you look at that information (just as you do with any other information).
The classic example is, of course, a review of a random product on Amazon; it is well-known that certain fly-by-night manufacturers will do their utmost to bombard the site with 5 star ratings.
When it comes to Rotten Tomatoes, I don't think that it provides a lot of granularity in terms of different types of movies. For example, I just watched Maestro on Netflix (the Bradley Cooper movie about Bernstein), which has an 80% critics rating and a 61% audience score.
A similar movie profile would be Asteroid City, which has a 75% critics and a 62% audience score.
On the other hand, Equalizer 3 has a 76% critics score ... but a 94% audience score.
I happen to think that this is all useful information. A person can see this, and they would know that all of these are good movies. But I would say that Asteroid City is a great movie (albeit not for most people), Maestro is a very good movie (albeit not for most people), while Equalizer 3 is a decent action movie with Denzel that you can turn your brain off for a few hours and enjoy, if you're into that, which happens to have some pretty shots of Italy (which I assume is why Denzel totally agreed to it, in addition to the paycheck). Still, you can know that these are all good movies for at least some people. I can talk about why I prefer one to the other, but they are all good movies for what they are trying to do.
On the other hand, Rebel Moon has a 22% / 59% (REALLY?) which teel you its a bad movie, while Five Nights at Freddies has a 32% / 87% divide, which I think accurately conveys the divide between "being a good movie" and "giving fans something."
ETA- One thing that is always funny is to see the divide between movies that most "movie people" (which includes critics) hate, which still have people that love it. There is a great and funny podcast called "How Did This Get Made," where the hosts go through terrible (really terrible) movies, and then at the end they read the five-star reviews on Amazon that people have posted for the movie.
Zardnaar
Legend
Rotten Tomatoes gas always been useless. Generally add the scores togathercand average them out.
Critics like movies with political themes, statements, historical dramas. General audience like explosions, sex, nudity.
The audience scores are generally more important unless you like genres that critics like.
Both scores get manipulated.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
At least until Disney buys Paramount.
Similar Threads
