He's right. RT should be only for critics since they actually know what they're talking about, aren't needlessly biased against certain shows, and can actually articulate their points well, unlike the obsessed RT users here.
The average users have shown they cannot handle the responsibility.
Typical. No one here has the brains or balls to respond.
User reviews are obviously useful because people enjoy a work for different reasons from critics, and will get a better idea of if they'd enjoy a work if they know what other people think.
I feel like you're going to use terms like "review-bombing" so I would remind you that paid critics tend to give good scores to Disney films for fear of not being allowed to critic screenings of Disney films, so their scores can be compromised too.
lol, come back to the real world dipshit. Actual critics don't have an agenda like poltards do.
Your shilling isn’t going to make me care about this show.
I don;'t care if you watch it. I just want you o know that you're not welcome here.
>paid critics tend to give good scores to Disney films
Explain Rise of Skywalker then. (86% user score, by the way.)
Oh no, people are enjoying things! The absolute horror!
Oh no, people are not enjoying things! The absolute horror!
Hollywood does not need the criticism of a virgin.
Woman moment.
Incels should always, always be shamed, hated, and rejected.
Why?
Most women don't call people virgins as an insult lol this is shit you take from watching too many Hollywood high school dramas lol
Women hate you most of all.
Ironic how RLM have become exactly what they used to criticize
Don't care for RT, show me the IMDB score.
>just google it you lazy moron
Nah I don't care enough about this to do that.
How is looking up a movie on RT any less work than looking it up on google?
Okay.
>Paid reviews is the best!
Shillydill
No one likes Tassi.
It's chuds no one likes or respects. Why would anyone listen to someone who's never had sex?
You can immediately tell when a chud reviews something because he brings his dumb racist, sexist, and transphobic opinions into it.
That is 100% virgin energy and no one wants to hear it. The world hates you so much because of it, yet you keep doing it.
>shitting on incels
thats very transphobic of you sister
Trans folk pull in more sex in one week that you could in an entire lifetime.
If only I had the shame access to children like they do
It funny how losers always make shit about people's sex lives like it's some kind of gotcha. Like we get you see yourself and other as nothing but more than frickable pieces of meat.
post selfie troon I will mog you to oblivion
People who immediately think about whether a poster they're replying to has had sex, or is sexually active, are without exception virgins themselves.
Terrible b8
>i don't agree with it, therefore it is bait.
Shitty way to dismiss an argument.
I wouldn't have given this tryhard bait a (You) but apparently Cinemaphile is moronic enough to fall for it so have a respect (You).
>racist, sexist, and transphobic
thats 95% of the world outside of your anglosaxon bubble you moronic amerishart homosexual
>Scale, Good or Bad
>reviewers come up with arbitrary bullshit reasons for both, or make claims completely contrary to their actual rating
How bout frick off with Rotten Tomatoes altogether? Shittiest review site there is
Or, how about frick off with negative user reviews altogether?
Sex is the number one measure of worth in a human being.
Yeah professional critics who will accept a chipotle gift card from any studio to write a positive review
Better than a chud.
>”CHUDS ARE REVIEW BOMBING”
>click on user reviews
>everyone bringing up specific points where the narrative fails
>1 out of every 10 even mention wokeness
Hmm
Fricking liar. Every single bad review is about
>hurr durr, black person bad!
Every. Single. One.
black people are bad and no one wants to see them
Only chuds think that. 99.9% of the human race loves and adores POC.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/castlevania_nocturne/s01/reviews?type=user&intcmp=rt-scorecard_audience-score-reviews
"character design" is a dog whistle for "I hate black people."
But its 100% fine for critics to give mediocre movies/shows masterpiece-level praise simply because they star black actors, right? (i.e. Get Out, Black Panther)
Those are phenomenal movies. You're just racist.
Black people are America's God now. Imagine if Jesus himself appeared in movies in the 1920's or something. They'd be automatic five star classics if reviewed by believers. Same thing is happening here.
Or, maybe they're better actors and always have been?
The woke bourgeoisie rule over the chud masses, unaware of their hubris “let them have sex” they cry out unable to quell the chuddification of society, as they continue to lose ground to antiwokeism
That's funny, because I look at it in the exact opposite way. The "professional" reviewers always give completely unwarranted scores, and they always do it for the wrong reasons. In this case, it's LITERALLY because there's black vampires(which were brought into the show because people complained about the lack of black vampires).
>You
>yours
Implying.
I'm a "marginalized" member being gay and non-white btw (:
Liar.
Browner than you timmy
>marginalized group
RT shouldn't be for anyone. At least not the way it is right now, with these meaningless aggregate scores.
If it just linked to different critiques (professional ones, obviously), maybe provided an overview with poignant excerps, and maybe (but not necessarily) showed the rating given for each, that would work. You wouldn't get morons treating the overall score as gospel, use it to make their own decisions or form their own opinion based on it, or to shitpost, like they do now. People would actually have to engage with the reviews critically themselves, and learn how to critically watch films.
There really needs to be wider acknowledgment of the difference between television and movie critics. While critics are becoming universally terrible, there’s still a wide difference between movie critics, in which maybe 50% of the “top critics,” I.e. critics who work at legitimate outlets and aren’t just Twitter losers, are sincere and attempt to give honest reviews about 80% of the time when they’re not reviewing a moving with major headlines.
