Is it time to stop trusting critics when it comes to Disney or

File: Rocktually.png (254KB, 566x533px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 566x533px

>>89696211
>2017 Anno Domini
>Using review aggregators to find good movies
>Not following directors, writers, and actors that you enjoy
>Not following individual critics with taste similar to you
>Not asking your friends for recommendations
Use literally anything but review aggregators. If you still haven't figured out that using IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and MetaCritic to find movies to watch is a terrible idea, you should end your life.

>>89696211
>Is it time to stop trusting critics when it comes to Disney or Pixar?
No, it's time for you to stop misunderstanding the purpose and meaning of the Tomatometer.

>>89696211
THe meter says what percent of people enjoyed it, I think the measurement was who rated better than 60% or something, aka the Average Rating/10 right under the percent if you aren't merely distracted by big text.

>>89696211
You honestly believed the largest media conglomerate in the world wouldn't buy favorable reviews? You should never have trusted the Mouse in the first place, they're pure cancer.

>trusting numbers to dictate what makes a movie enjoyable for you

File: rotten tomatoes.png (2MB, 2216x1462px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2216x1462px

>>89696211
>Is it time to stop trusting critics
No, but it's definitely time to stop trusting Rotten Tomatoes.

Sing got like a 70 so probably

Actual percentage doesn't mean anything beyond "Percent of critics who liked it".

If you look closer you can see the ACTUAL average rating of 7/8 of both films.

>>89696211
No, but it is time for you to understand what a review aggregator actually is. Neither movie got above a 90 percent rating. But more than 90 percent of people felt they were both above average, or in other words "certified fresh".

>>89696796
which are reasonable ratings. The problem is the big red or green bar is very easy to see and it distracts retards who can't into critical analysis or basic reading comprehension. So we have to live with a million fucking threads all over about how rotten tomatoes is rigged or isn't fair in the dumbest possible ways.

>>89697419
> people are retards
> this is somehow the website's fault

>>89696459
this actually

>>89697463
the website intentionally caters towards retardation

>>89696646
Hudsucker Proxy is bad, and the SW prequels are good.
Other than that I agree.

File: 1418561798108.png (760KB, 1280x715px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 1280x715px

>>89696646
>Fear and Loathing that low
>devoid of character development
THAT WASN'T THE POINT REEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: legobatmann.png (250KB, 830x346px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 830x346px

>>89696211
Out of my way!

>>89696211
7.6 and 7.9 sound like accurate ratings to me.

>>89696646

I've never trusted Rotten Tomatoes.
I remember years back when no one actually cared about the website, that all the ratings were trash.

>>89696459
Ayyy, they added the "Consider the Following" that I suggested

>>89697952
>they lost a rotten review
how fucking low can you get WB?

>>89699714
I'm seeing one rotten.

File: soon to be rotten.png (231KB, 760x327px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 760x327px

>>89699725
there were two

>>89696211
>I need validation :(

It's your own fault for basing your opinions on a website, anon. You are your own critic. Don't think you're automatically worthwhile, but you are your own critic

>>89696646
Comparing the audience and critic score is a useful tool for me, I've found the site trustworthy in that if the critic score is rotten, but the audience score is mid-70s or above, I'll most likely enjoy it.