Vox - Why Rotten Tomatoes scores don’t mean what they seem

Stinkles · Oct 21, 2018

RT is great for identifying surprisingly good outliers like Mandy - but only for the initial critical reception. Once viewers get theirs going stuff like Mandy or Mother! end up being skewed by bewildered Joe Six-pack. The reverse happens with stuff like those parody "Scary Movie" type trash. The Coors Light effect.

Mona · Oct 21, 2018

Cuburger said:
You would rate the film 32 critics out of 100? That's a pretty low percentage of favorable opinions that you assigned to this film.

i just dropped it to 25%, you want to keep going?

Cuburger · Oct 21, 2018

Mona said:
i just dropped it to 25%, you want to keep going?

I just wonder how the 55% of critics that liked the film feel about you deciding that their opinions don't matter

metalfearsolid · Oct 21, 2018

So Venom might worth a watch then?

Mona · Oct 21, 2018

Cuburger said:
I just wonder how the 55% of critics that liked the film feel about you deciding that their opinions don't matter

They'll get over it I'm sure

Speevy · Oct 21, 2018

Cuburger said:
I just wonder how the 55% of critics that liked the film feel about you deciding that their opinions don't matter

I rate it somewhere between a banh mi sandwich and peanut butter on my dick.

caliph95 · Oct 21, 2018

metalfearsolid said:
So Venom might worth a watch then?

If you're interested go ahead but I would wait for a matinee

Stiler · Oct 21, 2018

It's just some people don't grasp that 50% RT doesn't mean a movie is "bad."

Take a movie like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for example:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fear_and_loathing_in_las_vegas/

49% RT.....

Yet many people absolutely loooooove it. There are many movies that you yourself will love and others will hate, a simple "average" score between those people doesn't equate well to that.

Brinbe · Oct 21, 2018

It's not hard to understand. If you're looking for overall quality, metacritic is what you want.

caliph95 · Oct 21, 2018

Brinbe said:
It's not hard to understand. If you're looking for overall quality, metacritic is what you want.

Metacritic has a different issue that reviews are weighted but it's not transparent about it

Deleted member 9932 · Oct 21, 2018

How can you get mad at film rating sites.

Mona · Oct 21, 2018

True Savior said:
How can you get mad at film rating sites.

I see you're not a DC fan

Servbot24 · Oct 21, 2018

I never understood why RT is more frequently used than Metacritic.

Lifejumper · Oct 21, 2018

kickz said:
Metacritic scores are better

Non transparent weighing system + cherrypicked reviews is better?

Nah MC is even worse.

Brinbe · Oct 21, 2018

caliph95 said:
Metacritic has a different issue that reviews are weighted but it's not transparent about it

That I didn't know, but I shouldn't be surprised. Does it weigh more in favor of bigger critics? That would make some sense I guess?

Lifejumper · Oct 21, 2018

EDIT: nvm

SweetVermouth · Oct 21, 2018

I never give a crap about about scores. I've liked movies that got a 3.5/10 on imdb. Or a rotten 30% score on RT.

Meows · Oct 21, 2018

Bor Gullet said:
RT has lost some credibility for me because recently they added a bunch of "critics" who have the professionalism of middle school bloggers.

I agree. People like to shit on Metacritic for determining scores based off reviews but at least they take the words of respected critics who know their stuff instead of some guys that think plot holes are the entire substance of film criticism. I'll take MC over RT any day of the week (both are trash for television though).

caliph95 · Oct 21, 2018

Brinbe said:
That I didn't know, but I shouldn't be surprised. Does it weigh more in favor of bigger critics? That would make some sense I guess?

Lifejumper said:
If i'm right. MC also assigns their own score to scoreless reviews.

From what I found yeah they also interpret reviews with no scores based on impressions and convert different scoring system to 0-100, scale

The weighted part which they admit from quick Google is like you said based on big reviewers or basically critics that they think is good or better than the rest

They don't admit though who is weighted what and they said the won't

caliph95 · Oct 21, 2018

Meowster said:
I agree. People like to shit on Metacritic for determining scores based off reviews but at least they take the words of respected critics who know their stuff instead of some guys that think plot holes are the entire substance of film criticism. I'll take MC over RT any day of the week (both are trash for television though).

Bor Gullet said:
RT has lost some credibility for me because recently they added a bunch of "critics" who have the professionalism of middle school bloggers.

Yeah I don't care for that either though it makes me sound elitist lol

Solo · Oct 21, 2018

Why does this even need to be explained? RT has always provided a % of reviews that were favorable, nothing more, nothing less.

Phamit · Oct 21, 2018

I like them more, i rather don't want to know an exact average score before watching a movie.

takriel · Oct 21, 2018

Dranakin said:
Problem is, most trailers are trash since they're dictated by the studio instead of the creative team.

and spoilery af. I generally don't watch trailers because of this. I'd rather rely on a suboptimal average score.

Ogre · Oct 21, 2018

All the review aggregators are useful to some degree, you just have to tailor them to your own tastes.

If I see a random monster-horror film on Prime, with a limited number of reviews on RT and MC, I'll go by the IMDB, and adjust the score according to my preferences. As I enjoy even the schlokiest of monster films, a 5 and above on IMDB is worth my time.

