Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 20:30:13 GMT
......or not their review is rotten or fresh.  So the "RT is biased against the DCU" Fruit-Loop conspiracy theory bites the dust........  |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 21:13:39 GMT
I would’ve thought that was common knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 21:24:48 GMT
I would’ve thought that was common knowledge. I've never seen you pointing it out before when Fruit-Loops start accusing RT of being biased because they give positive looking reviews a rotten rating.  |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 21:31:23 GMT
I would’ve thought that was common knowledge. I've never seen you pointing it out before when Fruit-Loops start accusing RT of being biased because they give positive looking reviews a rotten rating. I’ve known about the whole “critics decide whether a movie is fresh or rotten” thing ever since the mixed reviews for MoS came out. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 14, 2017 21:49:00 GMT
......or not their review is rotten or fresh. So the "RT is biased against the DCU" Fruit-Loop conspiracy theory bites the dust........
So you're saying that If I were a critic I could give two different movies similar reviews (criticizing each for similar flaws and praising each for similar strengths) and yet register both differently, one rotten and the other fresh.
Well that sucks. Because then it shows that the critics themselves are biased against DCEU.
I posted a thread where I picked out parts of reviews of Thor Ragnarok and of Justice League. Looking more deeply into the reviews (instead of only looking at the top caption) showed that both movies were actually more closely reviewed than what it seemed at first glance. A lot of similar things were said about both. "fun but flawed" sums up what was most said about them. You can do the research and see for yourself.
Example: New York Times (reviewer Manhola Dargis) THOR:
"There’s a lot of yakking, some barking; The story is an uninteresting thicket of brawls, machinations and useful coincidences. the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum, comically jiving and dithering), a psychopath Auntie Mame in flowing gold lamé and blue fingernail polish who suggests a low-rent version of Stanley Tucci’s host in “The Hunger Games. It’s amusing how “Ragnarok” humanizes Thor, yet in doing so dilutes his Thorness, the essential qualities that make him more than a dude with a cool hammer. And the more familiar and less godlike he becomes, the more evident it is that this series has never figured out how to make his myth fit with the modern world. So it’s made Thor a fish out of water and a recurrent punch line."
and then
New York Times (SAME reviewer Manhola Dargis) Justice League:
“Justice League,” is looser, goosier and certainly more watchable than the last one. The Flash gets most of the best jokes, and Mr. Miller makes most of them work, largely in the role of in-house fanboy with a touch of the Cowardly Lion. It’s golly-gee stuff, but it’s also human and Mr. Miller keeps you hooked, as does Mr. Momoa (“Game of Thrones”), who supplely shifts between gravitas and comedy. When Aquaman chugs a bottle of booze before plunging into an angry sea, the movie hits the comic-book sweet spot between deadly seriousness and self-amused levity. ...characters who, though perhaps not yet as ostensibly multidimensional as Marvel’s, may be more enduring and golden. It has justice, and it has banter. And while it could have used more hanging out, more breeziness, it is a start."
To me those sound too close to call. And yet one was fresh and the other rotten? Somethings rotten all right.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 14, 2017 21:52:32 GMT
Critics are idiots. Ignore them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 21:56:42 GMT
I've never seen you pointing it out before when Fruit-Loops start accusing RT of being biased because they give positive looking reviews a rotten rating. I’ve known about the whole “critics decide whether a movie is fresh or rotten” thing ever since the mixed reviews for MoS came out. Congratulations! Why haven't you pointed it out before when some of your fellow DC fans were being really dumb? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 22:05:38 GMT
......or not their review is rotten or fresh. So the "RT is biased against the DCU" Fruit-Loop conspiracy theory bites the dust........
So you're saying that If I were a critic I could give two different movies similar reviews (criticizing each for similar flaws and praising each for similar strengths) and yet register both differently, one rotten and the other fresh.
Well that sucks. Because then it shows that the critics themselves are biased against DCEU.
