Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic are no longer useful resources

[Madmick]

There was a Red Letter Media thread where this was touched on, recently.

I was one of the earliest adopters of both websites. RT was first, at least for me, and we go back nearly 20 years now. I was ecstatic when I first discovered it because it was basically something that I wished for, but didn't exist. Then one day...there it was. I yearned for it because I understood the power of aggregating and averaging opinions as a numeric value. IMDb had already become the greatest egalitarian tracker. I valued that, but I also wanted a resource that compiled votes, but of a more educated, patient, and adventurous audience. That's film critics.

The golden age for both websites was the decade from about 2003-2013, I'd estimate. Then it began to bleed. Earlier, actually, but that's when the floodgates opened. It became too popular. Corporations noticed, and the co-opting of these websites had taken hold. I'm not sure how they did it, apart from using money, obviously, but they've succeeded. I just pulled up the Television tab today.

I remember when only the truly extraordinary shows in their more extraordinary seasons notched a score of 90 or higher. When Breaking Bad notched a score of 98 at the end of Season 4 it was almost unfathomable how far ahead of even the other great shows and great seasons that was.

Nobody even hit 95 back then. Nobody. I don't even believe The Sopranos had done it. Their best season scored a 93 or a 94 at the end of its actual year, IIRC (keep in mind that scores you see now include reviews added in retroactively, so if you didn't follow these websites for all those years, you won't have any concept of the scores as they existed during the period I'm discussing...digital sleuths might look through the Internet Archive for screencaps).

Now? A 95 isn't even that special, really. Look at this fucking shit. This is the last 90 days:
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/tv/score/metascore/90day/filtered

If that rustles your jimmies you might want to put on a jimmistity-belt for the All Time list:
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/tv/score/metascore/all/filtered?sort=desc

They just got too greedy. It's transparent as shit. RT is no different.

I throw this out there in the hopes that it will get passed around and everyone will start talking about how useless these websites have become because I still truly love the idea behind the service before it became corrupted. I would hope that there is opportunity, here, for some ambitious new upstart to exploit the transparency of this greed, and to drink their milkshakes...drink them up!

Purge all the shit shill critics that infect both websites now, get rid of any "refined" mathematical weighting techniques (the simple ones like the Bayesian weighting that IMDb uses is just fine), and present us with a quality aggregation of the top critics out there in each field.

I am desperate to abandon these corporate shillholes for your service.



***Update***
Well, the math nerds apparently got to this nearly two years ago:
Be Suspicious Of Online Movie Ratings, Especially Fandango’s

Meanwhile, the most esteemed game review service in history for videogames in terms of their reputation for integrity (owed to a man named Jeff Gerstmann) is the lowest-weighted reviewer among all videogame reviewers. Hmmm.....
GiantBomb currently has the lowest review score on Metacritic

Also, no, RottenTomatoes isn't any better-- at least according to directors who were never known for particularly good reviews (but who still created one of the most beloved Blockbuster franchises of all time):
Rotten Tomatoes is 'the destruction of our business,' says director

 

[theskza]

None of this makes me mad or rustles my jimmies.

"We live in the Golden Age of television"

"Critics are shills"

Lol

 

[liljoe]

I ignore user ratings. The only thing I pay attention to is the critic ratings, especially from notable or large publications. I consider Rotten Tomatoes a valuable resource.

Sorry.

 

[Turtlejuice]

I've never had much faith in sites like these anyway. "Critics" "reviewers" and so on, have always been bought and sold. If something sounds interesting, I'll watch it for myself and I'll be the judge of whether it is good or bad.

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

I do remember the time when maybe 3 out of 10 movies at any given time have a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

I think corruption has taken a toll, but also studios now probably listen to the general public more than they ever have. And because of the business of making movies are getting more and more exclusive, the development process is more transparent, the quality has risen generally.

A bunch of those RT critics are youtube critics as well aka the dude/gal next door. So being a critic has changed. I still agree with RT most of the time, but Iron Man 3 had a 90% fresh rating and the Fast and Furious movies always have fresh ratings so you know there's some fuckery.

