RT Guesses ?

The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
Posts: 7738
Joined: February 2012
Location: Boston, Taxachusetts.
EctoCooler31 wrote:"You forgot David Denby and Rex Reed."

And Stephanie Z!

Is Armond White still part of RT?
Yeah Stephanie Z is a mega cunt.

Posts: 8282
Joined: May 2012
Location: The Island, NY
EctoCooler31 wrote:"You forgot David Denby and Rex Reed."

And Stephanie Z!

Is Armond White still part of RT?
He got fired for giving Jack and Jill a 4 star review.

Posts: 283
Joined: May 2012
LateReg wrote:Guessing Rotten Tomatoes isn't all that difficult. As most are saying, this will most likely score in the 90s.

Guessing Metacritic, however, is a whole other ballgame, not so black and white...
Metacritic is dumb.

Posts: 65
Joined: July 2012
DesertTurtle wrote:
LateReg wrote:Guessing Rotten Tomatoes isn't all that difficult. As most are saying, this will most likely score in the 90s.

Guessing Metacritic, however, is a whole other ballgame, not so black and white...
Metacritic is dumb.
I've always far preferred it to Rotten Tomatoes. Less jackassery to deal with, and all "elite" critics. Metacritic seems to me a much truer score, if not as all encompassing of the world wide web...which is a good thing.

Posts: 7738
Joined: February 2012
Location: Boston, Taxachusetts.
I think Metacritic is pretty genre biased.

Posts: 65
Joined: July 2012
ComptonTerry wrote:I think Metacritic is pretty genre biased.
Because of their chosen critics having that bias? I can see that.

But that makes a higher score all the more impressive when it comes to a genre film, and you just learn to read each individual film and its score within its genre. Which is really what has been going on with genre films throughout the history of criticism anyway.

Posts: 85
Joined: July 2012
LateReg wrote:Guessing Rotten Tomatoes isn't all that difficult. As most are saying, this will most likely score in the 90s.

Guessing Metacritic, however, is a whole other ballgame, not so black and white...
True but the reason why it's more difficult is many of the "top critics" have biases and agendas that go above simply looking at the movie and objectively writing a review of it.

For what it's worth Dark Knight got an 82, Batman Begins 70 on Metacritic - Avengers only got a 69.

MRQE is actually probably a better overall gauge then both RT and Metacritic but RT is the most widely viewed so. On that DK got an 89 and Begins and 81.

Posts: 25454
Joined: June 2011
Screw RT. RT don't know shit

Posts: 81
Joined: June 2012
Location: Texas
What a films tomato meter does not decide how good it is, it should only be used as a tool. Rotten tomatoes only measure if some liked it or not, not the degree in which they liked it. For example the first Iron Man has a 94% but hardly any critics actually gave it a perfect score. Plus a lot of people only look at the score, they never scroll down and look at what the critics have to say.

Posts: 65
Joined: July 2012
TeddieM wrote:
LateReg wrote:Guessing Rotten Tomatoes isn't all that difficult. As most are saying, this will most likely score in the 90s.

Guessing Metacritic, however, is a whole other ballgame, not so black and white...
True but the reason why it's more difficult is many of the "top critics" have biases and agendas that go above simply looking at the movie and objectively writing a review of it.

For what it's worth Dark Knight got an 82, Batman Begins 70 on Metacritic - Avengers only got a 69.

MRQE is actually probably a better overall gauge then both RT and Metacritic but RT is the most widely viewed so. On that DK got an 89 and Begins and 81.
Good point. The only thing I can say though is that I think some of the so called critics on RT have far more annoying biases than any longstanding critic from a major publication. For example, comic book movies always get a push from the fanboys, horror films get higher scores from a horror website, etc., and there are a lot of those types of reviewers on RT.

I guess I'm just saying that everyone has their agendas and biases; what criticism is about, for me, is interpreting why each individual critic scored a certain movie in a certain way, and how it contributes to a discussion, or at the very least how it contributes to an overall "metascore" for a film. I find more nuance via the "top critics" in this respect than I do from specialty websites (like BloodyDisgusting for example), and I would rather an average that emerged from just them, and one not simply based on whether they gave a positive or negative review. Which is also why I think its more interesting to predict the average rating, which is a feature on RT, along with the Tomatometer percentage.

But I guess none of this matters. At the end of the day its nice to see a 96% on RT, but I'd sure like an 8.7 to appear just below that, rather than a 7.9. After all, at the end of the day, what matters is an audience's passion for a film. Just because I "like" a movie doesn't mean that I'm planning on championing it. The average score is a better predictor of how many top 10s it will finish on come year end time, which is a better predictor of how long the film will last if people are still thinking of it 6 months later.

Post Reply