I posted a thread where I picked out parts of reviews of Thor Ragnarok and of Justice League. Looking more deeply into the reviews (instead of only looking at the top caption) showed that both movies were actually more closely reviewed than what it seemed at first glance. A lot of similar things were said about both. "fun but flawed" sums up what was most said about them. You can do the research and see for yourself.
Example: New York Times (reviewer Manhola Dargis) THOR:
"There’s a lot of yakking, some barking; The story is an uninteresting thicket of brawls, machinations and useful coincidences. the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum, comically jiving and dithering), a psychopath Auntie Mame in flowing gold lamé and blue fingernail polish who suggests a low-rent version of Stanley Tucci’s host in “The Hunger Games. It’s amusing how “Ragnarok” humanizes Thor, yet in doing so dilutes his Thorness, the essential qualities that make him more than a dude with a cool hammer. And the more familiar and less godlike he becomes, the more evident it is that this series has never figured out how to make his myth fit with the modern world. So it’s made Thor a fish out of water and a recurrent punch line."
and then
New York Times (SAME reviewer Manhola Dargis) Justice League:
“Justice League,” is looser, goosier and certainly more watchable than the last one. The Flash gets most of the best jokes, and Mr. Miller makes most of them work, largely in the role of in-house fanboy with a touch of the Cowardly Lion. It’s golly-gee stuff, but it’s also human and Mr. Miller keeps you hooked, as does Mr. Momoa (“Game of Thrones”), who supplely shifts between gravitas and comedy. When Aquaman chugs a bottle of booze before plunging into an angry sea, the movie hits the comic-book sweet spot between deadly seriousness and self-amused levity. ...characters who, though perhaps not yet as ostensibly multidimensional as Marvel’s, may be more enduring and golden. It has justice, and it has banter. And while it could have used more hanging out, more breeziness, it is a start."
To me those sound too close to call. And yet one was fresh and the other rotten? Somethings rotten all right.
I'd say that his Justice League review could go either way but the Ragnarok review was definitely negative. I'm guessing he said Ragnarok was "fresh"? Then again, those were just excerpts and not the whole reviews, so..... |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 22:28:33 GMT
I’ve known about the whole “critics decide whether a movie is fresh or rotten” thing ever since the mixed reviews for MoS came out. Congratulations! Why haven't you pointed it out before when some of your fellow DC fans were being really dumb? I didn’t see much of that around here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:11:03 GMT
Congratulations! Why haven't you pointed it out before when some of your fellow DC fans were being really dumb? I didn’t see much of that around here. I've seen it a number of times and the fact that you said "much" indicates that you have noticed it yourself. |
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
 
|
Post by dnno1 on Dec 15, 2017 0:46:35 GMT
......or not their review is rotten or fresh. So the "RT is biased against the DCU" Fruit-Loop conspiracy theory bites the dust........ From what I understand, if a critic does not register their vote, the folks at Rotten Tomatoes will determine if it is rotten or fresh based on reading their review. This has been supported by several reports claiming that is what they do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 1:09:30 GMT
......or not their review is rotten or fresh. So the "RT is biased against the DCU" Fruit-Loop conspiracy theory bites the dust........ From what I understand, if a critic does not register their vote, the folks at Rotten Tomatoes will determine if it is rotten or fresh based on reading their review. This has been supported by several reports claiming that is what they do. The only way that changes anything is if there are a number of critics who abstain. Unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 15, 2017 14:53:09 GMT
So you're saying that If I were a critic I could give two different movies similar reviews (criticizing each for similar flaws and praising each for similar strengths) and yet register both differently, one rotten and the other fresh.
Well that sucks. Because then it shows that the critics themselves are biased against DCEU.
I posted a thread where I picked out parts of reviews of Thor Ragnarok and of Justice League. Looking more deeply into the reviews (instead of only looking at the top caption) showed that both movies were actually more closely reviewed than what it seemed at first glance. A lot of similar things were said about both. "fun but flawed" sums up what was most said about them. You can do the research and see for yourself.