Whereas television critics are universally and 100% dishonest clickbait fake journalists, floor to ceiling, all the time. Their reviews are absolutely always worthless with no exceptions.
I’m not going to pretend that movie critics aren’t also becoming very bad, but conflating the two is a disservice to how truly and unprecedentedly awful television critics are. In no way whatsoever do any of them ever provide a legitimate critic review. It is a wholly fake industry, with out exception.
It’s fricking wild.
I do believe television critics are worse than movie ones, but honestly film critics are almost as bad. They've always been liberal but at least back then they still seemed to, for the most part, prioritize filmmaking quality (writing, directing, cinematography, etc). Over the last 10 or so years we've seen them fall over themselves to pander to SJW/leftist ideology to the point where they'll jerk off even the most mediocre of films.
>Over the last 10 or so years we've seen
Over the last ten years ... no, scratch that, twenty years, we've seen mainstrem cinema almost completely abandon the craft of filmmaking (writing, directing, cinematography) in favour of very direct messaging and providing cheap entertainment for the masses (ironically with the highest budgets ever). What do you expect from critics? That they provide criticism of something that just isn't there?
Hell, read some reviews for arthouse films, stuff that comes out at film festivals: Those still do read like the reviews of old.
>No goy, don't believe the user reviews they are all russian bots
>believe the paid critics-ACK
Fake news.
I wish i had that pasta about russian guy that gets extra food card for a bag of turnips and exhanges it for ticket to watch new star wars movie than angry that he could waste all that time sleeping writes letter to ministry of foreign affairs so they post his review on imdb.
>people shouldn't have the right to disagree with me politically
yes
This homosexual is a "Senior contributor for Forbes" and has 170k followers. He's not exactly a literal who.
theres ike 7 billion people in the world anything under 2.5 billion followers is a literal who
>it's another "guy who replies to every single post to try and get reactions" episode
take your dumb ass back to a youtube comment section
I'm a woman, dipshit, and I want you to know that none of you are wanted here.
Kys frumpy prostitute
i don't read reviews until after i watch something. then sometimes i'm surprised by my own bad pleb taste. for instance i really enjoyed How It Ends starring Forest Whitaker then later say it has a 17% on RT. me enjoying a movie is more important than being influenced by a number before i even watch it
Film critics are just an inch above game journalists which are a mile below the rambling piss stained homeless man in terms of value.
Im a women and I love all you guys
you will never be a women
cope I asked my mom to type that she loves us all
How about watching something and developing your own opinion? If it sounds like a genere and topic you might enjoy, just watch it moron.
How about poltards leave the internet forever?
I like that idea, but my point still stands. You fmdlbt need reviews to know what to watch.
No, but I need racism, sexism, and transphobia to end.
OK then end it
I'm trying to. Hopefully I can make poltards feel unwelcome here.
Better men than you have tried.
If we've learned to trust the experts on covid and inflation then we can trust the experts with what media is best for us to consume.
***
How to get the correct movie rating
***
1- take the user score
2- if the critic score is higher, calculate the difference, halve it and subtract from the user score
3-if the user score is higher do the reverse, calculate half the difference and add to the user score.
Many user reviewers are moronic, but almost all critics are. Using this method, you can take advantage of the 'fools seldom differ' principle to remove moronic opinions.
User scores are literally fake, moron. Not moronic, but meaningless one-liners with 1/10 or 10/10, making up 90% of all reviews.
and rotten tomato critic scores are paid for, they just got busted for this
>and rotten tomato critic scores are paid for
They obviously are not. See
.
https://www.ign.com/articles/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-after-pr-firms-scheme-to-pay-critics-for-positive-reviews-uncovered
you could have done a cursory google search before hit submit, moron
>inb4 its a PR firm and not RT paying the critics
it has the same effect on the scores either way
Literally clickbait.
There are no Rotten Tomatoes exclusive critics, there are just critics out there in the wild that then appear on RT. Yes, some minor production company paid critics for reviews. So what?
Again: Explain Rise of Skywalker. Why would Disney pay for outright negative reviews? For something that, according to the score that you do trust, was a huge hit with fans?
>Yes, some minor production company paid critics for reviews. So what?
that's all i wanted
goodbye anon
>that's all i wanted
Good. Now stop doing what IGN do and blaming RT for something they have nothing at all to do with.
If you want to blame RT for anything regarding the critics score, blame them for the way they break them down to a good/bad binary instead of taking the actual individual scores into account. Not that a few single professional critics out there might have been paid (which only matters for smaller films with a low number of reviews in the first place).
see
>>inb4 its a PR firm and not RT paying the critics
>it has the same effect on the scores either way
i predicted this, all according to keikaku
>Yes, some minor production company paid critics for reviews.
Is this a confession?
Stop being willfully stupid.
Again: Explain Rise of Skywalker or frick off.
>100% critics for a shitty cartoon is ok
>but 53% viewers is where the problem is at
wtf?
If you know how RT scores are calculated, then, yes, the 50% viewer score does show the root of the problem. Whereas the 100% critics score is basically meaningless in either direction.
>THESE FRICKING USERS ARE FRICKING REVIEWING WRONG!FRICK!
Everyone is tired of edgy slop millennial writing.
>Never play Castelvania
>Never watch Netflix show but it looks cool and maybe it’ll get me into the games
>See that tweet with a black woman saying “useless as frick” in the 1700’s
I will never consume any piece of this media franchise now.