Batman v Superman got a rotten rating, and I think the general public were more forgiving than that, so in that sense RT is still fairly legit.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

None of this makes me mad or rustles my jimmies.

"We live in the Golden Age of television"

"Critics are shills"

Lol

Truth is, there are more than a few supposedly objective online film critics who will tell you a shit movie is great for the right price.

 

[Peteyandjia]

I remember when the top 5 in IMDB was Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, etc.

I knew shit was ruined a buncha years ago, when The Dark Knight was suddenly in the top 5

 

[leto1776]

I remember when the top 5 in IMDB was Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, etc.

I knew shit was ruined a buncha years ago, when The Dark Knight was suddenly in the top 5

The Dark Knight, A.K.A. the most overrated movie of the new millennium.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

The Dark Knight, A.K.A. the most overrated movie of the new millennium.

Topping the second most overrated, Shawshank.
And holy shit is that film extremely overrated

 

[leto1776]

Topping the second most overrated, Shawshank.
And holy shit is that film extremely overrated

Shawshank was made in the 90s, and while it has come to be very overrated, it's still a great movie. The Dark Knight benefitted from the tragic death of one of it's stars.

 

[faustian]

Both TDK and Shawshank are awesome

Fkn hipsters man

 

[Grob]

Is there really any difference between a critic and a user? Any dumbass with a blog can review a film. Who is really qualified?

There's no film critic school, that I know of.

I think a more useful site feature would be like the Amazon recommendations. You like X...you might like Y.

The internet is a useless cesspool of attention whores and trolls.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I've never used either to decide whether or not to watch a movie. I usually just read the synopsis and decide if it's something I'd be interested in.

 

[Amerikuracana]

If it's under 40% in RT, it sucks. Period. I pay closer attention to what the critics say, because even this place has proven that the bar has been effectively lowered for the public..

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

The Dark Knight, A.K.A. the most overrated movie of the new millennium.

Pretty sure the new star wars has that spot.

But anyway, who gives a shit what "most" people think---which is what these sites are? Look at who wins Grammys now. That is mainstream. Your best chance is to find a critic/youtuber that you think has a good opinion, maybe. But what makes a person ---- a thinking person ---- like a film is too subjective.
Now, if you can be dumb and say "I like super heroes more than turtles" you have have a shit smorgasboard complete with sneezeguard at your local cineplex.

If it's under 40% in RT, it sucks. Period. I pay closer attention to what the critics say, because even this place has proven that the bar has been effectively lowered for the public..

Bullshit. Flat out bullshit.

 

[The Senator]

Is there really any difference between a critic and a user? Any dumbass with a blog can review a film. Who is really qualified?

There's no film critic school, that I know of.

I think a more useful site feature would be like the Amazon recommendations. You like X...you might like Y.

The internet is a useless cesspool of attention whores and trolls.

I like the line of thought here. I don't place a lot of value in critic or user ratings to determine if I'm going to see something. Their rationale for liking or not liking the film might not agree with how I would have seen it. I do place some value in WHAT they say, and why they say it. I'll read a few reviews from some trusted people (like Dragonlord) and if what they're saying squares with what I want to see, then I'm in.

Now, after I've already seen the film, I don't mind comparing ratings, but that's more about me seeing how my opinion compares with others than using the ratings as a tool.

 

[HereticBD]

While I do think the Tomatometer has become too much of a marketing tool, I can't say I've run across too many movies that didn't deserve the overall rating they got. I disagree here and there, but for the most part, the aggregate seems appropriate enough.

But hey, remember the time when we didn't have RT or MC to tell us what movies to watch, and we just watched them and judged for ourselves? Just do that if you don't trust the internet.

 

[theskza]

Truth is, there are more than a few supposedly objective online film critics who will tell you a shit movie is great for the right price.

I agree... But can you point to a an example where this has happened?

 

[theskza]

If it's under 40% in RT, it sucks. Period. I pay closer attention to what the critics say, because even this place has proven that the bar has been effectively lowered for the public..

For the most part I agree, with the exception of comedies. I've enjoyed so many comedies recently that have extremely low RT scores.

 

[RockstarChris]

Movie critics get paid to "like" a movie. It's like they forsake the one thing that they are supposed to be doing.