If it's some dense, complex film, I'm less likely to go by the IMDB score, and instead go by the critic average, with a preference for critics with similar tastes. For instance, Aleksei German's Hard to be a God has a 6.7 on IMDB, but a 9.1 critic average on RT. In such cases, I'll use the critic average to decide whether it's worth my time.

(It was.)

Cuburger · Oct 21, 2018

SweetVermouth said:
I never give a crap about about scores. I've liked movies that got a 3.5/10 on imdb. Or a rotten 30% score on RT.

But the 30% score on RT isn't saying it's a 3/10 like the imdb score (or even a similar 30/100 on metacritic), it's saying 30% of critics still liked it regardless of how they think it stacks up quality wise and that there is a 30% chance you'll agree with critics if you happen to like it.

In other words, a 30% on RT doesn't even invalidate your opinion on whether a movie is good or not, it simply states that you are in the minority opinion compared to the majority of critics, which is should be a valuable metric on it's own if you feel like your own tastes don't gel with what most people like. That is, unless you just want a score to validate your opinion.

foggy · Oct 21, 2018

Just go see a movie you want to see. Live dangerously.

FLEABttn · Oct 21, 2018

baron doggystyle von woof said:
I always said rotten tomatoes is trash. Just watch the trailer and go from there.

Which marvel movie do you think was underrated?

Deleted member 24907 · Oct 21, 2018

Quite a lot of blockbuster releases end up with 90+ RT despite them being generally pretty derivative. RT stops being useful when there's a generally pleasing, albeit milquetoast movie that the vast majority of cricitcs would say they enjoyed.

Solo · Oct 21, 2018

Eatin' Olives said:
RT stops being useful when there's a generally pleasing, albeit milquetoast movie that the vast majority of cricitcs would say they enjoyed.

..... but that's the exact function of RT?

Deleted member 24907 · Oct 21, 2018

Solo said:
..... but that's the exact function of RT?

Rewarding derivative movies with very high consensus scores?

That's why I said RT stops being useful in these corner cases.

More_Badass · Oct 21, 2018

Cuburger said:
But the 30% score on RT isn't saying it's a 3/10 like the imdb score (or even a similar 30/100 on metacritic), it's saying 30% of critics still liked it regardless of how they think it stacks up quality wise and that there is a 30% chance you'll agree with critics if you happen to like it.

In other words, a 30% on RT doesn't even invalidate your opinion on whether a movie is good or not, it simply states that you are in the minority opinion compared to the majority of critics, which is should be a valuable metric on it's own if you feel like your own tastes don't gel with what most people like. That is, unless you just want a score to validate your opinion.

Exactly. People need to stop treating RT scores like they're score averages

ry-dog · Oct 21, 2018

I think rotten tomatoes is fine, aggregating review scores of different scales doesn't make much sense, a simple "did you like it/would you recommend it" reveals a lot more. Its score isn't supposed to reflect that Dunkirk is a 8.7/10 and get out is a 8.3/10

It's the best indicator for should I give this movie a chance. There's very few rotten films I've enjoyed, but there's quite a lot of low scoring imdb or metacritic films I've loved

More_Badass · Oct 21, 2018

Eatin' Olives said:
Rewarding derivative movies with very high consensus scores?

RT is not scores. RT is merely consensus, regardless of quality. It's a show of hands to the question "did you like it". The individual answer might be "it was okay" or "It was amazing", it's still a raised hand

A high RT score means either a lot of people like movies that appeals to a lot of people or it's a fantastically crafted movie firing on all cylinders

A middling RT means the consensus is mixed, but generally positive

A low RT means either the consensus is that a movie is terrible or that a movie is a very niche, you either love it or hate it

Solo · Oct 21, 2018

Eatin' Olives said:
Rewarding derivative movies with very high consensus scores?
.

No, providing a % of critics who gave the movie a favorable review. Its not a reward, its not a statement of quality or artistic merit, it's just simply a statement of fact. 95% of critics gave Movie X a favorable review. It doesn't say nor does it attempt to say the movie is a 95% on some kind of subjective review scale, just that 95% of reviews are favorable. Could all be "decent enough popcorn flick" reviews for a Marvel movie, but they are still favorable reviews and therefore the rating makes sense.

Deleted member 48205 · Oct 21, 2018

baron doggystyle von woof said:
I always said rotten tomatoes is trash. Just watch the trailer and go from there.

Bad advice. Trailers today are almost always awful and will most likely spoil the plot of the movie for you.

baron doggystyle von woof · Oct 22, 2018

FLEABttn said:
Which marvel movie do you think was underrated?

I don't care to be honest. I have enjoyed so many movies which were reviewed badly on the major sites. If I don't enjoy the movie I stop after 10 minutes and pick another one.

Sites like rotten tomatoes has the worst reviewing system. It's either good or bad, nothing in between. While a lot of movies are no masterpieces but still enjoyable to watch.

Imdb is alright, but only after a certain amount of reviews.

