Does anyone still think RT is unbiased?

Who on earth thinks RT is biased or unbiased? Surely it's a question of whether the reviewers that post on RT are biased or not?

>>80345714

noticed recently that the critic ratings are absolute dogshit anyways

usually go by user rating on sites like this now

>>80345714
>cgi beast

I never understood where this trust of Rotten Tomtatoes came from

Why in the world would a completely unbiased review congregation platform need to write their own little "consensus" summary of the consensus opinion? Metacritic doesnt do that. IMBD doesnt do that. In fact, no other aggregator does this because it defeats the fucking point of presenting an unbiased presentation of reviews. What are the credentials of the person writing these summaries?

How are people okay with this? It boggles the fucking mind

>>80346366
That's what I started doing. It seems like the critic reviews are more concerned with making witty statements like "too much beast and not enough beauty, this take on a French classic falls flat". Not sure if that's an actual review, but I'm sure something like that is on there.

>>80346426
RT being useful ended when Iron Man came out. A 90+% used to mean something. After that, it didn't.

Anyone attempting to defy this proves how cancerous RT is to movies and the internet.

>>80346488

seriously "falls flat" has to be used in at least 1/6 reviews on there

Why does /tv/ hate this movie so much? You guys haven't even seen it.

File: topcritics.png (67KB, 453x703px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 453x703px

>>80345714
If you read the reviews you'd see that the negative ones are actually biased and clearly are angry with their entire lives. Not even joking the look like losers too. Lots of good reviews and the metacritic score translates to an 80% range RT score. It is polarizing. Because everyine is so uptight and apparently we can love star wars but not this. And this is going to get 100+ more reviews.

File: 084.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>80345714

We live in a world were the beast is better looking than the ''beauty''

>>80346600
Because Emma Watson is a feminist

>>80346629

>2017
>No photos next to their names

Should instantly be banned or disregarded imo

>>80346629
Surely that top review should be rotten?

>>80346629
The problem is that a lot of the RT-approved reviewers are flaming SJWs whose reviews are always tangents about things like race and gender representation, so the meter is ultimately skewed by a sizeable bunch of reviews that have nothing to do with whether the basic movie is good or not.

File: file.png (175KB, 348x258px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 348x258px

My low IQ half asian male friend thinks its pretty good so it must be. Even claims it was better than the original cartoon too

>>80346634
haha epix bro

>>80345714
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6qDPCh33fg
but this scene was kino

>>80346629
>doe eyes
>sunny smile

Are they seriously talking about 'resting-bitch-face Watson' here?

>>80346729
>My low IQ half asian male friend

You don't sound like much of a friend.

>>80346648
What's wrong with that?

>>80346714
No I'm not kidding its the other way round for this film. The rotten reviews actually are not critiquing the film but the idea of it and it seems most of the positive ones actually talk about the production, acting etc. There aren't many reviews you can read what I'm talking about. Some of these rotten reviews and they have pictires of their reviewers look like textbook /tv/ and their reviews themselves do what you say sjws do ehich I also disagree with. Its easier to just read them all q uick.

>>80346714
See
>>80346764
People like this loser have been hating it because they are autistic and have hated it for a year. They actually get upset when reading anything positive about Watson.

>>80346847

Emma Watson is definitely getting an easy ride with the reviews.

She's a disney princess constantly scowling delivering every line with the same emotion and has some of the worst non-deliberate autotune I've heard in a long time

>>80346940

She can't sing and she's the lead in a musical. How can you begin to defend that?

>>80345714
REMINDER NOT TO FORGET THAT YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT A WEBSITE THAT HAS BUZZFEED AS A TOP CRITIC

>>80346807
Nothing, if you're not a fat autistic virgin who hates women, but this is 4chan

>>80346801
To be fair he is pretty dumb though

>>80347393

Whats wrong with fucking men bro?

File: 1489348691110.jpg (34KB, 329x450px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 329x450px

RT is ran by this kind of person, of course it's biased.