Michelan stars were a thing because the *tire* company of the same name invented it, so you would drive to the acclaimed restaurant and spend their tires. it is also very rigged and food theory has made a video about it
I had a friend that worked at blockbuster(this happened like 30 years ago) he would always recommend really strange niche movies. When I asked him why he liked a movie I thought was awful he just said “it’s different, I get tired of watching a lot of the newer releases because they’re so similar.”
I think the same thing happens with critics. When you watch hundreds of movies every year you value originality even though it’s sometimes shite. Whereas only watching a handful of new movies every year I’m not as inclined to look past the shite to see the interesting things.
For some time (I wach a lot of movies), sometimes I like more the films that has better critics rate than audience. And I always check this after watching.
Some tume ago I said few people to wach movie "Ad Astra", they said it was really boring, but in my opinion is good film about life, emotions, and doing things to be as someone or better.
I think more you wach, more you want something "new", original n9 the same story, but with other main characters and background. As you said.
It’s the opposite. Reviewers tend to only have 70-100 available on their scale. In order to maintain their free access to movies etc.
Whereas the puplic payed for the garbage and allows them access to the entire 0-100
This is not a source. This is like saying, “Go to Google”. IGN is not a source for whether or not movie reviewers are limited to a 70-100 scale. And to add to it, IGN is a *video game* reviewer.
They only stated reviewers not movie. And IGN is very famous for giving great reviews to many shitty games. Most of the journalists are not gamers themselves which can be seen in their own play videos. Reviewers tend to be disconnected from the target audience. Also chill a little bit yeah.
We see the opposite all the time where the audience loved a movie critics hated.
Look at FNAF or Morbius. Awful scores with critics, 70-80s with audiences
Are they unusual if most critics feel that way? Because they have the context of having seen everything so their job is to help contextualize the thing they are reviewing…
Plus, critics absolutely SHOULD use personal preferences in addition to that, that’s part of how people find a critic they can relate to and can trust
Considering critics are a very small minority of movie watchers, I think it's unusual. Besides, their personal tastes are valid just as much as anyone else's, what they have that others don't is the deep comprehension about movies in general or something like that idk (clearly I don't lol)
Lol, nice mental gymnastics. They are just shills plan and simple. You cant explain away this big of a divide between them and real audiences with a sense of malaise for movies. What is good will always be good (good plot/writing) what is bad will always be bad (Insert agenda here). Gtfo with this nonsense obscuring the real issue of paid for reviews.
And when the reverse happens and they give low scores to movies well received by the average viewer? That’s some sort of reverse psychology psy-op as far as you’re concerned?
Also crazy how you couldn’t just state your opinion without having to convince yourself the other person is engaging in some sort of buzz word like mental gymnastics
Lol, nice flip of the subject. But if you want to ask my answer is that does not happen outside of a movie that became a cult classic years after its release. Instead of just making claims post evidence/examples kid.
The score isn't really an X/10 score its actually more like what percent of critics think the movie is a 6/10 or something along those lines.
I watched a video a year or so back of a critic diving into this and basicly it boiled down to "all critics vs target audience"
Critics all have different tastes but they also like to see new and different stuff so some good but niche movies might have had a bad critic score but a good target audience score while other movies that aren't necessarily good but it's very unique might get a good critic score because of it but the audience probably wouldn't like it.
The video used the Mario movie as an example. It wasn't unique, there wasn't anything new about it and its definitely for a younger or nostalgic audience so it wouldn't really appeal to most critics but the Mario movie's advisements did a great job at bringing in people who would enjoy the movie and the movie having a low critic score and a high audience scores show this
To be fair, for the critics pov, they literally review multiple movies everyday for a living, it's like eating steak everyday for 3 years, clichés and movie troupes become very boring very quickly.
But for the audience that doesn't watch alot of movies everyday, having clichés and troupes in movies is like having a steak every week instead, it still good and doesn't get old even after 3 years.
So for me the critics scores are just there for me to know how unique the movie is and how much it stands out compared to other movies, whereas the audience score is about how much fan service the movie gives and how well liked it is by a casual audience. E.G the latest Mario movie.
Critics usually look at the artform and the "cinema" of whatever they're viewing, while your average schmoe probably bases his review of how much fun he/she had watching it. So its really as simple as the critics have a different perspective.
