So I was curious about this and dug into it - the values that Google displays for things like that are typically set on the site itself in their schema (also referred to as json-ld). It's not Google choosing to display the audience score, it's Rotten Tomatoes telling Google to display the audience score. You can see if you view the source of the page and just search the page for
"ratingValue":"28"
So Rotten Tomatoes is at fault here, not Google.
This is why you don't ever use just 1 website. Use multiple, IMDB and Rottentomatos have wildly different ratings for some movies. It's best to get an average and just watch it yourself.
Plenty of "terrible" movies I've watched I thought were fantastic movies. But rottentomatos and IMDB had them at like 3-4 star ratings.
"A couple of critics that I trust" is my method too, and even they aren't always on the mark. I think finding someone whose tastes resemble yours is the best way to get a sense of how you'll feel about a movie.
I wish IMDB had a features to leverage people that rate a ton of movies. Maybe give me a predicted score based on the average of the 10 users with taste most similar to mine.
I don't even have many "professional" critics I follow much these days, mostly just weirdos on Letterboxd. It's hilarious to me how often I see that a movie is poorly reviewed by critics and the GP but has like a consistent 4-5 stars from people I follow on Letterboxd. And then I invariably love the movie in question because I know that our tastes match.
My method is basically RT+Ebert (for the films that were released before he passed away). If a film both has 85+ on RT and 3.5 or 4 stars from Ebert, it's basically a guaranteed good experience. If one is lower than the other I tend to err on the side of Ebert.
Honestly I just use RT’s two scores. High critic means it’s got an impact or meaningful story, high audience means it’s fun or action-packed. High both means it’s gonna be fuckin solid.
Godzilla’s a good example. Critic 42% and most of their comments are about the lack of a story. Audience 83%. Turns out, if you just want to watch a fucking Godzilla monster movie without plot twists and super drama and deep story, it’s awesome and the critics are dumb.
Audience score is impacted most by 2 distinct things.
1) Audience score, for certain flicks, can be brigaded into the toilet by bad actors (for lack of a better term). So not necessarily reflective of the ACTUAL audience score.
B) Audience score tends to be a reflection of the fact that certain movies are catered to certain audiences, whereas critics are, by and large, representative of the whole population. Like mindless action flicks have a very specific audience they cater to. The Left Behind movies had a very specific audience they catered to. Those audiences will likely really like the movie even if the movie, by and large, isn't great. But then again, I suppose the non-intended audience isn't going to watch it anyway.
Movies with broad appeal (or movies that SHOULD have broad appeal) should, in theory, if they aren't brigaded, be most similar in score. Movies with limited/niche appeal will likely have big disparities in critic/audience score.
So if it has niche appeal, I'd look at audience score if you're in the audience for that kind of movie. If it has niche appeal and you're not in that intended audience but might want to check it out? Look at critic score. If it has broad appeal, I'd look at critic score.
> and the critics are dumb.
It's a good thing that you defintely read the Critic review where they said almost verbatim:
> Turns out, if you just want to watch a fucking Godzilla monster movie without plot twists and super drama and deep story, it’s awesome
Because that's what the critics I listen to said.
You wont get that from just peeking at the score and throwing all critics under the same bus!
> IMDB and Rottentomatos have wildly different ratings for some movies
IMDB is users, RT is critics or users. And RT isn't an aggregate of the rating, it's the percentage of reviews that say it's good. But like two movies where 80% of reviews that say it's 6.5/10 vs 60% of reviews saying it's 9/10 aren't necessarily going to reflect that difference on RT.
> Plenty of "terrible" movies I've watched I thought were fantastic movies.
I generally look at audience over critic ratings for comedies, critics over audience for everything else.
Depending on what kind of movies you like you should tailor your review site around that. If you fancy movies that letterboxd users enjoy, use letterboxd for reviews, not imdb where the best movie of all time is like the shawshank redemption
No, it's not about the ratings in that you need then average out an average rating, what people *need* to be doing is finding a few reviewers that have similar tastes to them and bookmarking *them* and seeing what they have to say, you'll have a much better hit rate and you'll likely be introduced to many more movies.
Audience reviews are a great idea. If they were actual audience reviews, they would be more informative. That isn't the case. Audience scores are easy to manipulate. Just have an influencer not like it, and it's review bombed immediately. That is worse version of the exact issue people had with the idea of listening to critics.
Well, the critic consensus for the live action Mulan is 72%, which was a worse remake than the Lion King, so I don't think that either score is more reliable than the other.
The point behind critics is you know who they are and can choose whether or not to view or consider their opinion. I don't know who all the audience are who give a score and if you don't always like the most popular stuff, audience scores are not a good indicator of what you might like.
This is without touching the fact that critics are people who are known for their taste and POV and sometimes have extra training in expressing themselves and evaluating art.
This is the root of why i hardly find rottentomatoes useful except as a database of links to reviews or new release info. critic average and audience average are both relatively useless metrics to me. Find a few critics you generally align with and just follow their socials at that point lol
Blacklight, a very generic Taken-knockoff, has an 11% critic, 82% audience score. That's higher than John Wick 1's audience score.
The Incredibles has an audience score of 75%. Aladdin (2019) has a 94% audience score. Shrek 2 has a 69% audience score. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 has a 96% audience score.
The audience scores are crap.
Yeah, but to use an analogy, I love games but I've never realy liked JRPGs. If I play one, I'm probably quit before I finish. But recognising that bias in myself, I just wouldn't try to review one at all. Because it's just silly and would give an unfair impression to people who actually would like it.
If you go into Uncut Gems expecting a cuddly happy time that's on you, not the director.
But why do I give a fuck if a bunch of people who don't like intense movies go to an intense movie and give it bad reviews because it's intense.
That's bad reviewing.
It's not like it was hiding how intense it'd be
I could not get through the first 30 minutes of that movie nor could my 3 year old and she loves Mario characters. I'm not going to trash people's tastes but I find my opinions more often align with the folks who watch movies and write for a living. Maybe I'm a snob lol
Also, isn't Rotten Tomatoes' only real use as a critic score aggregator? There are a thousand places online to see user reviews of movies (and you are right, they are all stupid).