Deleted member 2809 · Oct 22, 2018

Can't stop laughing at people calling RT "wrong" or "bias" (sic)

FreezePeach · Oct 22, 2018

RT has always steered me right. Rarely gone wrong. Generally i see a fresh movie i feel there is a good chance ill like it. Sometimes i like a rotten movie. On the average id say 85% of the time its accurate.

DevilMayGuy · Oct 22, 2018

baron doggystyle von woof said:
I always said rotten tomatoes is trash. Just watch the trailer and go from there.

Because trailers are a much better representation of a film's quality than aggregate reviews.

Okay

cakely · Oct 22, 2018

Aftermath said:
Link incase embed doesn't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQyKpOJhUKY

A lot of people will know this already but there are still some out there that aren't aware, hopefully this will give them more understanding of the system.

Thanks, Vox, for explaining how the Rotten Tomatoes review aggregation system works!

No, I'm actually kidding, the system is incredibly simple, and it's described in full on the site itself.

take_marsh · Oct 22, 2018

Vox puts together some neat videos and this one isn't an exception. Short and sweetly informative.

RT score doesn't typically determine my opinion or what I want to watch, but I won't lie that I enjoy reading through RT. Mostly for bad movies because my happiness thrives from reading reviews for bad movies.

kswiston · Oct 22, 2018

Solo said:
No, providing a % of critics who gave the movie a favorable review. Its not a reward, its not a statement of quality or artistic merit, it's just simply a statement of fact. 95% of critics gave Movie X a favorable review. It doesn't say nor does it attempt to say the movie is a 95% on some kind of subjective review scale, just that 95% of reviews are favorable. Could all be "decent enough popcorn flick" reviews for a Marvel movie, but they are still favorable reviews and therefore the rating makes sense.

If something gets a 90%+ on RT, it just means that most critics thought that it was worth a watch, and therefore I will probably have a decent chance of liking the film as well.

It doesn't mean that the film is going to be amazing or anything.

Now, if the film is sitting at 95-100% with an 8.8 average or something, that is different.

Deleted member 4034 · Oct 22, 2018

True Savior said:
How can you get mad at film rating sites.

...

Are you new to the internet?

ArmsofSleep · Oct 22, 2018

RT is a terrible system (same with metacritic or any other aggregator) but the problem is more of the dumb movie fans who take the ratings as gospel (or even as meaningful in any way) rather than the site itself.

kswiston · Oct 22, 2018

If you look at the average ratings for most if the superhero films from the past 5 years that scored low 80s to low 90s on RT, they typically have averages in the 6.5-7.5 range. Which is basically a 2.5 or 3 out of 4 star rating on average. Which I think is fair for most of them. People aren't saying that most of those films are amazing. They just don't have enough objectionable material to be divisive.

For prestige dramas, you typically get lower scores but higher averages.

Watchtower · Oct 22, 2018

Stiler said:
It's just some people don't grasp that 50% RT doesn't mean a movie is "bad."

Take a movie like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for example:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fear_and_loathing_in_las_vegas/

49% RT.....

Yet many people absolutely loooooove it. There are many movies that you yourself will love and others will hate, a simple "average" score between those people doesn't equate well to that.

To be fair, RT's effectiveness as an aggregator gets increasingly worse for any movie before 2008. RT's influence on the industry includes encouraging a consistent flow of reviews that RT actively cultivates for the sake of the Tomatometer. For movies pre-RT the sample size is a lot smaller since reviews are fewer and harder to find. And it only gets worse for 90s movies and earlier, since one would have to rely on archived material.

spam musubi · Oct 22, 2018

cakely said:
Thanks, Vox, for explaining how the Rotten Tomatoes review aggregation system works!

No, I'm actually kidding, the system is incredibly simple, and it's described in full on the site itself.

And yet, we constantly get people even on this site who keep arguing as if RT scores were a ratings average

Solo · Oct 22, 2018

nynt9 said:
And yet, we constantly get people even on this site who keep arguing as if RT scores were a ratings average

Do they though? I think most people understand that when Thor 4 has an 85% on RT that it just means most critics liked it to some extent vs it being a mathematical score.

I followed the RT of the new Halloween closely in the lead up to its release because I was interested to see how critics, who historically dont rate horror films and especially slashers very high, would take to it. I was impressed that 80% gave it a favorable review, but that in no way was taken as "the critics have spoken, the movie is an 8/10!"

spam musubi · Oct 22, 2018

Solo said:
Do they though? I think most people understand that when Thor 4 has an 85% on RT that it just means most critics liked it to some extent vs it being a mathematical score.

I can't be bothered to pull up examples right now, but yes. Very often in threads, especially threads involving star wars movies or DCEU movies. I've responded to posters doing this many times. It's extremely common. And it's also very common on reddit or facebook or anywhere really. People see a number, and think it's an aggregated score.

caliph95 · Oct 22, 2018

Solo said:
Do they though? I think most people understand that when Thor 4 has an 85% on RT that it just means most critics liked it to some extent vs it being a mathematical score.

People really don't get it

In the movie threads it had to be explained every time especially on social media

Vox - Why Rotten Tomatoes scores don’t mean what they seem

User requested account closure

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

User requested account closure

User requested account closure