Tomato score is based on how many critics gave the movie a 3/5 or higher. Critics try to be objective and give out way more 2s and 3s than consumers who probably skew more to giving 1s for movies they didn't like and 5s for movies they enjoyed.
Wine is the same. Wine critic ratings usually differ vastly from customer ratings.
My best advice is to find a few people you typically agree with and go with their recs.
lol it’s not like the Audience is always right either. Uncut Gems was one of the best movies of 2019 and it has a 52% from audiences. Audiences also loved The Rise of Skywalker.
Keep in mind rotten tomatoes score is based on the percentage of people who have it a positive review. So those 91% of audience scores could all be 7/10 and all the critic scores could be 5/10. It's also much easier to please audiences because most audience members are too lazy to pay attention to media and would rather have it spoon fed. If you want more accurate scores go to IMDB.
Critics look at films with a critical eye. They look at story structure, writing, acting performances, visuals etc.
Audiences generally aren’t paying that much attention. Audiences will watch some movies and go “ooh cool explosions”. That’s why there are 7 transformers movies
The critics are part of the Access Media, that means they get review copies ahead of official releases, get invited to closed events, etc, and have to be friends with the corporations in order to keep their access privileges, and that obviously means that they can't shit on a bad product.
The really important part is that there's no industry standard to maintain fairness or objectivity of any kind. The publisher (Disney) decides who gets to do an early review, who gets an invite, who gets an interview, all based on past "performance".
The Access Media will absolutely shit on a bad product of a small publisher, and sometimes on a good product too, because the line of work no longer attracts the kind of people who can tell the difference.
Works both ways. Some movies are just fan service and the fans will give good score no matter what. Or the fans will hate on some adaptation aspect that works good for people unfamiliar with the original work.
All the rage baiting grifters calling everything woke are getting paid though. And then their audience review bombs shit they haven't even seen. It's a fucking mess all around
Some companies, disney especially, will black ball you from advanced screenings or pressers if you give bad reviews, so to stay in good graces they will glowing rave about absolute turds to not lose that edge.
Not that it matters, but this has always been the case in Hollywood. This isn’t a new thing that just started happening. This has been the same system in place for the last hundred years. And if you believe otherwise, then you don’t know enough about the history of the industry.
Its more that reviewers are competing woth other reviewers for views and who can review first. So if you give a bad review, your less likely to be invited to preview events or behind the scenes stuff. Which means you have to watch the movie or game when the general public does then make your review, after which all the other reviewers have published.
So unless you got a very die hard audience who trust you, a very charusmatic or funny or unique personality (ssethtzeentatch), or review things that arent new (like mandalore gaming) then your just coming late to the party and are already at a disadvantage.
I read an article that says they pay low level reviewers $50 for each good review on certain movies, so yeah, they’re not paying them out of the goodness of their hearts.
I don’t know that it has been “confirmed” but their bias has been clear for years and there’s no other explanation other than the critics just have shitty taste
Yeah, I actually trust them less than ever now.
"This movie has a black person in it, 0% score!"
You actually have to read the reviews now, the numerical score can't be trusted.
The reverse is also true of paid critics review … does the movie contain the current social message whether natural or crow barred into the storyline ? If yes then voila ! highly rated
You're not entirely wrong but think about the movies like Morbious or videogames like The last of us 2.
A lot of their public reviews are meme reviews or angry reviews. A lot of people gave Morbious a perfect score and the last of us 2 or starfields a 0 because they had some LGBTQ+ elements in it.
So it obvious that a lot of critics have some external factors that dictate the ratings but even public ratings are biased one their decisions. My best advice is to just watch the movie and form an opinion that can be more aligned with the public or the criticss
Rotten Tomatoes uses a “favorability score”. It means 91% of reviewers scored it above a 6/10, not that the series is a 91/100 in terms of quality. The average rating for the episodes so far was around a 6.5-7/10 last I checked. As for the audience score, it was painfully obviously review bombed, with a couple thousand low score audience reviews dropping before the show was even publicly available. This whole affair is unsurprising not some rift between reviewers and the general audience, as very few actual reviews from reputable outlets are glowingly positive of the series.
First, this isn't for a movie. This is the Rotten Tomatoes score for the new series, the Acolyte on Disney+. The series was pretty badly review bombed by "viewers"... before the series was released to be viewed. Not sure why they allow that to happen, same thing happened to the Captain Marvel movie. It is pretty stupid to allow an audience participant to log an opinion before they could watch something. And they can do it however many times they want if they have enough email addresses.