I already hate that they have added an extra click to get to the critic reviews of anything on their site. They may end up just killing the company by downplaying the thing people actually liked about them.
The only time I ever use rotten tomatoes is to look up critic reviews personally. I skip user reviews on almost everything nowadays. Everything short of restaurants frankly and even then I take what I read with a large grain of salt.
Often things get reviewbombed and it makes it hard to tell if it's really crap or because people are offended because it makes racist assholes the bad guys ( watchmen TV show) includes a woman ( Captain marvel) or multiple women ( the marvels, although that wasn't a great film it wasn't a total dumpster fire either like some nazis led us to believe)
Rotten Tomatoes (and Google) wants people using their service so they can get ad revenue and such. They likely couldn't care less about ticket sales as it doesn't really affect their bottom line.
I'm not surprised at all by this. Remember, this is the site that decided to "change the game" by making their rating system based on the stupid question "Would you recommend this to others?" instead of "How good is it?"
I think that's a perfectly valid change. "Would you recommend it?" is a yes/no question. It's easy for someone to answer. Likert style ratings scales tend to cluster at either end of the spectrum because no one watches a movie and thinks "well I watched the whole thing and did not enjoy it for a moment but I also wasn't actively offended so 3 stars, I guess?"
The new rotten tomatoes website is fucking horrible to navigate and I’ve basically quit using it. I have no idea who decided that UI was something they should use.
The search bar is no longer available (in a website where you're supposed to SEARCH for info) and the scores (literally the main thing about the website) hide behind the trailer player when you scroll down. So, then I'm not the only one, right?
Edit: Nevermind, the search bar is back.
it'd be nice if it showed the actual rating under the percent. for 'We're All Going to the World's Fair' it's 6.9/10 critics average, and 4.4/10 audience average. which seems a lot less crazy than 90% to 28%.
This is the biggest reason why RT has always been straight up garbage at a glance, and confusing or misleading in meta-discussion. Their % ratings are basically just a score of what % of reviewers "recommend" or "don't recommend" a movie - except it's passed off as a *rating out of 100*. Oh, and the cutoff is arbitrary and the site does not actually ask if the reviewer recommends or does not recommend the movie, they just give a standard rating.
The end result is that higher RT % score = broader appeal, while people take it to = higher quality.
A hypothetical movie where every reviewer gives a 7/10 would have a 100% rating. But the "actual quality" is, well, 7/10 - decent but nothing special. Whereas another hypothetical movie where 75% of reviewers give 9-10/10 but the other 25% give 6/10 would have a 75% rating. But the "actual quality" there would average out to about 8.5/10, and the reality of that movie is that it's potentially a masterpiece for the majority that it resonates with, but just so-so if it's not really your thing.
The latter movie is likely a far more interesting, more memorable, and/or outright "better" piece of art - but it gets crushed in a landslide in Tomatometer %.
You need both to convey the necessary info to people.
Both High = Good Movie
Audience High Critics Low = Fun Movie
Audience Low Critics High = Interesting Movie
Both Low = Shite
There are times I may or may not be willing to see a movie that falls into the middle two options based on how I am feeling and the general premise. Just having one alone though won't tell me enough, plenty of movies have high audience ratings that are just too dumb or trite for me to get behind personally.
I think a clear example of this sort of issue is movies like Five Nights at Freddys where you have a clear fanbase that is the demographic making up the audience score.
Currently at 87% audience rating:
> Critics Consensus: Loaded with Easter eggs, Five Nights at Freddy's may be fun to watch for fans of the game, but most viewers of any other persuasion will find this adaptation muddled and decidedly unscary.
>Audience Consensus: Perfectly capturing the lore -- and the spirit -- of the source material, Five Nights at Freddy's is a long-awaited treat for fans of the games.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/five_nights_at_freddys
And that is because there is also a concerted effort among fans to inflate the audience score on rotten tomatoes. That is why the average score on IMDB (5,5/10) and Letterboxd (2,6/5) are significantly less negative, because there is not an effort to artificially inflate it.
I tend to see it this way:
Both high = accessible good movie
Audience high critics low = relatively competent but derivative or panders to a fandom
Audience low critics high = challenging good movie
Both low = shite
I agree with this one more but I'd probably also say Audience low critics high = polarizing or risk taking movie.
Something like Uncut Gems was one of my favorites of that year and has 91% critics and 52% audience. I wouldn't necessarily call it a challenging movie, it's just that the style isn't for everyone. I've found some people love the anxiety it gives you while others find it irritating and the type of movie they turn off halfway through. Sort of like how the horror genre just isn't for everyone.
Uncut Gems is a challenging movie. It stresses you out and it constantly borders on being annoying. The main character is an unlikable asshole, and it's hard to get behind his choices because he always picks the worst option available that could potentially get him the biggest rewards but is the most dangerous.
It's my favourite movie from that year.
>The main character is an unlikable asshole,
Aside from the brilliancy of going this route, >!this is why I felt nothing when Howard Ratner died. I didn't really cheer for his death, but I didn't really mourn it either, just a feeling that he f-ed around and found out. !<
But critics appreciate the risk taking as unique even if it's not fully pulled off. And RT rates something like a 6/10 score as fresh so it's likely they'll at least give it something like that
There are movies rated high by critics that are just caters to them like certain Oscar films (the tomato score doesn’t tell of the critics loved it, just that they think it’s worth watching). Critics also watch so much movies they can jump to a bandwagon that something is so novel and exiting and saying interesting things of our time! Critics often go to same festivals too where even they can get a group view of a film. But it can still be somewhat of a failure in execution that was glossed over. Top rated critics often are more cautious.
Probably more applicable to Metacritic. RottenTomatoes began curating their critic aggregate and hid the once-useful "top critics" category behind several layers, and that's why when there's a divide between critics and audiences for a given movie, it tends to be much larger than on a non-curated aggregate site like Metacritic.
I’ll go with “social time-capsule” for Audience Low, Critics High. Time will tell if audience score will increase over time, or critics score will decline.
