Alternative to Rotten Tomatoes.

File: Gbusters_twitter.jpg (793KB, 1920x939px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 1920x939px

Monthly reminder.

File: baby-dinosaur-laugh.gif (483KB, 207x154px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 207x154px

NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS MOVE ALONG

You should ignore Rotten Tomatoes anyway because of their retarded scoring system. Knowing what percentage of reviews were above 6/10 is much less useful than pure aggregate of scores like Metacritic.

>>82112380
>That reflection
Jesus Christ.

File: 1492966371729.jpg (69KB, 638x639px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 638x639px

>mfw Amercans still look at "reviewer/crytic scores" instead of user score

>>82112583

>i don't think shill-bots and fake accounts are an issue in this day and age.

>>82112667
>even though online scores are and will be compromised due to the sheer amount of people all trying to chip in, i'm still gonna judge movies based on arbitrary scores

Or just don't?

File: 1481059724458.png (381KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 601x601px

>>82112583

If the actual scoring system correlated to how objectivly good/bad the movie is, the current (((structure))) of the film industry would fail...

When you realize RT is a studio tool and not a customer service, you will know the answer

>>82112483
I disagree. Metacritic's system makes no sense either. Not every critic they count uses a scoring system for movie reviews so how do they arrive at a number?

>>82112483
but RT has both

>>82112583

>thinking the audience score is better

Critics are huge hacks, but audiences are plain retarded.

>>82112726

Depends on how dedicated you are. A true patrician knows what he will like/dislike based on premise, who the filmmaker/producer is, the studio behind it etc... it's all a crap-shoot after that.

>>82112380
Grae Drake is one of the most annoying people in existence

>>82112795
It honestly doesn't take that much time to pirate and watch a movie solely based on preliminary interest.

Stop watching movies based on some score that someone who has no idea what you like assigned to it, develop your own tastes and decide for yourself. A bad movie isn't going to kill you

>>82112936
this is flawed logic in that you have to watch the movie and waste your time doing so to decide whether you want to watch it or not.
The trick isn't to blindly watch a movie based on a score, it's to find critics who are more aligned with your tastes and see what they say about a movie.

>>82112753
True, but it's an improvement. I think even better would be to find some specific critics whose opinion you trust. Or ignore critics entirely.

>>82112760
Also true, but mostly people parade the "Certified Fresh" shit around like it means anything.

>>82112583
>1/10 it was kind of bad

>>82112380
rotten tomatoes simply collects reviews / scores and tells you how many of those reviews were positive. RT doesn't give its own ratings.

>>82112380

>So this explains Ghostbusters 2016

it actually explains a lot about rotten tomatoes

>>82113015

jesus christ how i fucking pity you

autism at its finest

>>82112380
Metacritic > RT

>>82113119
She's the one who decides who gives the reviews and the ratings.

>>82113748
surely you're being ironic.

>>82113819

you know the postman? its fucking horrible

but its also amazing

>>82112380
You know that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't write the reviews themselves, right?

>>82112380
god i wish would be alive when white dyed haired bitches are breeded out of existence go Allah cleanse the earth.

>>82112380
Oh look, its Pop Science Man here to tell me a bunch of shit I already knew, and things I dont care about in fun interesting ways because the kids who grew up with him cant function as adults nor listen as adults unless you wave flashing lights and stupid shit in front of their faces!

I guess once he saw Le Black Science Man making money he had to jump back in on the act.

OH BOY! I CANT WAIT TO HEAR STUDIES ABOUT GENDERS FROM A MAN WHO TAUGHT ME HOW TO MAKE SILLY PUTTY ON A SATURDAY MORNING TV SHOW!