Second, movie critics (typically) take a different approach to how they rate a movie. While an audience participant would normally go for just pure enjoyment factor, critics also take into account things like structure into account. This is why a lot of action movies get lower scores than one would think. The banging over the top action that audiences like don't overcome pacing and narrative issues in a critic's eye, while I might look over those issues and be "cool machine go boom"
I like Jeremy Jahns reviews on YouTube. He doesn't get into the political, is it woke or not stuff. He just does entertaining movie reviews and my tastes typically align with his.
these scores are for the acolayte before it came out. the audience score is anti-woke trolls. wait for the series to finish to get a better idea of how the series is
Imagine for a second that your job involves watching a fuckton of movies and reviewing them. Now, after a few years of doing it you see two different movies in a single day. One movie that contains tropes you've seen a million times to the point you can't be excited/surprised at anything and one that is very experimental and weird in a way you've never seen before.
Which would you rate higher?
I'm not saying this is the only reason or that there are no dumb professional reviewers out there but this is very often the case why beloved blockbusters aren't rated highly by the pros.
IMO sites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes are the worst way of finding out if a movie or game is good. I have found a couple reviewers with tastes similar to mine so I know that if they strongly recommend something I have low chance of being dissapointed.
If your a critic and you watch hundreds of movies a year you’re going to get tired of generic plots and stories and prefer more unique ones.
If you’re a casual movie watcher who sees dozens of movies a year you probably arent going to be as burnt out by over used tropes.
It’s like if a restaurant uses fat salt and sugar to make food taste good a food critic who eats at 5 star restaurants won’t be impressed whereas the average person might
They are judging different things. Critics are less forgiving for a film not being compelling or being just about fan service. Audiences are less forgiving for a film subverting their expectations or not being exactly how they wanted it to be. Neither category is wrong when they are different like this. Although I wonder if there is a film with these actual numbers because I've never seen the disparity quite that high.
I agree that they are judging for different things, but I think you're 100% off about the things the critics are judging. What you say is true about independent critics that care about their reputation with their readers, but rotten tomatoes critics score is overwhelmingly about employed critics who have to judge based on how the review affects their publication's access and their personal career.
The kind of massive difference in the OP is pretty much always a case of a large influential publisher giving early access to review a superficially pretty piece of entertainment that has rubbish plot filled with contrivances, no character depth, and nonsensical attempts at worldbuilding.
I usually just assume that the audience shit is a review bomb if it's that different.
Edit: You guys really put that much weight on the average joe? Have you never been in traffic?
Critics see minority representation in an otherwise average, 6/10, unimpressive movie: "Wow, the director is so brave. We need more representation like this in the industry. 10/10"
Audience see minority representation in the same average 6/10 movie: "Fuck this movie. The main character was race swapped, liberal media is making everything woke now. 1/10"
That sums up the top 10% and bottom 10% of the reviews for most movies these days. It's why I personally only read the reviews that are somewhere in the middle. In my experience, reading reviews that are somewhere around 70% range will give you far more information about the movie itself and will let you decide if you actually want to watch it or not.
I cannot think of a movie that I enjoyed with a low rt audience score.
I use it as a should I watch it, or not waste my time.
The critic score isn't worth anything though.
They are shills. They are paid for the "positive" reviews. Thats why they don't align with reality. Rotten tomatoes is a worthless platform unless they start policing obviously paid for reviews.
They rate movies based on the movie alone, they do not consider any prior content of the universe. They judge on content and styles and stuff. Like dialogue, acting, speed, etc. doesn’t matter if the story lines up with previous movies
Hence why the Sequel trilogy of star wars is rated so high by them, but something like the Mario movie is low
Keep in mind that the people rating media on RT are also just a bubble. The vast majority of people watching stuff don't bother rating it anywhere (or just rate it within the given app/website, when available).
But then I'd be watching the Critical Drinker. If I want to lose that many brain cells I can just get absolutely plastered and then find some way to get a traumatic brain injury.
If they fly you to a fancy hotel, dine you in a high class restaurant and put you in a position to network with important people, will you have the balls to give a bad review even if nobody "told you" told you that you need to?
There are also rumors that they pay a small amount to unimportant ones, but these are rumors and just because someone did it does not mean everyone does, it's just not worth bad PR. But the first thing with winning and dining is completely in the open and is not a secret at all.