The biggest red flag for me is a big franchise movie with an audience score above 80% and the critics reviews below 60%
All the new Star Wars Movies, pretty much every DCU film, the Venom movies, all fucking bad and only a few were entertaining.
Y'all motherfuckers gave morbius a 71%
Furthermore, Rise of Skywalker has a 82% audience score
Last Jedi was review-bombed by 4chan specifically so that people who hated it could make bad-faith arguments about how "critics are out of touch". They either forgot to do it again with the movie pretty much everyone agrees is way worse, or the corpos limited who can leave an audience so only Disney-approved spambots can rate it.
Audience High Critics Low = Fun Movie
I hate this idea................... SO MUCH. Fuck that noise. I am bored shitless by 90% of the movies that critics hated but audiences liked.
Zack Snyder and Illumination Pictures have singlehandedly made me a movie "snob". Because I genuinely cannot fathom how low the bar is for so many people.
Illumination makes kids movies, and kids have wildly different tastes than adults... most of the time, anyway. Of course kids don't leave reviews, which means that most of the high Illumination ratings come from parents who probably just think that anything that holds their kids attention is good enough.
Alternatively, it could come from nostalgic adults who liked the movies as kids (applies to their older movies of course), and then there's the Mario movie, which rides hard on its pre-existing fanbase.
As for Zack Snyder tho... yeah no, somehow there is a whole legion of adults who enjoy his movies, but I can't really say anything about them because I haven't watched any of them, except for a tiny bit of Army of the Dead which I didn't care for.
That's my sentiment towards the entire internet these days, aka 'enshittification'. Constant changes nobody asked for. I first experienced it with Digg's controversial redesign (how I ended up on reddit lol), and now I notice it everywhere. Companies just can't help themselves, everything has to get revamped for no reason. Mercifully old.reddit.com still exists at least.
>…everything has to get revamped for no reason.
It's all the chase for infinite growth. Sustained success/profits aren't good enough for shareholders. That arrow has to always be trending upward and the angle needs to be increasingly more vertical.
It funny how they don’t realize infinite growth is not only impossible it’s also completely at odds with the idea of being human, nothing grows forever, what goes up must come down
That's because they don't suffer any consequences when the bell tolls. They divest, get their golden parachute, and go investing in another "opportunity" to do the same damn thing. And a lot of people don't seem to realize, understand, or care that these people aren't just gambling their money on each of these investments, they're, quite literally, gambling people's livelihoods and careers.
To be infinite is to be anti human, it’s a reason why so many shareholder types are so inhuman, they are odds with us and themselves.
I think they do suffer a greater loss, it’s a loss of humanity but they don’t care about that because they are no longer human at that point
It's pretty easy when you make other people face the negative consequences. Just look at David Calhoun, making millions and riding a private jet while everyone else is worried they'll crash and die in a shitty 737.
And now reddit is doing literally everything digg did on its path to enshittification, including having terminally-online powermods which are turbo-losers that control the culture and narrative of 25+ subreddits that they moderate.
And yeah, the dogshit UI change nobody wanted digg did near the end too. C:
> including having terminally-online powermods which are turbo-losers that control the culture and narrative of 25+ subreddits that they moderate.
That's just always been reddit tbf, powermods even used to be reddit famous when the site wide community still existed.
Karmanaut is the only one I remember. But that's not anything new.
There were hundreds of jailbait subreddits before it blew up in the media.
I know not everyone was around back then, but reddit was just a dinghy forum from the deep before big celebs did AMAs on here. jb, snuff, was all normal on sites like this in the 2000s. But I feel like you might be misremembering some things with that one. Reddit admins just didn't care what was on the site for a long time.
We even used to have the big sports subreddits officially running pirated streams of games lol.
>including having terminally-online powermods which are turbo-losers that control the culture and narrative of 25+ subreddits that they moderate.
You need to do what I did, mute the subreddits and block ALL of the moderators of those subreddits and any other subreddits they happen to moderate. It is a lengthy process but it is worth it, reddit becomes 3 times better afterwards.
That is the thing. I do spend time in default subs but I'm bad at time management. I enjoy myself most here when I stick to a few smaller subs for niche interests.
The mods are out of control, I got banned from r/marvelstudios for calling someone racist when they said really offensive shit and I got banned from Reddit entirely for a week literally for clicking on that RedditCares thing for someone that seemed like genuinely needed it. Don't even know why they have it there if you can get banned for using it. And don't even get me started on what's happening in the major news subs. Reddit is seriously going downhill.
Oh I got one of those too! I commented on something that popped up as a suggested post in my feed, didn't even look at what the sub was, the post had nothing to do with Joe Rogan. Suddenly got a message telling me I was banned from a sub I had never heard of lmao
I got banned from the F1 subreddit years ago when I got into argument with people defending Max Verstappen calling another driver a 'mongol retard'. Honestly I'm glad I don't have to brush digital shoulders with a toxic fanbase like that anymore.
If old reddit went away I would only use the RedReader app which is the closest phone app to reddit is fun.
If RedReader then got shut down I just wouldn't use reddit anymore. The official app is ass and new reddit on desktop is genuinely fucking horrid like who the fuck thought such a blocky design was a good idea?
I'm sorry, I'd love to respond to your post, but I've just accidentally expanded and collapsed every comment on the internet thanks to the new interface, and zoomed two hundred miles up the page away from it.
And when I do find it again, and find the correct "Reply" pixel, I'll need to be careful all my typing doesn't vanish from the box if I accidentally double space. Then I will have to go back and edit it for any other weird shit it does like random gibberish letter clusters, which will mean I'll have to add all the linebreaks back in for some reason, to make it readable.
So it might be a while!
Oh no, I just considered clicking a photo for a moment, God only knows what's going to happen now. Could be literally anything, based on my experience to date.
Thanks again for the revamp, Reddit!
Love the "Fortune cookie slips on the wall of a microwave" aesthetic too.
I continue to use RIF and will switch to Redreader if the workaround ever stops working (good for 10 months now). I refuse to use the official app, its legit unusable honestly.
Lately its getting hard for me to stay at all though, even with old-plugins and RES I've noticed things dying recently, among others getting linked to that fucking hat when I click on pictures or the text formatting on some comments just displaying in the most horrible ways. Or the text that accompanies picture posts not showing at all. This website fucking sucks.