Example: New York Times (reviewer Manhola Dargis) THOR:
"There’s a lot of yakking, some barking; The story is an uninteresting thicket of brawls, machinations and useful coincidences. the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum, comically jiving and dithering), a psychopath Auntie Mame in flowing gold lamé and blue fingernail polish who suggests a low-rent version of Stanley Tucci’s host in “The Hunger Games. It’s amusing how “Ragnarok” humanizes Thor, yet in doing so dilutes his Thorness, the essential qualities that make him more than a dude with a cool hammer. And the more familiar and less godlike he becomes, the more evident it is that this series has never figured out how to make his myth fit with the modern world. So it’s made Thor a fish out of water and a recurrent punch line."
and then
New York Times (SAME reviewer Manhola Dargis) Justice League:
“Justice League,” is looser, goosier and certainly more watchable than the last one. The Flash gets most of the best jokes, and Mr. Miller makes most of them work, largely in the role of in-house fanboy with a touch of the Cowardly Lion. It’s golly-gee stuff, but it’s also human and Mr. Miller keeps you hooked, as does Mr. Momoa (“Game of Thrones”), who supplely shifts between gravitas and comedy. When Aquaman chugs a bottle of booze before plunging into an angry sea, the movie hits the comic-book sweet spot between deadly seriousness and self-amused levity. ...characters who, though perhaps not yet as ostensibly multidimensional as Marvel’s, may be more enduring and golden. It has justice, and it has banter. And while it could have used more hanging out, more breeziness, it is a start."
To me those sound too close to call. And yet one was fresh and the other rotten? Somethings rotten all right.
I'd say that his Justice League review could go either way but the Ragnarok review was definitely negative. I'm guessing he said Ragnarok was "fresh"? Then again, those were just excerpts and not the whole reviews, so..... You're absolutely correct, they were just excerpts from the reviews. The point being that if I were a critic and gave a movie a glowing review because I wanted it to succeed, BUT in reality I thought it sucked, I might still say it was Fresh. Whereas if I gave a movie a great review, but wanted it to fail (for whatever reason) I could still say it was Rotten. Well then WTF? lol That makes reviews seem even more meaningless than I already thought they were.
Look up the reviews for Blade Runner 2049. All glowing, all fresh. Still, hardly anyone went to see it. So even great reviews don't always help. And that movie was great.
Reviews = meh
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 15, 2017 16:59:12 GMT
To me those sound too close to call. And yet one was fresh and the other rotten? Somethings rotten all right. It was revealed in another thread that some critics consistently give a 2.5 (out of 5) rating a bug splat ... and other critics give a 2.5 a fresh tomato. As long as they remain consistent, there is nothing "rotten" about it. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 15, 2017 17:15:29 GMT
I would’ve thought that was common knowledge. I've never seen you pointing it out before when Fruit-Loops start accusing RT of being biased because they give positive looking reviews a rotten rating. It's just DC-Fanboy's way of trying to cope with disappointment. Logic and reason go bye-bye. Like when a pre-schooler loses a game of Candy Land and pitches an inconsolable fit, accusing the other kid of cheating. We see the same behavior on the Sports forum whenever the Patriots win another World Championship. Some people just never learned how to accept defeat gracefully. And if DC-Fanboy really is an old bitter man who still plays with superhero action figures, it's unlikely to change. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 15, 2017 17:43:39 GMT
It was revealed in another thread that some critics consistently give a 2.5 (out of 5) rating a bug splat ... and other critics give a 2.5 a fresh tomato. As long as they remain consistent, there is nothing "rotten" about it.It's just DC-Fanboy's way of trying to cope with disappointment. Logic and reason go bye-bye. Like when a pre-schooler loses a game of Candy Land and pitches an inconsolable fit, accusing the other kid of cheating. We see the same behavior on the Sports forum whenever the Patriots win another World Championship. Some people just never learned how to accept defeat gracefully. And if DC-Fanboy really is an old bitter man who still plays with superhero action figures, it's unlikely to change. But wait... If one critic gives a 2.5 review a Bug Splat, and others give a 2.5 review a Fresh, then how is that good?