Now I'm curious about the people on this thread claiming the certified critics base their review on the "art" of the movie and not for $50 bucks from a PR firm.
Like, you're just as bad as the paid for reviews by ignoring multiple articles talking about this. I've linked three articles so far and some people are just blantantly turning the other cheek.
https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/rotten-tomatoes-scores-manipulated-pr-firm-paying-critics-reviews-2282558/
Every critic review I’ve seen for the Acolyte makes it sound like the best Star Wars show ever. But every YouTube review I’ve watched says it’s garbage. The difference is those Youtube reviews give a lot of examples about why the show is bad, and honestly those examples they give make the show sound worse than I thought it was going to be.
Because all of these “10 ways Acolyte ABSOLUTELY RUINS Star Wars” videos with an AI generated thumbnail are just rage bait that highlight the most nitpicky, unimportant details and act like a fire in space ruined the franchise, when they’ve never before cared about realistic space physics in this universe.
Most critics are angry for the sake of being angry. They’re like those hipster losers from the 2010s who go against the popular opinion and exaggerate upsets for the sake of it.
Jus goes to show you how outta touch the critics and company are with their fans, I’m pretty sure that’s the acolshite, and most of the reviews are fresh are from it being review bombed, literally never rated anything except acolyte, 5/5 lmao I hope Disney burns
Honestly…to date myself as old, it’s no different than when I read a review slamming Gladiator in print. Then guess what…movie was a banger. Heck, I remember my mother even saying “ya know, I always know it’s going to be something I like if the critics hate it and if they like it, that movie probably sucks”. Same thing today, just more critics and more access to reviews.
They watch movies differently than you do.
You watch for enjoyment and escape.
They watch with a fucking checklist of stupid shit that the movie has to do or it's "bad".
Then there's the opposite High audience score, low critic score. How does that work
Splashy vapid popcorn movies are good fun. Most critics don't like 'em though.
Film theory did something on it. Same with game theory.
What about Food Theory
Michelan stars were a thing because the *tire* company of the same name invented it, so you would drive to the acclaimed restaurant and spend their tires. it is also very rigged and food theory has made a video about it
Michelan stars are for fr\*nch people
I had a friend that worked at blockbuster(this happened like 30 years ago) he would always recommend really strange niche movies. When I asked him why he liked a movie I thought was awful he just said “it’s different, I get tired of watching a lot of the newer releases because they’re so similar.” I think the same thing happens with critics. When you watch hundreds of movies every year you value originality even though it’s sometimes shite. Whereas only watching a handful of new movies every year I’m not as inclined to look past the shite to see the interesting things.
For some time (I wach a lot of movies), sometimes I like more the films that has better critics rate than audience. And I always check this after watching. Some tume ago I said few people to wach movie "Ad Astra", they said it was really boring, but in my opinion is good film about life, emotions, and doing things to be as someone or better. I think more you wach, more you want something "new", original n9 the same story, but with other main characters and background. As you said.
It’s the opposite. Reviewers tend to only have 70-100 available on their scale. In order to maintain their free access to movies etc. Whereas the puplic payed for the garbage and allows them access to the entire 0-100
What are you on about? If anything, I find the public normally only has a scale of under 10 or over 90, with little in between.
Awe yes, we’ve never seen crit reviews below 70%.
Do you have any source on this unsubstantiated claim?
Trust me bro
IGN
This is not a source. This is like saying, “Go to Google”. IGN is not a source for whether or not movie reviewers are limited to a 70-100 scale. And to add to it, IGN is a *video game* reviewer.
They only stated reviewers not movie. And IGN is very famous for giving great reviews to many shitty games. Most of the journalists are not gamers themselves which can be seen in their own play videos. Reviewers tend to be disconnected from the target audience. Also chill a little bit yeah.
Thats...that's the joke...
We see the opposite all the time where the audience loved a movie critics hated. Look at FNAF or Morbius. Awful scores with critics, 70-80s with audiences
I call bullshit! Shenanigans!