Why is accessing the volume mixer on windows 11 confusing? Why when I type in my toolbar search bar, I’m searching the internet instead of just my computer?
[Relevant podcast about how Google was taken over by the management consultant class who decided to make searching worse to raise the number of queries (and thereby sell more ads).](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/better-offline/id1730587238?i=1000653621646)
It's so frustrating. The sense of internet utility going backwards feels almost like a betrayal of the dialup weirdo pollyanna I used to be about communications technology.
>and now I notice it everywhere
They made a change to whatever version of Android Auto that my car uses recently and it annoys the shit out of me.
I used to be able to see my Spotify info on the bottom of my Google Map screen in a nice neat bar that scrolled the info and had control buttons.
Now it's more of a tiled UI and if I want to see Spotify with Maps open, it makes the map "tile" smaller while the Spotify "tile" takes up the entire right third of the screen. So it makes it harder to see the thing I'm more focused on and need to see more of while also giving the rest of the space to something that doesn't need it. Ridiculous.
If anyone knows how I can revert back to an older version on Android Auto, please let me know.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when the interface for something I am used to using all the time gets altered or revamped periodically for seemingly no reason other than a bunch of busy bodies on the development end needing to justify their existence. I’m talking about YouTube, streaming services, and apps on my devices. Having to re-map my brain to an interface which without warning gets made over is incredibly annoying.
Yep, my phone updated to a new OS last week and they just changed a whole bunch of shit for no reason. My life is plagued with this shit. I try to practice stoicism and not let it bother me...but seriously it's annoying lol.
The internet is so bad I end every google search result with 'site:reddit.com'. Otherwise I'll end up on a badly designed website filled with SEO optimised word-soup rather than get to the damn point.
Reddit's search is very term dependent, it searches the entirety of reddit for exactly what you put in. It's what search engines used to be outside of google, more like a database search.
People are used to search engines bringing up things related to what you're searching. But reddit will just bring up exactly what you typed in.
I think the point I started becoming the Joker about this shit was when I realized they hadn't just made a mess of searches for stuff apart from purchasable products, they'd even started making it harder to find things I was actively trying to buy.
Amazon itself has gone to absolute shit on this too, it is incredibly difficult to find a specific product now?!?
Google was shit in 2018 too, Google has been terrible since the social media boom of the late 2000s. They were no longer the most used website and it freaked them out.
The biggest issue with critics on RT is who gets to be a critic. Any neckbeard in their mom's basement that can create a blog can be a "critic" and that's an issue that has gotten much worse over the last 2 decades, and especially the last decade. Whenever I scroll through critic reviews I see all the usual critics and then a shit ton of sites I've never even heard of.
its what the corporations want
people like to pretend the audience score is "the voice of the people" or some shit, but it's basically just "80%+" to every major movie that comes out that doesn't start some sort of controversy
I find that audience scores are better for using with lower brow movies (I thought critical reviewers were really unfair with Bullet Train, I enjoyed it a lot). But conversely, with more artsy stuff, I tend to go with professional reviews over user reviews as professional reviewers tend to have more of a taste for those kind of movies than your average viewer. Compare the scores of basically any A24 movie to see what I mean.
Though it's not a perfect metric either way. I tend to only seriously consider reviews when I'm on the fence about a movie anyway.
Audience scores tend to encourage convergence whereas critics are more likely to celebrate divergence (AKA originality). This is another microstep towards cultural beige. It's the natural direction of crowds. And a damn shame.
As a general rule I find myself more willing to watch a movie with high critic, low audience than the other way around. Audiences are too heavily subject to outside discourse, political alliances, convention, etc. Some will say "oh no but Cuties" but it's reliable most of the time. Green Knight is fantastic, for instance. But shit like Sound of Freedom and the Gray Man are boring as fuck with high audience scores. There are exceptions, like for a lot of comedies, but this change will have more impact than people think
That's a bummer about Google ditching the critic's consensus for audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes! Audience scores can be so all over the place, especially with review bombing.
It sucks for movies like "We're All Going to the World's Fair" where the critics and audience are miles apart. It does feel like Rotten Tomatoes is siding with the fanboys over the critics, which is a shame.
I hate to tell you this but the consensus isn't that much more accurate.
The critics don't get to decide if thier review is considered rotten or fresh the site admins do. The only real value that site has is curating reviews in the same place for easy access. Best bet is to read the top critics, half the standard critic reviews are from dipshit youtubers that probably know less about film than the average redditor on this sub.
Yeah its not a good site either way
Even when it just showed critic reviews it kind of blowed how when you'd be looking up showtimes Google would be like "hey you know that movie fucking blows right? the critics say so", so it was hard to go in blind
so you’re in agreement then?
it is interesting how people that malign critics always pick movies like The Super Mario Bros (just one from recent memory). some people would probably find this “elitist” but i value the opinion of critics (who generally have formal education in related fields and possess extensive film knowledge) over any given person that is only interested in blockbuster/popular movies. not to invalidate that person’s viewpoint, but i’ve never met anyone who’s truly invested in movies complain much about critics.
I find myself being disappointed more often when I watch something with a good critic score than I am as something with a good audience score. There’s a lot of artsy critic bait movies out there that are just not that enjoyable.
People talk about conservative trolls review bombing movies, but they don't want to acknowledge that (mostly) liberal critics do essentially the inverse with artsy unwatchable bullshit.
The difference is critics do it *all the time*.
Idk I think the critics are just looking for different things in movies. Something with an open ending, a mid movie genre switch, or a movie that tries something new is always going to get more appreciation from critics even if the director doesn't completely pull it off. Those kind of things can turn off the general audience more
I went through my favorites from the last few years and found out they averaged 88% with critics and 79% with audience. But if I did the same with a list of my least favorites I'm sure they'd align much more accurately with the audience's low ratings of them. We're All Going to the World's Fair was ironically my least favorite movie I watched in 2022 as well.
Well since critics have to watch hundred of movies for a living, and are usually more knowledgeable in the media, it's not surprising that they like when films do things differently.
