How much do Rotten Tomatoes (or critics') ratings influence you?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
You are right, sorry. But I can't still edit my posts... :-(
Critics' opinions don't influence my opinion of a movie but most of the time I find a reasonable correlation between critics' opinions and mine. Most movies I like tend to have at least a 60 on Metacritic.
I find if everybody, everybody is saying a movie is terrible, it's probably terrible.
Previews I find entirely useless in telling me if I'd like a movie. Previews make them all look exactly the same and knowing the general structure of the story doesn't tell you anything about the actual quality of the writing.
I find if everybody, everybody is saying a movie is terrible, it's probably terrible.
Previews I find entirely useless in telling me if I'd like a movie. Previews make them all look exactly the same and knowing the general structure of the story doesn't tell you anything about the actual quality of the writing.
Last edited:
I think Rotten Tomatoes sucks on toast, and have no idea why so many people reference it over the far superior Metacritic.
That said, Metacritic scores, as well as certain reviewers, definitely influence whether I'll pay to see a movie in theaters, or even rent it. Because of reviews, I saw Fast & Furious 6 in theater rather than Into Darkness, and now that I've seen both, I know I made the right call.
That said, Metacritic scores, as well as certain reviewers, definitely influence whether I'll pay to see a movie in theaters, or even rent it. Because of reviews, I saw Fast & Furious 6 in theater rather than Into Darkness, and now that I've seen both, I know I made the right call.
Absolute 0%. Though, I don't see many movies in the theater, I buy a lot of DVD's and blu-rays and pay no attention to reviews.
Most movies in my large collection are probably panned by sites like rotten tomatoes.
Most movies in my large collection are probably panned by sites like rotten tomatoes.
Thank you for your suggestion about Metacritic
. Cell has a 37 score on it. (that it means Generally Unfavorable Reviews). To be considered "Overwhelming Disliked" a movie has to be scored less than 19.So it seems that Cell fared better here than on Rotten Tomatoes. Interesting.
No, Cell fared the same on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. The problem is that people don't understand how Rotten Tomatoes works.Thank you for your suggestion about Metacritic
So it seems that Cell fared better here than on Rotten Tomatoes. Interesting.
The percentage score on Rotten Tomatoes isn't a grade. It's the percentage of critics that gave it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. A movie could have 100% and the consensus be "Meh, it's okay" while a movie could have 0% and the consensus could be "mediocre" or, for yet another example, a movie could have a 40% rating and yet those 40% of critics absolutely adored the film because it's a film that doesn't appeal to everyone. The problem arises when people see that 100% and proclaim the film to be a masterpiece or see the 0% and assume worst movie ever. It doesn't work like that. The percentage rating on Rotten Tomatoes is how likely you are to like or dislike the film and it has nothing to do with the quality of the film.
With that said, I use Rotten Tomatoes quite a bit and I combine it with a few written reviews and my own tastes. For example, The Lone Ranger has a 31% on rotten tomatoes. My thoughts were "Hey, I have a 1/3 chance of enjoying this film and I'm in the mood for something fun and stupid, sounds perfect." And I loved the film.
This one just arrived today. It's as high as 38% on RT, which might be a high mark for movies I own.
Since Roger Ebert's death I've given up on following the opinions of individual critics. I'm also not the type to rush out and see a movie first thing (Star Trek Beyond was the first film I saw opening weekend since one of the Star Wars prequels), so I tend to use the MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores, along with the box office performance to judge whether I want to catch something in the theater or just wait for the Blu-ray. Some films (like superhero movies) are fairly critic-proof, but if it looks like the general public is staying away in droves as well, it's probably not something I need to drop $10+ on.
Box office figures have more to do with quality of advertising than quality of film. The only thing about box office figures that tell you anything about quality is how far down they go in the second weekend because that tells you something about word of mouth. First weekend box office is more just "Okay how many people were convinced to go see the movie before talking to anybody who saw it".
The trouble with Metacritic is that it makes no distinction between "Half the critics thought it was the greatest thing ever and half hated it" and "Everybody thought it was just okay". It'd be more useful with some kind of standard deviation metric.
The trouble with Metacritic is that it makes no distinction between "Half the critics thought it was the greatest thing ever and half hated it" and "Everybody thought it was just okay". It'd be more useful with some kind of standard deviation metric.
Not at all. I don't go to the cinema just for something to do. If I go, it's to see a specific movie I've pre decided upon, and I'll go and see it regardless of the reviews. I'll sometimes go despite expecting it to be bad - Fantastic Four, Batman Superman, Star Trek Beyond.
I quite liked Batman Superman...
I quite liked Batman Superman...
Yes, but what do you do when friends invite you to see a movie that you aren't interested in..?
It doesn't happen - I don't go to the cinema with friends. I go to gigs and pubs with friends. Cinema is with my wife, son or occasionally on my own, so I know what I'm going to see.Yes, but what do you do when friends invite you to see a movie that you aren't interested in..?
Hypothetically though, if it did happen, I'd just say 'No thanks !'. I can't imagine ever going to see a film I wasn't interested in, no matter how good the reviews were.
Critics don't influence me at all. Not a scrap.
I used to let reviews sway me a bit, but no more. Especially "fan" reviews. "Fans" can suck all the fun out of Trek without even trying, so they're dead to me now.
I used to let reviews sway me a bit, but no more. Especially "fan" reviews. "Fans" can suck all the fun out of Trek without even trying, so they're dead to me now.
I actually don't pay any attention to Rotten Tomatoes (sometimes I'll check it out after I watch a movie to see what others thought). I'm usually pretty good at telling if I want to watch a movie or not judging by the trailers. In fact, it was the trailers that made me want to stay away from Ghostbusters (2016), not the Rotten Tomatoes score. Hell, several movies I enjoyed over the past couple of years enjoyed low RT scores (Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Terminator: Genisys).
Needless to say, I'm going to be watching Suicide Squad (42% RT score) Monday
Needless to say, I'm going to be watching Suicide Squad (42% RT score) Monday
You're confusing Metacritic with Rotten Tomatoes. RT gives a simple Fresh/Rotten assessment to the reviews, while Metacritic assigns each review a score of 0-100 based on what each reviewer wrote about it, then averages all the scores.