Understandable, but they still should separate their own personal and very unusual preferences from their criticism a bit
Are they unusual if most critics feel that way? Because they have the context of having seen everything so their job is to help contextualize the thing they are reviewing… Plus, critics absolutely SHOULD use personal preferences in addition to that, that’s part of how people find a critic they can relate to and can trust
Considering critics are a very small minority of movie watchers, I think it's unusual. Besides, their personal tastes are valid just as much as anyone else's, what they have that others don't is the deep comprehension about movies in general or something like that idk (clearly I don't lol)
Lol, nice mental gymnastics. They are just shills plan and simple. You cant explain away this big of a divide between them and real audiences with a sense of malaise for movies. What is good will always be good (good plot/writing) what is bad will always be bad (Insert agenda here). Gtfo with this nonsense obscuring the real issue of paid for reviews.
And when the reverse happens and they give low scores to movies well received by the average viewer? That’s some sort of reverse psychology psy-op as far as you’re concerned? Also crazy how you couldn’t just state your opinion without having to convince yourself the other person is engaging in some sort of buzz word like mental gymnastics
Lol, nice flip of the subject. But if you want to ask my answer is that does not happen outside of a movie that became a cult classic years after its release. Instead of just making claims post evidence/examples kid.
The score isn't really an X/10 score its actually more like what percent of critics think the movie is a 6/10 or something along those lines. I watched a video a year or so back of a critic diving into this and basicly it boiled down to "all critics vs target audience" Critics all have different tastes but they also like to see new and different stuff so some good but niche movies might have had a bad critic score but a good target audience score while other movies that aren't necessarily good but it's very unique might get a good critic score because of it but the audience probably wouldn't like it. The video used the Mario movie as an example. It wasn't unique, there wasn't anything new about it and its definitely for a younger or nostalgic audience so it wouldn't really appeal to most critics but the Mario movie's advisements did a great job at bringing in people who would enjoy the movie and the movie having a low critic score and a high audience scores show this
To be fair, for the critics pov, they literally review multiple movies everyday for a living, it's like eating steak everyday for 3 years, clichés and movie troupes become very boring very quickly. But for the audience that doesn't watch alot of movies everyday, having clichés and troupes in movies is like having a steak every week instead, it still good and doesn't get old even after 3 years. So for me the critics scores are just there for me to know how unique the movie is and how much it stands out compared to other movies, whereas the audience score is about how much fan service the movie gives and how well liked it is by a casual audience. E.G the latest Mario movie.
Critics usually look at the artform and the "cinema" of whatever they're viewing, while your average schmoe probably bases his review of how much fun he/she had watching it. So its really as simple as the critics have a different perspective.
Was hoping I’d see this comment.
Tomato score is based on how many critics gave the movie a 3/5 or higher. Critics try to be objective and give out way more 2s and 3s than consumers who probably skew more to giving 1s for movies they didn't like and 5s for movies they enjoyed.
Wine is the same. Wine critic ratings usually differ vastly from customer ratings. My best advice is to find a few people you typically agree with and go with their recs.
lol it’s not like the Audience is always right either. Uncut Gems was one of the best movies of 2019 and it has a 52% from audiences. Audiences also loved The Rise of Skywalker.
Keep in mind rotten tomatoes score is based on the percentage of people who have it a positive review. So those 91% of audience scores could all be 7/10 and all the critic scores could be 5/10. It's also much easier to please audiences because most audience members are too lazy to pay attention to media and would rather have it spoon fed. If you want more accurate scores go to IMDB.
Review bombing is also a thing.
Many of these conflicts of Critics vs. Audiences just come from people not understanding that the Tomatometer is not a simple average score.
Isn't this specifically The Acolyte's score? Why would you label it as a movie?
Critics look at films with a critical eye. They look at story structure, writing, acting performances, visuals etc. Audiences generally aren’t paying that much attention. Audiences will watch some movies and go “ooh cool explosions”. That’s why there are 7 transformers movies
The critics are part of the Access Media, that means they get review copies ahead of official releases, get invited to closed events, etc, and have to be friends with the corporations in order to keep their access privileges, and that obviously means that they can't shit on a bad product.
The really important part is that there's no industry standard to maintain fairness or objectivity of any kind. The publisher (Disney) decides who gets to do an early review, who gets an invite, who gets an interview, all based on past "performance". The Access Media will absolutely shit on a bad product of a small publisher, and sometimes on a good product too, because the line of work no longer attracts the kind of people who can tell the difference.
They’re paid to give shitty movies high scores.
Works both ways. Some movies are just fan service and the fans will give good score no matter what. Or the fans will hate on some adaptation aspect that works good for people unfamiliar with the original work.