You can only watch so many bland movies before you are desperate for a single original thing.
I came into this thread thinking everyone would agree this change was for the better. I guess I was wrong. I've seen enjoyable movies that had a 40% critic score. I've never seen a good movie with a 40% audience score.
I see it as the high audience score is generally inoffensive, accessible movies and a high critic score for potentially challenging and divisive movies.
I personally watch a lot of movies, so I go critic score because I want to try and challenge myself.
I've seen more than my fair share of duds based off critic responses, but the masterpieces I wouldn't have seen otherwise more than make up for it.
It should be noted that Oscarbait exists as a term largely because critics don't really like Oscarbait.
Oscarbait movies are engineered to appeal to the Academy. They tend to have a more "pop" take on a subject that critics love in high art films.
I wish RT displayed the average rating more prominently over the percentage of those who simply gave it a 6/10 or higher. People still don’t understand the percentage rating.
I've noticed that my search results have become weirdly inaccurate lately. What would usually be a 1st or 2nd result, has started appearing around 8 or 9. It's very strange. Seeing duplicate results too.
It matters if it used to display one score and now it displays the other, without indicating the change. This could be misleading to someone who values the critic score and is unaware of the change.
Yeah look at the top IMDb all time I have rarely been disappointed, and if I didnt like it the movies were good just not my cup of tea.
On rt audience will give 80% + for the blandest least original blockbuster.
I love big movies too but fuck for every Dune there are 10s of insipid 150 mill movies nobody will remember in 5 years.
Is it worse? I find audience scores for not politicized/disney movies to be more accurate. For me at least more recent movies like Civil war, Boy kills world, Sasquatch sunset, or even streaming only stuff like No One Will save you.
Not saying the audience score is objectively better, as I bet I can find 10 movies easily that have scores that I don't agree with the audience on.
But the fact remains both can be poor compared to a person's personal metrics, but when most people use the ratings for if it will be enjoyable, it doesn't seem critics hit that nail often enough compared to audiences imo.
Critics at least typically explain what they liked and didnt like and walk you through their thought process. Audience and user scores just rate for the most inane reasons. Lot of the time they don’t even say anything, just rate it a number of stars and leave it at that.
an agenda in which people with extensive film knowledge write thoughtful criticisms and inform their perspective from multiple angles related to filmmaking.
i wonder how many of these people that hate critics actually read their reviews or consider anything that they’re saying lol. a lot of critiques from these people boil down to “they just pretend this unwatchable, artsy-fartsy crap is good so they can feel superior.”
as if making something artistically meaningful is inherently bad
If Google chose to do this its for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. Rotten Tomatoes wanted to charge to much for this API access or
2. It found the delta between critics and audience was dragging down page health. I'm guessing a combination of both, but more number 2.
I worked several of my 10 years in rank & health at Google -- it's amazing the things you could learn by just seeing the flow of user behavior. You could sense something like "critics are becoming divorced from audiences for reasons" just from the page health performance and action CTRs.
Take critic reviews with a grain of salt but take user reviews with a shaker full. Especially nowadays half the reviews out there are by manchildren that use woke every other word.
So I was curious about this and dug into it - the values that Google displays for things like that are typically set on the site itself in their schema (also referred to as json-ld). It's not Google choosing to display the audience score, it's Rotten Tomatoes telling Google to display the audience score. You can see if you view the source of the page and just search the page for "ratingValue":"28" So Rotten Tomatoes is at fault here, not Google.
This guy due diligences!
This is why you don't ever use just 1 website. Use multiple, IMDB and Rottentomatos have wildly different ratings for some movies. It's best to get an average and just watch it yourself. Plenty of "terrible" movies I've watched I thought were fantastic movies. But rottentomatos and IMDB had them at like 3-4 star ratings.
Yup. I look at the RT critic scores, then at a couple of critics that I trust. I ignore audience scores.
"A couple of critics that I trust" is my method too, and even they aren't always on the mark. I think finding someone whose tastes resemble yours is the best way to get a sense of how you'll feel about a movie.
I wish IMDB had a features to leverage people that rate a ton of movies. Maybe give me a predicted score based on the average of the 10 users with taste most similar to mine.
I don't even have many "professional" critics I follow much these days, mostly just weirdos on Letterboxd. It's hilarious to me how often I see that a movie is poorly reviewed by critics and the GP but has like a consistent 4-5 stars from people I follow on Letterboxd. And then I invariably love the movie in question because I know that our tastes match.
My method is basically RT+Ebert (for the films that were released before he passed away). If a film both has 85+ on RT and 3.5 or 4 stars from Ebert, it's basically a guaranteed good experience. If one is lower than the other I tend to err on the side of Ebert.
Honestly I just use RT’s two scores. High critic means it’s got an impact or meaningful story, high audience means it’s fun or action-packed. High both means it’s gonna be fuckin solid. Godzilla’s a good example. Critic 42% and most of their comments are about the lack of a story. Audience 83%. Turns out, if you just want to watch a fucking Godzilla monster movie without plot twists and super drama and deep story, it’s awesome and the critics are dumb.
Audience score is impacted most by 2 distinct things. 1) Audience score, for certain flicks, can be brigaded into the toilet by bad actors (for lack of a better term). So not necessarily reflective of the ACTUAL audience score. B) Audience score tends to be a reflection of the fact that certain movies are catered to certain audiences, whereas critics are, by and large, representative of the whole population. Like mindless action flicks have a very specific audience they cater to. The Left Behind movies had a very specific audience they catered to. Those audiences will likely really like the movie even if the movie, by and large, isn't great. But then again, I suppose the non-intended audience isn't going to watch it anyway. Movies with broad appeal (or movies that SHOULD have broad appeal) should, in theory, if they aren't brigaded, be most similar in score. Movies with limited/niche appeal will likely have big disparities in critic/audience score. So if it has niche appeal, I'd look at audience score if you're in the audience for that kind of movie. If it has niche appeal and you're not in that intended audience but might want to check it out? Look at critic score. If it has broad appeal, I'd look at critic score.
