Complete Idiot said:
one MEEN Ag said:
Thunderstruck xx said:
TCTTS said:
After a 98% on RT, plenty of non-Hollywood types loving it, and even a number of doubters admitting it's great, you've now resorted to posting reactions from 1) a guy who just watched a ****ty illegal cam rip of the movie online, and has been hating on the movie, sight unseen, for days prior to that, along with 2) a guy who still hasn't even seen the movie, but hated a minute-and-a-half of footage he randomly saw from the same illegal cam rip? Someone else who was already clearly predisposed to hating it regardless, based on the rest of his comments. And these over-the-top disgruntled reactions are somehow proof of something in your eyes?
This is so desperate, man.
People are of course entitled to their opinions, and I won't at all begrudge anyone here for not liking the movie, but good lord, dude, just let it go. You're now doing exactly what you accused me of doing, just in the opposite direction, except neither of these chuds even saw the movie in theaters, and both have a history of ****ting all over it before they even saw it, in really gross fashion too (the first guy calls Page a "*****" and both just come across as really angry people in general).
This is so sad and gross.
Oh snap, only 96% RT now. How low will it go? I wonder how the general audience will rate it. You know, all the "modern people" this movie was made for.
You do realize that rotten tomatoes is basically 10+ years into be astroturfed right? The second it became influential enough to stop people from going and seeing bad movies the movie industry moved against rottentomatoes.
And wow this website is complete garbage now. They've assumed the final form of killing an institution and wearing it skin like a suit. Ratings aren't even on the home page. It used to be one rating that was pretty good judge of movies. Then it got split into critics and average movie goers. Which was also a pretty good judge of movies.
Now its Tomatometer and Popcornmeter which blurs who gets sorted into each category.
And now there are whole campaigns to tighten reviews, spike the tomato rating like its a gamma squeeze on a stock and then blast a marketing campaign about how good of a tomato rating it is.
The "movie industry moved against rottentomatoes", eh? Very dramatic.
I guess I could give some credence to what you are saying if I never saw a big budget movie from the "movie industry" get low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. But I do, often. Also, the site still is, at it's core, a review aggregator. The site doesn't employ the reviewers and in theory has no direct influence over them. I haven't seen the ratings from critics (and I always used "Top Critics", it wasn't just 1 score 10 years ago you could further dissect) change in their trends over the years. Of course there are marketing campaigns to seize on good reviews, that is nothing new in the Rotten Tomatoes era.
For a while it was pretty easy to discern rotten tomatoes scores.
Critic score high/ user score low: Actually a garbage movie but the media fawns over it for DEI reasons.
Critic score low/user score high: derivative summer action movie mostly worthy of wasting two hours
critic score low/user score low: Bad movie
critic score high/user score high: Good movie
Rottentomatoes has been trying to stop people from seeing critic high/user score low early and opting to not go see that movie for quite some time. Especially since Elon bought X and its harder to have social media aircover of bad movies. So they squeeze critic scores upwards and delay user scores to protect bad movies.
Its pretty obvious that this movie is going to barely cover its costs due to Nolan's name attached to it, and going to miss its mark on all other categories due to casting.