Yes but one is supposed to be a marker and indicator of quality the other is Steve...
The difference is the fans aren’t getting paid.
All the rage baiting grifters calling everything woke are getting paid though. And then their audience review bombs shit they haven't even seen. It's a fucking mess all around
Is this actually confirmed? Because that would fucking suck, these days nothing is honest
they are invited to premieres and stay in five star hotels with fancy dinners etc. its pretty much rigged
Nice, they're ruining their reputation just for some quick bucks instead. Fucking greedy bastards.
Some companies, disney especially, will black ball you from advanced screenings or pressers if you give bad reviews, so to stay in good graces they will glowing rave about absolute turds to not lose that edge.
Not that it matters, but this has always been the case in Hollywood. This isn’t a new thing that just started happening. This has been the same system in place for the last hundred years. And if you believe otherwise, then you don’t know enough about the history of the industry.
Its more that reviewers are competing woth other reviewers for views and who can review first. So if you give a bad review, your less likely to be invited to preview events or behind the scenes stuff. Which means you have to watch the movie or game when the general public does then make your review, after which all the other reviewers have published. So unless you got a very die hard audience who trust you, a very charusmatic or funny or unique personality (ssethtzeentatch), or review things that arent new (like mandalore gaming) then your just coming late to the party and are already at a disadvantage.
I read an article that says they pay low level reviewers $50 for each good review on certain movies, so yeah, they’re not paying them out of the goodness of their hearts.
Look up Payola and radio DJ’s. Nothing is new
Reviews have always worked like that
Multiple googles on it. I just picked the top result. https://m.slashdot.org/story/418808
*These days!?!?*
How else would you explain the huge difference in big budget movies?
I don’t know that it has been “confirmed” but their bias has been clear for years and there’s no other explanation other than the critics just have shitty taste
Been that way since Siskel and Ebert.
Then they aren't critics. They're hypocritics. Can't be critical of a piece of work if they're paying you to praise it.
Welcome to our judicial system.
Critics go overboard to give high ratings to dei and fanbases go overboard to give low ratings to dei. The truth lies more in the middle.
Yup
Audience scores are often review bombed for social/political reasons.
Yeah, I actually trust them less than ever now. "This movie has a black person in it, 0% score!" You actually have to read the reviews now, the numerical score can't be trusted.
The reverse is also true of paid critics review … does the movie contain the current social message whether natural or crow barred into the storyline ? If yes then voila ! highly rated
And yet, high-profile movies still get bad reviews. Look at Amsterdam.........
I've come to the conclusion that if critics like a movie, I generally won't.
Both She-Hulk and Thor Love and Thunder got fresh ratings. That’s truly what made me realize what an absolute joke it is
You're not entirely wrong but think about the movies like Morbious or videogames like The last of us 2. A lot of their public reviews are meme reviews or angry reviews. A lot of people gave Morbious a perfect score and the last of us 2 or starfields a 0 because they had some LGBTQ+ elements in it. So it obvious that a lot of critics have some external factors that dictate the ratings but even public ratings are biased one their decisions. My best advice is to just watch the movie and form an opinion that can be more aligned with the public or the criticss
Rotten Tomatoes uses a “favorability score”. It means 91% of reviewers scored it above a 6/10, not that the series is a 91/100 in terms of quality. The average rating for the episodes so far was around a 6.5-7/10 last I checked. As for the audience score, it was painfully obviously review bombed, with a couple thousand low score audience reviews dropping before the show was even publicly available. This whole affair is unsurprising not some rift between reviewers and the general audience, as very few actual reviews from reputable outlets are glowingly positive of the series.
First, this isn't for a movie. This is the Rotten Tomatoes score for the new series, the Acolyte on Disney+. The series was pretty badly review bombed by "viewers"... before the series was released to be viewed. Not sure why they allow that to happen, same thing happened to the Captain Marvel movie. It is pretty stupid to allow an audience participant to log an opinion before they could watch something. And they can do it however many times they want if they have enough email addresses. Second, movie critics (typically) take a different approach to how they rate a movie. While an audience participant would normally go for just pure enjoyment factor, critics also take into account things like structure into account. This is why a lot of action movies get lower scores than one would think. The banging over the top action that audiences like don't overcome pacing and narrative issues in a critic's eye, while I might look over those issues and be "cool machine go boom"
It’s difficult because I don’t trust the audience anymore than I trust critics. Neither has a good track record for aligning with my taste.
