Why does Rotten Tomatoes say Logan is a 93% while MetaCritic

>>90390799
Metacritic is a joke site

>>90390799
Then what would be the point of having both

Do you even know how RT works

>>90390866
Nobody on 4chan does

>>90390799
Because they work completely differently. Metacritic is an average of scores, RottenTomatoes is a percentage of how many people liked the movie vs. how many didn't like it.

>>90390799
that's just the percentage of positive reviews, the average rating on RT is 7.9

>>90390866
percentage = goodness level

>>90390799
RT gives it 93% because that's the amount of critics that liked it, but it doesn't take into account the actual ratings the critics give. If you at the average score it has a 7.9, which is reasonably close to the 75% on Metacritic.

>>90390866
No one does.

File: rx1.jpg (70KB, 380x532px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 380x532px

>>90390892
Fucking Bogdanovs and their cryptic review aggregation websites.

>>90390799
Why do you use either of those sites when you clearly have no idea what they are?

>>90390799
Metacritic is an actual average rating.

Rotten tomatoes is just if they liked it or not.

Metacritic is always a more accurate representation.

>>90391216
To add to that though reviews are a fucking joke and you are a brain dead monkey if you follow them at all.

Way too much politics in them nowadays and not actual reviews of the movie. I saw Time magazine gave it a bad score because them killing black people was a bad representation of todays politics or some bullshit.

>>90391216
>Metacritic is always a more accurate representation.

lol no.

All it takes is some esoteric fucker to give a a movie a really low score and drop any film to a 60-70 score.

>>90391150
He doesn't, those are what google shows if you search for the movie.

>>90391308
And it's the exact opposite on Rotten Tomatoes, all it takes is a bunch of brain dead retards rating if fresh cause they subjectively enjoyed it even if it was a bad movie.

Also RT has openly admitted to allowing bribes as long as they are under a certain threshold.

>>90391308
>tfw you will never be the guy that gives a beloved movie a 1/10 to tank its metacritic score
Why live?

>>90391388
>Also RT has openly admitted to allowing bribes as long as they are under a certain threshold.
Bribes for what? Ignoring certain reviews?
You realize that nobody at RT actually reviews films, right?

RT is a percentage of how many critics liked/recommended it. It's binary, either a review is positive or negative and the actual score isn't taken into account.

Metacritic is an average score, so if a reviewer gives it 3 stars, that's a score of 60.

This is why people citing RT "scores" are retarded, because it doesn't represent a quantification of the movie's quality, it just says how many critics gave it an overall positive review.

>>90391568
Not the employees themselves, they allow the people that post the reviews though to be bribed knowingly as long as its under their company threshold.

>>90392032
Source?

>>90392032
Source? What's the threshold?

>>90392079
>>90392091
I'm trying to find the article but my googlefu isn't working.

Every company has a threshold for what they consider a bribe. Dinner vs a car things like that. RT allows those reviewers to be influenced up to a certain degree without considering it a bribe.

>>90392135
If every company has this policy, how are they going to aggregate reviews if they exclude every company that publishes reviews.

>>90392135
That's alright, take your time. I know it takes me a while to find things sometimes. I always feel bad when I fail to find the thing too.

>>90392209
They can't that is why reviews are horseshit. They should be used more like a compass and not a map.

>>90392235
The other strategy is find a couple of people you mostly agree with and combine their opinions.

>>90392235
And compasses are horseshit?

>>90391216
They're different measures.

RT is how likely you are to enjoy it, MetaCritic is how much you're likely to enjoy it.

>>90390799
How did you get to 18 without understanding basic math?

>>90391985
It's as good as any numerical scoring system.

>>90392135
RT doesn't do anything with reviewers but determine whether they meet RT's standards for reviewer popularity, which are actually quite high

low-popularity reviews don't get aggregated, so if someone is obviously just plugging whatever they're paid for, the system ought to boot them out - either because you stop using their site (online reviewers) or because they get fired (print reviewers).

It takes a really long time for reviewers to qualify - you have to have years of solid evidence of audience reach - so it's not really in the interests of anybody smart to take that position.

>>90392032
>they allow the people that post the reviews though to be bribed


newspaper critics from different cities are the ones who post the reviews anon. You're sounding like /x/

File: 1459852269763.png (181KB, 309x323px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 309x323px

I just watched it. I have to say, although I enjoyed it, it was a flawed movie, and so I can't consider it a kino. But it was close. If a few scenes had went differently, maybe. Maybe next time. There's a reason the ratings were so low.

>>90394275
gonna be a totally different actor

>>90390799
You're looking at the wrong numbers.

At present, Metacritic shows a score of 77 for Logan. That's an average of all the review scores they've gathered.

Rotten Tomatoes has Logan at 94%. That's the percentage of all gathered reviews, who were positive about the movie. As in, that's how many of the critics thought the movie was more good than bad. However, the average rating is 7.9/10. That's the number which corresponds to the Metacritic score 77. And as you can see, it's a very minor discrepancy. It's a deviation of 2%. Well within an acceptable margin of error.

>>90395503
B-but bribery and secret movie critic Illuminati