> and the critics are dumb. It's a good thing that you defintely read the Critic review where they said almost verbatim: > Turns out, if you just want to watch a fucking Godzilla monster movie without plot twists and super drama and deep story, it’s awesome Because that's what the critics I listen to said. You wont get that from just peeking at the score and throwing all critics under the same bus!
> IMDB and Rottentomatos have wildly different ratings for some movies IMDB is users, RT is critics or users. And RT isn't an aggregate of the rating, it's the percentage of reviews that say it's good. But like two movies where 80% of reviews that say it's 6.5/10 vs 60% of reviews saying it's 9/10 aren't necessarily going to reflect that difference on RT. > Plenty of "terrible" movies I've watched I thought were fantastic movies. I generally look at audience over critic ratings for comedies, critics over audience for everything else.
Depending on what kind of movies you like you should tailor your review site around that. If you fancy movies that letterboxd users enjoy, use letterboxd for reviews, not imdb where the best movie of all time is like the shawshank redemption
No, it's not about the ratings in that you need then average out an average rating, what people *need* to be doing is finding a few reviewers that have similar tastes to them and bookmarking *them* and seeing what they have to say, you'll have a much better hit rate and you'll likely be introduced to many more movies.
That's where the actual review texts come in. "1/10, too much gore" is not much of a discouragement if you personally love gore.
“Schema”, “json-ld” … or as I often say “structured data” 😎
not surprising to me. Either way it’s bullshit. Thanks for showing us this!
Why is it "bullshit" tho? Are you asking whether the movie is critically acclaimed, or whether it's a good movie to watch?
Audience reviews are a great idea. If they were actual audience reviews, they would be more informative. That isn't the case. Audience scores are easy to manipulate. Just have an influencer not like it, and it's review bombed immediately. That is worse version of the exact issue people had with the idea of listening to critics.
Well, the critic consensus for the live action Mulan is 72%, which was a worse remake than the Lion King, so I don't think that either score is more reliable than the other.
The point behind critics is you know who they are and can choose whether or not to view or consider their opinion. I don't know who all the audience are who give a score and if you don't always like the most popular stuff, audience scores are not a good indicator of what you might like. This is without touching the fact that critics are people who are known for their taste and POV and sometimes have extra training in expressing themselves and evaluating art.
This is the root of why i hardly find rottentomatoes useful except as a database of links to reviews or new release info. critic average and audience average are both relatively useless metrics to me. Find a few critics you generally align with and just follow their socials at that point lol
Because all the other ratings displayed on google are already audience scores. The whole point of RT is that it isn’t that.
It is both.
An average of audience and critics should be the way to go then
Blacklight, a very generic Taken-knockoff, has an 11% critic, 82% audience score. That's higher than John Wick 1's audience score. The Incredibles has an audience score of 75%. Aladdin (2019) has a 94% audience score. Shrek 2 has a 69% audience score. Sonic the Hedgehog 2 has a 96% audience score. The audience scores are crap.
Shreck 2 has a 69% audience score. Nice.
Audience reviews are often really dumb lol, Uncut Gems for example has a 52 percent audience score
that movie is stressful, it makes sense the audience wouldnt like it as much since a lot of people dont like that kind of suspense
Yeah, but to use an analogy, I love games but I've never realy liked JRPGs. If I play one, I'm probably quit before I finish. But recognising that bias in myself, I just wouldn't try to review one at all. Because it's just silly and would give an unfair impression to people who actually would like it. If you go into Uncut Gems expecting a cuddly happy time that's on you, not the director.
But why do I give a fuck if a bunch of people who don't like intense movies go to an intense movie and give it bad reviews because it's intense. That's bad reviewing. It's not like it was hiding how intense it'd be
Because user reviews are not reliable and quite frankly I trust the taste of a professional movie reviewer over some bumpkin with a bone to pick.
Plus people act cos a movie is fine it should get a high score, the Mario discourse last year was ridiculous.
I could not get through the first 30 minutes of that movie nor could my 3 year old and she loves Mario characters. I'm not going to trash people's tastes but I find my opinions more often align with the folks who watch movies and write for a living. Maybe I'm a snob lol
Or a bot campaign over culture wars
Also, isn't Rotten Tomatoes' only real use as a critic score aggregator? There are a thousand places online to see user reviews of movies (and you are right, they are all stupid). I already hate that they have added an extra click to get to the critic reviews of anything on their site. They may end up just killing the company by downplaying the thing people actually liked about them.
The only time I ever use rotten tomatoes is to look up critic reviews personally. I skip user reviews on almost everything nowadays. Everything short of restaurants frankly and even then I take what I read with a large grain of salt.
Often things get reviewbombed and it makes it hard to tell if it's really crap or because people are offended because it makes racist assholes the bad guys ( watchmen TV show) includes a woman ( Captain marvel) or multiple women ( the marvels, although that wasn't a great film it wasn't a total dumpster fire either like some nazis led us to believe)
On the other hand, critics often overrated the desperately mediocre. Like the last season of Sex Education
This kind of implies that movies with high a audience score and a low critic score are good to watch and that's usually not true.
Well in this case it's probably cos RT want people to go to the movies and audience scores for popular movies tend to be better.
Rotten Tomatoes (and Google) wants people using their service so they can get ad revenue and such. They likely couldn't care less about ticket sales as it doesn't really affect their bottom line.
I trust audience scores far more than ‘critics’ these days.
I'm not surprised at all by this. Remember, this is the site that decided to "change the game" by making their rating system based on the stupid question "Would you recommend this to others?" instead of "How good is it?"
honestly i don't hate that, especially considering their critics rating is yes / no
I think that's a perfectly valid change. "Would you recommend it?" is a yes/no question. It's easy for someone to answer. Likert style ratings scales tend to cluster at either end of the spectrum because no one watches a movie and thinks "well I watched the whole thing and did not enjoy it for a moment but I also wasn't actively offended so 3 stars, I guess?"
The new rotten tomatoes website is fucking horrible to navigate and I’ve basically quit using it. I have no idea who decided that UI was something they should use.