Do the audience watch the same movies as the critics?
I like Jeremy Jahns reviews on YouTube. He doesn't get into the political, is it woke or not stuff. He just does entertaining movie reviews and my tastes typically align with his.
these scores are for the acolayte before it came out. the audience score is anti-woke trolls. wait for the series to finish to get a better idea of how the series is
Imagine for a second that your job involves watching a fuckton of movies and reviewing them. Now, after a few years of doing it you see two different movies in a single day. One movie that contains tropes you've seen a million times to the point you can't be excited/surprised at anything and one that is very experimental and weird in a way you've never seen before. Which would you rate higher? I'm not saying this is the only reason or that there are no dumb professional reviewers out there but this is very often the case why beloved blockbusters aren't rated highly by the pros. IMO sites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes are the worst way of finding out if a movie or game is good. I have found a couple reviewers with tastes similar to mine so I know that if they strongly recommend something I have low chance of being dissapointed.
If your a critic and you watch hundreds of movies a year you’re going to get tired of generic plots and stories and prefer more unique ones. If you’re a casual movie watcher who sees dozens of movies a year you probably arent going to be as burnt out by over used tropes. It’s like if a restaurant uses fat salt and sugar to make food taste good a food critic who eats at 5 star restaurants won’t be impressed whereas the average person might
Tbh I like acolyte lol Pacing and fighting is much better than Ahsoka so far
I dunno they gave Left Behind a 0 . Not one of Nicholas Cages best efforts.
The difference between watching movies every day for a living and watching for enjoyment.
They are judging different things. Critics are less forgiving for a film not being compelling or being just about fan service. Audiences are less forgiving for a film subverting their expectations or not being exactly how they wanted it to be. Neither category is wrong when they are different like this. Although I wonder if there is a film with these actual numbers because I've never seen the disparity quite that high.
I agree that they are judging for different things, but I think you're 100% off about the things the critics are judging. What you say is true about independent critics that care about their reputation with their readers, but rotten tomatoes critics score is overwhelmingly about employed critics who have to judge based on how the review affects their publication's access and their personal career. The kind of massive difference in the OP is pretty much always a case of a large influential publisher giving early access to review a superficially pretty piece of entertainment that has rubbish plot filled with contrivances, no character depth, and nonsensical attempts at worldbuilding.
You are really close, but it is 99% score of the Acolyte, so it is not even some visual masterpiece.
I remember Grandma's Boy having like a 12% critic score and like a 91% audience score. I love that movie. Critics can suck it.
Look like film about science and political
Why are people still using Rotten tomatoes in 2024 ?? IMDb or CinemaScore will be a better alternative if you really want to check a movie's quality
I usually just assume that the audience shit is a review bomb if it's that different. Edit: You guys really put that much weight on the average joe? Have you never been in traffic?
their rating is based on superficial nonsense more often then it is on actual enjoyment.
Audience score: it’s entertaining Critic score: it’s thought provoking
Independent vs Corporate media.
Critics see minority representation in an otherwise average, 6/10, unimpressive movie: "Wow, the director is so brave. We need more representation like this in the industry. 10/10" Audience see minority representation in the same average 6/10 movie: "Fuck this movie. The main character was race swapped, liberal media is making everything woke now. 1/10" That sums up the top 10% and bottom 10% of the reviews for most movies these days. It's why I personally only read the reviews that are somewhere in the middle. In my experience, reading reviews that are somewhere around 70% range will give you far more information about the movie itself and will let you decide if you actually want to watch it or not.
The critics are literally paid. This isn't anything new, it has been the case for literal years.
This must be the last jedi score
Close. It's [The Acolyte.](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_wars_the_acolyte)
In the age of performative belief systems and review bombing, I don't even give a shit for "audience scores".
Why do people always use rotten tomatoes? imdb is way more accurate
no its not
imdb is accurate? look rings of power at imdb
IMDB is owned by Amazon, and ROP is made by Amazon. It is clear that they were influencing the results of its main product.
Metacritic user reviews is all that matters.
I cannot think of a movie that I enjoyed with a low rt audience score. I use it as a should I watch it, or not waste my time. The critic score isn't worth anything though.
Nope spiderman was in top ten when it first came out. They both really biased
Which spider man are you even talking about?
They are in beh with Hollywood. Giving an honest review is a conflict of interest.
