>we are living in the golden age of cinema
Kek, no. Film production is more corporatized than ever (i.e. produced by committees with dominance being toward formulas producing the largest profit margins). Combine this with the pseudo-democratization of taste and you get pandering to the biggest common denominator (i.e. films made to appeal to midwit sensibility).
It's just another seething chud.
Or marketing departments now actively drive social media leading to the inflation of scores. It's in the same line as taking over awards ceremonies in the late 90s and turning them into marketing vehicles.
it actually makes sense, less and less qualified people are "critics" these days. more and more people that haven't watched a movie made before 1995 and consider capeshit an art are given status in that website and they upset the average. >why don't they vote negatively in non-capeshit movies and balance things out?
they don't even watch those movies
rotten tomatoes is corporate trash. critics are soys owned by corporations, that don't even understand movies. American audiences are mouth breathing morons.
Production companies pay imdb money to keep the score above 6 or 7 when the film is actively playing in cinema. Then as soon as the film releases on blu ray/home streaming (when the box office sales have dried out) you see the score rapidly drop a point or two. Film companies know that people are easily guided by numbers and group think and that if the film has over a certain threshold of positive reviews (7/10) then it is worth seeing. Its the same technique that chinese companies pull with selling electronics to the west. They get thousands of dummy reviews for something like a pair of headphones or speakers in order to make that same switch go off in people's heads that it is approved. Then you actually get people getting sucked in to the placebo effect and genuinely giving the product a 5 star review without being prompted.
I imagine the same thing happense with rt scores except rt scores dont really get updated once the film is pulled from cinemas because it is simply critic reviews and not a constantly updated database. Also is the reason why you get such a huge disparity between critic and audience scores on rt.
Never. Remember when corporations cried in despair when leftoids pushed women into workforce, slashing the wages in two and basically cucked its growth for decades to come? Or how they were seething when leftoids in the 60s blew the borders wide open and flooded the market with cheap workforce? Neither do I.
>Steve Sailer retweets graphic >It appears here
I see you anon
I think the reason for this is that critics are increasingly alienated from the public. When reviewers represented different views you had a normalising effect. Most reviewers now are conformists and a review is no longer just a reflection of a films quality but a reflection on the status of the reviewer. Maybe this doesn't explain the increase in the films score, i'm not sure.
>we are living in the golden age of cinema
>review scores are higher
Uhhh... yeah?
It's just another seething chud.
> golden age of cinema
Name one from the past 3 years. I will watch it.
Sanic
Sanic 2
That’s it though
Black Panther was the greatest movie of all time until the chuds at RT changed their algorithm.
>Age of Capeshit
>Golden age of cinema
Lmao
>we are living in the golden age of cinema
Kek, no. Film production is more corporatized than ever (i.e. produced by committees with dominance being toward formulas producing the largest profit margins). Combine this with the pseudo-democratization of taste and you get pandering to the biggest common denominator (i.e. films made to appeal to midwit sensibility).
Or marketing departments now actively drive social media leading to the inflation of scores. It's in the same line as taking over awards ceremonies in the late 90s and turning them into marketing vehicles.
you are living in the age of paid comments, fake accounts and bots
movies keep getting better and you chuds are mad about it
I want to believe, do you have a recent example?
what happened in 2001?
The Master of Disguise
>Its only win was a tie with Kung Pow: Enter the Fist for Most Painfully Unfunny Comedy
Sounds kino
>what happened in 2001?
You said you would never forget.
It’s harrowing to think there are not only zoomers, but zoomers born after that day posting on this board right now.
Shrek came out and all other movies seemed really shit in comparison
it actually makes sense, less and less qualified people are "critics" these days. more and more people that haven't watched a movie made before 1995 and consider capeshit an art are given status in that website and they upset the average.
>why don't they vote negatively in non-capeshit movies and balance things out?
they don't even watch those movies
>blacks start being forced into everything
>becomes critic proof
rotten tomatoes is corporate trash. critics are soys owned by corporations, that don't even understand movies. American audiences are mouth breathing morons.
>American audiences are mouth breathing morons.
>doesn’t understand that the review rigging is for foreign audiences
Found the euro
’t understand that the review rigging is for foreign audiences
>implying U.S. reviews aren't rigged
KYS.
Improve your English reading comprehension before posting on an American website. Thanks.
Great reading comprehension there, Paco.
What does Chud mean?
>CHad + StUD
Same thing that happened to IMDB scores.
Production companies pay imdb money to keep the score above 6 or 7 when the film is actively playing in cinema. Then as soon as the film releases on blu ray/home streaming (when the box office sales have dried out) you see the score rapidly drop a point or two. Film companies know that people are easily guided by numbers and group think and that if the film has over a certain threshold of positive reviews (7/10) then it is worth seeing. Its the same technique that chinese companies pull with selling electronics to the west. They get thousands of dummy reviews for something like a pair of headphones or speakers in order to make that same switch go off in people's heads that it is approved. Then you actually get people getting sucked in to the placebo effect and genuinely giving the product a 5 star review without being prompted.
I imagine the same thing happense with rt scores except rt scores dont really get updated once the film is pulled from cinemas because it is simply critic reviews and not a constantly updated database. Also is the reason why you get such a huge disparity between critic and audience scores on rt.
Remember when the left was anti-corporation
>Remember when the left was anti-corporation
Never. Remember when corporations cried in despair when leftoids pushed women into workforce, slashing the wages in two and basically cucked its growth for decades to come? Or how they were seething when leftoids in the 60s blew the borders wide open and flooded the market with cheap workforce? Neither do I.
>Steve Sailer retweets graphic
>It appears here
I see you anon
I think the reason for this is that critics are increasingly alienated from the public. When reviewers represented different views you had a normalising effect. Most reviewers now are conformists and a review is no longer just a reflection of a films quality but a reflection on the status of the reviewer. Maybe this doesn't explain the increase in the films score, i'm not sure.