|
euphronius posted:a GDT Star Wars would be great. Why can’t we have nice things like that. Yeah, that's where I am at even while looking at Hellboy 2 and Pacific Rim, arguably his weaker movies. You could green screen some sand into the background of the Troll Market and it would fit right into any Star Wars movie!
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
I can barely see anything in that capture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Yeah, that's where I am at even while looking at Hellboy 2 and Pacific Rim, arguably his weaker movies. You could green screen some sand into the background of the Troll Market and it would fit right into any Star Wars movie! He’d probably want an R movie which ... won’t happen The fishpeople movie was extraordinary tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
GDT's too good to be wasting his time with a modern Star Wars movie his experience with The Hobbit is probably going to make him wary of working with any other big franchises too
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
CharlestonJew posted:GDT's too good to be wasting his time with a modern Star Wars movie I mean pacific rim isn’t like great. He’s got his Oscar already. I know it won’t happen tho 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I can barely see anything in that capture. Turn your monitor on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:RT hasn't been much use for like 5 years right rt's algorithm or whatever is weird as hell if you click "tv" in their top nav, whoop! it turns out that almost every single show on tv is literally perfect https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top-tv/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
lmao holy poo poo Rotten Tomatoes I think starts from an extremely faulty premise to begin with. I'm not a fan of aggregates in general for a variety of reasons but boiling everything down to a "good" or "bad" just...it doesn't really tell you poo poo, at all. A 100% can be a universal "B-" from every critic, while a 70% can mean seven out of 10 critics rated it as an amazing film but 3 out of 10 thought it was below average, or just didn't personally enjoy it. Which of those films is the better one, and what have you learned from the RT rating exactly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Rotten Tomatoes I think starts from an extremely faulty premise to begin with. this but the concept of art reviews in general
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Bleck posted:this but the concept of art reviews in general It's why I don't bother with with any review of games, movies, tv shows, etc. If something interests me, I'll go out of my way to engage with whatever that is and judge it for myself. I don't need the opinion of someone else to inform my own. I'll read other opinions and engage in whatever discourse if I find the material to be interesting enough to talk about, but otherwise I like whatever the gently caress I like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Eh my time and money is precious. I get that reviewing art is an inherently flawed agenda, but sometimes I want to make sure my 10 bux and 2 hours will be well-spent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:lmao holy poo poo It's just the ultimate distillation of art reviews, instead of even seeing someone else's opinion you just glance at it. It's time has long past but it had a use in that respect if you wanted to see a movie and you/your group wasn't particularly committed to what. You could look at it to get a quick "folks are saying this is pretty good" or "folks are saying this is pretty bad" to make a decision faster before leaving the video rental store or buying your tickets at the theater. The way it was getting used in the past decade though is such a waste of time as is the site itself in general. Remember that brief window where Thor: The Dark World had a 90% fresh on it and people were hailing it as incredible like a month before it was even released? Superfans really latched onto it once comic book stuff started to reach $$$ levels of popularity again with Iron Man and The Dark Knight as a validation of their favorite thing being real art or whatever. But in general I stopped looking at reviews of stuff a loooong time ago. Like I see a trailer once and either I'm interested in seeing it or I'm not. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
I can understand why people would rely on review aggregators. But if you accept the general premise behind the concept, it still seems so peculiar to me that RottenTomatoes uses a pass/fail grade on all reviews. At least Metacritic assigns a score from 0-100 so that if 100 critics each give a movie a passing grade of 60, that’s at least reflected in the D- score. On Rottentomatoes there’s no way to tell the difference between a D- and an A+. It just seems asinine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I can understand why people would rely on review aggregators. But if you accept the general premise behind the concept, it still seems so peculiar to me that RottenTomatoes uses a pass/fail grade on all reviews. At least Metacritic assigns a score from 0-100 so that if 100 critics each give a movie a passing grade of 60, that’s at least reflected in the D- score. On Rottentomatoes there’s no way to tell the difference between a D- and an A+. It just seems asinine. Yeah, I have big issues with something like Metacritic as well, but at least a 70% there means the average review was: 7/10, 3.5 stars out of five, one and a half thumbs up or whatever the gently caress. That gives you some kind of generally useful data. With RT, a 100% just means...every critic thought it was at least a C+. If you can't decide on a movie with your friends, how does this information help? Other percentages are even more opaque: a 60% means that 6 out of 10 critics gave it a "fresh" review but did those 6 think it was "pretty good" or "amazing" and did the other 4 think it was actually terrible or do they just not like sci-fi or whatever. Two identical ratings can have wildly different meanings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
You're better off finding critics you respect - that write well, are well-versed and knowledge about the field, share your moral and political outlook (or maybe clash?) - than looking at aggregations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Rotten Tomatoes is especially stupid once you realize they'll put positive reviews down as negative and vice versa, especially if it's a 'controversial' film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
Rotten Tomatoes asks critics if they want their review to be counted as positive or negative, I'm pretty sure. They also include an aggregate of scores under the "more info" tab if you want to see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Debating the ups and downs of Rotten Tomatoes is like critiquing bathroom graffiti. It's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
[Jay Sherman pointing to a picture of himself] It Stinks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/slashfilm/status/1191875623074979840
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
I feel like if you go back to the logic of Siskel and Ebert, the binary of the thumbs up wasn't a measure of the quality of the film. It's not an A+ or an F. It's just a suggestion if the film is worth your time at all or if it can be ignored. A good example is Ebert giving a thumbs up to The Devil's Rejects on the basis that anyone who was going to see The Devil's Rejects would probably enjoy what they were getting despite the fact that he couldn't really cosign on it at all. But Ebert always said if you wanted to actually engage with his opinion then you needed to ignore the stars and the thumbs and just read the review. I think RT is honestly fine because it's just a quick indicator for what people are saying is worth a look. The criticism against people using it as evidence in argument to prove their opinion isn't that the rating system is flawed or broken more than it's just fundamentally shallow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