I get your point that for the individual critic it makes sense as long as they are consistent, but that only applies to that particular critics reviews, not across the board for groups of critics. In that case the inconsistencies crop up.
If a critic is consistently giving MCU movies Fresh 2.5's and DCEU movies Bug Splatted 2.5's then DCEU loses even though they both got 2.5 reviews. You just helped me make my point.
And as for DC-FAN not accepting defeat gracefully, yeah, he's a little nutty. Even I've told him to tone it down. But I'm very surprised that you only reserve that venom for him, and not for the MCU fans here that do EXACTLY THE SAME THING!
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 15, 2017 18:38:03 GMT
I always thought RT is horseshit and this just adds to it, I mean the ratio based tomato meter is bad enough but the fact a critics whim can determine that rather than a grade standard makes it worse.
I wouldn't mind if RT based & promoted their tomato-meter based on actual grades because that can give you a better guide to a films quality, RT's scoring is misleading as fuck and the excuse of "you're meant to read the reviews to find out if it sounds good to you" goes out thw window when RT promotes it's RT score, and gives the flawed scoring method the bells and whistles whilst hiding the actual consensus of a films actual quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 15, 2017 19:13:16 GMT
If a critic is consistently giving MCU movies Fresh 2.5's and DCEU movies Bug Splatted 2.5's then DCEU loses even though they both got 2.5 reviews. You just helped me make my point. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about (glass half empty) critics who give all their 2.5 reviews a bug splat ... and other (glass half full) critics who give all their 2.5 reviews a fresh tomato. They are consistent, regardless of whether it's a DCEU or MCU or any other film. That is what was found when this came up in another thread. There hasn't been much opportunity for MCU fans to humiliate themselves, feel disappointed, defeated ... so I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. DC-Fanboy is in an obstinate state of perpetual denial, 24/7. That's the sort of thing I find so mock-worthy. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 15, 2017 19:41:20 GMT
I always thought RT is horseshit Probably because you do not hold a majority view on what makes a movie good or bad. One man's trash is another man's treasure. By it's very nature, Rotten Tomatoes can not satisfy everyone. Just the majority of people. If your taste in movies deviates from the norm, surely you must have recognized that by now. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 16, 2017 0:31:25 GMT
I always thought RT is horseshit Probably because you do not hold a majority view on what makes a movie good or bad. One man's trash is another man's treasure. By it's very nature, Rotten Tomatoes can not satisfy everyone. Just the majority of people. If your taste in movies deviates from the norm, surely you must have recognized that by now. No I like the concept but not the execution hence why I feel RT's "scoring" is bullshit, a film isn't just one of two things, good or bad, they miss the ok option which is something reviews don't ignore, if a film is middle of the road they say so, if a film is made for fans of the genre but the masses may not like it they say so, RT doesn't, they simply say a film is good or it's shit, there's no middle ground which their should be.
And the tomato-meter influences people to the point if a film is rotten then it's the shits regardless of it's actual graded score, or how high or low it ranks on the meter to begin with, the highest score a "rotten" film can accumulate is almost twice that of the lowest scoring "fresh" film, but people wont look at that they just see a 59% score which means it must suck.
Also this was fine when RT didn't make "their" score out to be so important but now they promote revealing the tomato-meter score and shit which means they are promoting the boiled down simplistic and misleading aspect of what they do as the most important thing, so they don't really get a pass like people always act like they should, the whole you should go read the reviews yourself argument goes out the window when RT promotes the tomato-meter as what you should be looking out for.
Hence horseshit, atleast imo.
|
|