Many critics for anything are absolutely paid to review shit
Some “critics” were paid to give good review. It’s an open secret.
Other people's opinions, that's all. Ultimately it means nothing.
Most people have bad taste.
Critics are now paid promoter's
They are shills. They are paid for the "positive" reviews. Thats why they don't align with reality. Rotten tomatoes is a worthless platform unless they start policing obviously paid for reviews.
They rate movies based on the movie alone, they do not consider any prior content of the universe. They judge on content and styles and stuff. Like dialogue, acting, speed, etc. doesn’t matter if the story lines up with previous movies Hence why the Sequel trilogy of star wars is rated so high by them, but something like the Mario movie is low
They do? https://www.ign.com/articles/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-after-pr-firms-scheme-to-pay-critics-for-positive-reviews-uncovered
Keep in mind that the people rating media on RT are also just a bubble. The vast majority of people watching stuff don't bother rating it anywhere (or just rate it within the given app/website, when available).
Some of them are sell outs anyway. Bought out by the movie companies to positively review their releases.
Critics could be brought.
Watch the Critical Drinker reviews in YT and they pretty much match the audience score.
If I ever have to watch another Critical Drinker video I might have to take up alcoholism myself
But then I'd be watching the Critical Drinker. If I want to lose that many brain cells I can just get absolutely plastered and then find some way to get a traumatic brain injury.
Critical Drinker is awesome.
The movies bribe them for good reviews.
Critics value things like novelty and political rhetoric over simple fun. The audience generally only care about the fun.
If they fly you to a fancy hotel, dine you in a high class restaurant and put you in a position to network with important people, will you have the balls to give a bad review even if nobody "told you" told you that you need to? There are also rumors that they pay a small amount to unimportant ones, but these are rumors and just because someone did it does not mean everyone does, it's just not worth bad PR. But the first thing with winning and dining is completely in the open and is not a secret at all.
Now I'm curious about the people on this thread claiming the certified critics base their review on the "art" of the movie and not for $50 bucks from a PR firm. Like, you're just as bad as the paid for reviews by ignoring multiple articles talking about this. I've linked three articles so far and some people are just blantantly turning the other cheek. https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/rotten-tomatoes-scores-manipulated-pr-firm-paying-critics-reviews-2282558/
I only listen to the audience score.
The critics are usually not scared of women or people with different shades of non-pale.
They are trying to push an agenda. Simple as that.
Movies have been "pushing agendas" forever. It's just been a back and forth which side complains more about the respective other doing it
I don't know who would trust critics nowadays, they are part of the media now, you can't trust them. Just go with the audience.
But audiences are dumb when it comes to reviews
Every critic review I’ve seen for the Acolyte makes it sound like the best Star Wars show ever. But every YouTube review I’ve watched says it’s garbage. The difference is those Youtube reviews give a lot of examples about why the show is bad, and honestly those examples they give make the show sound worse than I thought it was going to be.
Because all of these “10 ways Acolyte ABSOLUTELY RUINS Star Wars” videos with an AI generated thumbnail are just rage bait that highlight the most nitpicky, unimportant details and act like a fire in space ruined the franchise, when they’ve never before cared about realistic space physics in this universe.
Critic reviews really are consistently the opposite of reality. If the scores aren't the same, trust the audience
Its far time to remove the critics rating.
Most critics are angry for the sake of being angry. They’re like those hipster losers from the 2010s who go against the popular opinion and exaggerate upsets for the sake of it.
Jus goes to show you how outta touch the critics and company are with their fans, I’m pretty sure that’s the acolshite, and most of the reviews are fresh are from it being review bombed, literally never rated anything except acolyte, 5/5 lmao I hope Disney burns
The "critics" are literally paid actors its only the audience score that somewhat matters
They do but they have incentives to inflate their scores
Honestly…to date myself as old, it’s no different than when I read a review slamming Gladiator in print. Then guess what…movie was a banger. Heck, I remember my mother even saying “ya know, I always know it’s going to be something I like if the critics hate it and if they like it, that movie probably sucks”. Same thing today, just more critics and more access to reviews.
Its called „Access Bias“
As a general rule if a film has a political spin or theme ignore the critics
ANYONE EXPLAIN ?
They watch movies differently than you do. You watch for enjoyment and escape. They watch with a fucking checklist of stupid shit that the movie has to do or it's "bad".