I remember growing up we'd read the one reviewer in the paper (man I'm old) and had a good feel what we agreed or disagreed with him on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think RT is honestly fine because it's just a quick indicator for what people are saying is worth a look. The criticism against people using it as evidence in argument to prove their opinion isn't that the rating system is flawed or broken more than it's just fundamentally shallow. There aren't any flaws in the tomato algorithm, per se, because it is deliberately designed to reward mediocrity. It's a for-profit website that's pursuing as many pageviews as possible. A rudimentary improvement like, for example, adjusting for enthusiasm (giving more weight to 5-star reviews over 3-star reviews) potentially alienates some pageviewers because it allows moderately more-experimental films to slip through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think RT is honestly fine because it's just a quick indicator for what people are saying is worth a look. The criticism against people using it as evidence in argument to prove their opinion isn't that the rating system is flawed or broken more than it's just fundamentally shallow. I use it to get a vague sense of a movie's competency as a film vs. the interesting-ness of its content. If it's overall just a badly-made movie that fails at its goals, most critics probably pick up on that and its score is trash. But a 90%+ doesn't mean a movie's great, it means it's 1) well-made in a technical or fundamental narrative sense, and 2) really unambitious or inoffensive in plot, theme, or character. See every MCU movie, every Subway sandwich. My sweet spot is like the high-70's/low-80's. The general consensus is that it's made well and achieves its goal. But it did something to alienate 20-25% of them, and I want to see what that was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Finally, a Kubuki show that is comprehensibly boring for me. Edit: gently caress its the new ones only
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There aren't any flaws in the tomato algorithm, per se, because it is deliberately designed to reward mediocrity. It's a for-profit website that's pursuing as many pageviews as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Finally, a Kubuki show that is comprehensibly boring for me. Goddamit, the OG and PQ would have been more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Goddamit, the OG and PQ would have been more interesting. I live in Japan and was all set to buy tickets but now I have 0 interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Debating the ups and downs of Rotten Tomatoes is like critiquing bathroom graffiti. It's poo poo. Ages ago I was using a stall in a rest stop in New Jersey and written exquisitely on the inside of the stall was the following: quote:You paint these walls to cover my pen. And it stuck in my mind ever since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I dunno man--the main page right now is mainly highlighting The Lighthouse, Parasite, and The Farewell in it's Certified Fresh movie section. There's a whole article about big festival favorites. But there's also clickbaity poo poo there too? It's fine. If you have no issue with the Rotten Tomatoes' algorithm in the abstract, then, in order to fully grasp how it operates in the concrete, you can't just look at the films that you believe they got right, but also what you think they got wrong. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Nov 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I dunno man--the main page right now is mainly highlighting The Lighthouse, Parasite, and The Farewell in it's Certified Fresh movie section. There's a whole article about big festival favorites. But there's also clickbaity poo poo there too? It's fine. The IMDB Top Whatever has some pretty good films on it as well. It’s question of which films are excluded, as well as which don’t exactly belong. Prometheus, which is arguably Ridley Scott’s best film, has a 73 Tomato. That’s basically the same score as fuckin’ Solo, which was dire even for Ron Howard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The IMDB Top Whatever has some pretty good films on it as well. It’s question of which films are excluded, as well as which don’t exactly belong. lmao, no, but I'm surprised Blade Runner has 89 from critics, I thought it was pretty tepidly received e: Not to say Prometheus is not good, though
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
The problem with Rotten Tomatoes, ultimately, is that the people employed critics are really really dumb and poorly educated. If it were a poll of the 100 most intelligent, perceptive, and knowledgeable movie watchers in the world it be good. Or at least interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
porfiria posted:The problem with Rotten Tomatoes, ultimately, is that the people employed critics are really really dumb and poorly educated. If it were a poll of the 100 most intelligent, perceptive, and knowledgeable movie watchers in the world it be good. Or at least interesting. The Film Dump's right there
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I'm surprised Blade Runner has 89 from critics, I thought it was pretty tepidly received Blade Runner: 89 The Last Jedi: 91 Star Wars Rebels The Cartoon Show: 92
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 09:01
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:You're better off finding critics you respect - that write well, are well-versed and knowledge about the field, share your moral and political outlook (or maybe clash?) - than looking at aggregations. This is right but it also takes time most people don't have. Also 90+ percent of critics working today are miserable hacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 10:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Blade Runner: 89 Yeah the number doesn't work if you're looking for a ranking of the films' quality and I don't know who the gently caress doesn't like Blade Runner, but that doesn't really matter. Nobody should be using RT to make stupid points about why their favorite Marvel movie is better than Gangs of New York or whatever. Like what is frustrating you? Your rebuttal was that the site filters out interesting movie when it's pretty easy to find access to reviews about Waves and The Lighthouse. And then your response was that you're mad that the fifth film in the Aliens series was called worth seeing and a boring but competent enough movie that you didn't like was also deemed worth seeing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
I miss the days when you really got to know the reviewer. I miss Harry Knowles’ three page rambles about his day before it even got to the movie!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
I miss ebert
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:And then your response was that you're mad that the fifth film in the Aliens series was called worth seeing and a boring but competent enough movie that you didn't like was also deemed worth seeing? When everything is flattened out to "worth seeing", this disproportionately benefits the boringly competent movie, rewarding mediocrity. That was my point. To this you might object that you like mediocrity, because it's still 'worth seeing' - but that was also my point: that the tomato website is inoffensive by design because its goal is to attract as many people as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 17:52
|
|