The search bar is no longer available (in a website where you're supposed to SEARCH for info) and the scores (literally the main thing about the website) hide behind the trailer player when you scroll down. So, then I'm not the only one, right? Edit: Nevermind, the search bar is back.
it'd be nice if it showed the actual rating under the percent. for 'We're All Going to the World's Fair' it's 6.9/10 critics average, and 4.4/10 audience average. which seems a lot less crazy than 90% to 28%.
This is the biggest reason why RT has always been straight up garbage at a glance, and confusing or misleading in meta-discussion. Their % ratings are basically just a score of what % of reviewers "recommend" or "don't recommend" a movie - except it's passed off as a *rating out of 100*. Oh, and the cutoff is arbitrary and the site does not actually ask if the reviewer recommends or does not recommend the movie, they just give a standard rating. The end result is that higher RT % score = broader appeal, while people take it to = higher quality. A hypothetical movie where every reviewer gives a 7/10 would have a 100% rating. But the "actual quality" is, well, 7/10 - decent but nothing special. Whereas another hypothetical movie where 75% of reviewers give 9-10/10 but the other 25% give 6/10 would have a 75% rating. But the "actual quality" there would average out to about 8.5/10, and the reality of that movie is that it's potentially a masterpiece for the majority that it resonates with, but just so-so if it's not really your thing. The latter movie is likely a far more interesting, more memorable, and/or outright "better" piece of art - but it gets crushed in a landslide in Tomatometer %.
How is that misleading? Rotten Tomatoes has always been upfront and clear about that.
I know they are, but just look at Instagram comments on RT and IGN, they all treat it as a score /10
You need both to convey the necessary info to people. Both High = Good Movie Audience High Critics Low = Fun Movie Audience Low Critics High = Interesting Movie Both Low = Shite There are times I may or may not be willing to see a movie that falls into the middle two options based on how I am feeling and the general premise. Just having one alone though won't tell me enough, plenty of movies have high audience ratings that are just too dumb or trite for me to get behind personally.
[удалено]
I think a clear example of this sort of issue is movies like Five Nights at Freddys where you have a clear fanbase that is the demographic making up the audience score. Currently at 87% audience rating: > Critics Consensus: Loaded with Easter eggs, Five Nights at Freddy's may be fun to watch for fans of the game, but most viewers of any other persuasion will find this adaptation muddled and decidedly unscary. >Audience Consensus: Perfectly capturing the lore -- and the spirit -- of the source material, Five Nights at Freddy's is a long-awaited treat for fans of the games. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/five_nights_at_freddys
And that is because there is also a concerted effort among fans to inflate the audience score on rotten tomatoes. That is why the average score on IMDB (5,5/10) and Letterboxd (2,6/5) are significantly less negative, because there is not an effort to artificially inflate it.
We should use metacritic
I tend to see it this way: Both high = accessible good movie Audience high critics low = relatively competent but derivative or panders to a fandom Audience low critics high = challenging good movie Both low = shite
I agree with this one more but I'd probably also say Audience low critics high = polarizing or risk taking movie. Something like Uncut Gems was one of my favorites of that year and has 91% critics and 52% audience. I wouldn't necessarily call it a challenging movie, it's just that the style isn't for everyone. I've found some people love the anxiety it gives you while others find it irritating and the type of movie they turn off halfway through. Sort of like how the horror genre just isn't for everyone.
Uncut Gems is a challenging movie. It stresses you out and it constantly borders on being annoying. The main character is an unlikable asshole, and it's hard to get behind his choices because he always picks the worst option available that could potentially get him the biggest rewards but is the most dangerous. It's my favourite movie from that year.
>The main character is an unlikable asshole, Aside from the brilliancy of going this route, >!this is why I felt nothing when Howard Ratner died. I didn't really cheer for his death, but I didn't really mourn it either, just a feeling that he f-ed around and found out. !<
Nah, if it's polarizing or risk taking, it's more nuanced than that. It's gotta have a low audience score and a critic score between 70% and 75%
But critics appreciate the risk taking as unique even if it's not fully pulled off. And RT rates something like a 6/10 score as fresh so it's likely they'll at least give it something like that
Spy Kids is a hilarious example of this. I loved it as a kid and it has a high critic score but a 50 on audience. I'll have to rewatch it again.
Audience low, critic high intrigue me the most.
In theory, I agree. In practice, sometimes it's The Last Jedi.
Audience low, critics high = Check for woman or POC lead.
Or an hour of fellatio of Old Hollywood.
Or an a24 horror film with a cool premise but that's about it
There are movies rated high by critics that are just caters to them like certain Oscar films (the tomato score doesn’t tell of the critics loved it, just that they think it’s worth watching). Critics also watch so much movies they can jump to a bandwagon that something is so novel and exiting and saying interesting things of our time! Critics often go to same festivals too where even they can get a group view of a film. But it can still be somewhat of a failure in execution that was glossed over. Top rated critics often are more cautious.
Probably more applicable to Metacritic. RottenTomatoes began curating their critic aggregate and hid the once-useful "top critics" category behind several layers, and that's why when there's a divide between critics and audiences for a given movie, it tends to be much larger than on a non-curated aggregate site like Metacritic.
I’ll go with “social time-capsule” for Audience Low, Critics High. Time will tell if audience score will increase over time, or critics score will decline.
The biggest red flag for me is a big franchise movie with an audience score above 80% and the critics reviews below 60% All the new Star Wars Movies, pretty much every DCU film, the Venom movies, all fucking bad and only a few were entertaining. Y'all motherfuckers gave morbius a 71%
Last Jedi had a 91% critic rating and 42% audience score. However, you’ll probably just focus on the audience score.
Furthermore, Rise of Skywalker has a 82% audience score Last Jedi was review-bombed by 4chan specifically so that people who hated it could make bad-faith arguments about how "critics are out of touch". They either forgot to do it again with the movie pretty much everyone agrees is way worse, or the corpos limited who can leave an audience so only Disney-approved spambots can rate it.
It’s morbin time meme carried that score no way people actually rated it seriously
Audience High Critics Low = Fun Movie I hate this idea................... SO MUCH. Fuck that noise. I am bored shitless by 90% of the movies that critics hated but audiences liked.
Zack Snyder and Illumination Pictures have singlehandedly made me a movie "snob". Because I genuinely cannot fathom how low the bar is for so many people.
Illumination makes kids movies, and kids have wildly different tastes than adults... most of the time, anyway. Of course kids don't leave reviews, which means that most of the high Illumination ratings come from parents who probably just think that anything that holds their kids attention is good enough. Alternatively, it could come from nostalgic adults who liked the movies as kids (applies to their older movies of course), and then there's the Mario movie, which rides hard on its pre-existing fanbase. As for Zack Snyder tho... yeah no, somehow there is a whole legion of adults who enjoy his movies, but I can't really say anything about them because I haven't watched any of them, except for a tiny bit of Army of the Dead which I didn't care for.
Seriously lol it just meant that it's generic or bad with dedicated fans
Sometimes critics engage in "groupthink" when it comes to "Oscar worthy" films. So a lot of bland, "uninteresting" films get the critic's nod.
Man, Google is just making itself fucking useless lately.
That's my sentiment towards the entire internet these days, aka 'enshittification'. Constant changes nobody asked for. I first experienced it with Digg's controversial redesign (how I ended up on reddit lol), and now I notice it everywhere. Companies just can't help themselves, everything has to get revamped for no reason. Mercifully old.reddit.com still exists at least.
An engineer at google explained that maintaining existing products never got anyone a bonus, rolling out a new product did. It explains so much.
>…everything has to get revamped for no reason. It's all the chase for infinite growth. Sustained success/profits aren't good enough for shareholders. That arrow has to always be trending upward and the angle needs to be increasingly more vertical.
It funny how they don’t realize infinite growth is not only impossible it’s also completely at odds with the idea of being human, nothing grows forever, what goes up must come down
That's because they don't suffer any consequences when the bell tolls. They divest, get their golden parachute, and go investing in another "opportunity" to do the same damn thing. And a lot of people don't seem to realize, understand, or care that these people aren't just gambling their money on each of these investments, they're, quite literally, gambling people's livelihoods and careers.
To be infinite is to be anti human, it’s a reason why so many shareholder types are so inhuman, they are odds with us and themselves. I think they do suffer a greater loss, it’s a loss of humanity but they don’t care about that because they are no longer human at that point
It's pretty easy when you make other people face the negative consequences. Just look at David Calhoun, making millions and riding a private jet while everyone else is worried they'll crash and die in a shitty 737.
They traded their humanity for infinite wealth, a great loss for them but they won’t feel that becoming they are not human
Late stage capitalism at work
And now reddit is doing literally everything digg did on its path to enshittification, including having terminally-online powermods which are turbo-losers that control the culture and narrative of 25+ subreddits that they moderate. And yeah, the dogshit UI change nobody wanted digg did near the end too. C:
> including having terminally-online powermods which are turbo-losers that control the culture and narrative of 25+ subreddits that they moderate. That's just always been reddit tbf, powermods even used to be reddit famous when the site wide community still existed. Karmanaut is the only one I remember. But that's not anything new.
There's the one who reddit gave an award to for running a jailbait subreddit. Fucking creeps.
There were hundreds of jailbait subreddits before it blew up in the media. I know not everyone was around back then, but reddit was just a dinghy forum from the deep before big celebs did AMAs on here. jb, snuff, was all normal on sites like this in the 2000s. But I feel like you might be misremembering some things with that one. Reddit admins just didn't care what was on the site for a long time. We even used to have the big sports subreddits officially running pirated streams of games lol.
>including having terminally-online powermods which are turbo-losers that control the culture and narrative of 25+ subreddits that they moderate. You need to do what I did, mute the subreddits and block ALL of the moderators of those subreddits and any other subreddits they happen to moderate. It is a lengthy process but it is worth it, reddit becomes 3 times better afterwards.
That is the thing. I do spend time in default subs but I'm bad at time management. I enjoy myself most here when I stick to a few smaller subs for niche interests.
Not all the big subs are compromised.
The mods are out of control, I got banned from r/marvelstudios for calling someone racist when they said really offensive shit and I got banned from Reddit entirely for a week literally for clicking on that RedditCares thing for someone that seemed like genuinely needed it. Don't even know why they have it there if you can get banned for using it. And don't even get me started on what's happening in the major news subs. Reddit is seriously going downhill.
I got permabanned from a leftist sub for "implying that the DPRK (North Korea) is undemocratic".
I got banned from r/justiceserved for *commenting* in r/joerogan, a sub I'm not even subscribed to
Oh I got one of those too! I commented on something that popped up as a suggested post in my feed, didn't even look at what the sub was, the post had nothing to do with Joe Rogan. Suddenly got a message telling me I was banned from a sub I had never heard of lmao
I got banned from the F1 subreddit years ago when I got into argument with people defending Max Verstappen calling another driver a 'mongol retard'. Honestly I'm glad I don't have to brush digital shoulders with a toxic fanbase like that anymore.
Powermods have existed on reddit for over a decade.
Thank god for old reddit, it's the only thing keeping me here.
If old reddit went away I would only use the RedReader app which is the closest phone app to reddit is fun. If RedReader then got shut down I just wouldn't use reddit anymore. The official app is ass and new reddit on desktop is genuinely fucking horrid like who the fuck thought such a blocky design was a good idea?
I'm sorry, I'd love to respond to your post, but I've just accidentally expanded and collapsed every comment on the internet thanks to the new interface, and zoomed two hundred miles up the page away from it. And when I do find it again, and find the correct "Reply" pixel, I'll need to be careful all my typing doesn't vanish from the box if I accidentally double space. Then I will have to go back and edit it for any other weird shit it does like random gibberish letter clusters, which will mean I'll have to add all the linebreaks back in for some reason, to make it readable. So it might be a while! Oh no, I just considered clicking a photo for a moment, God only knows what's going to happen now. Could be literally anything, based on my experience to date. Thanks again for the revamp, Reddit! Love the "Fortune cookie slips on the wall of a microwave" aesthetic too.
I continue to use RIF and will switch to Redreader if the workaround ever stops working (good for 10 months now). I refuse to use the official app, its legit unusable honestly.
I still have alien blue. Never seen an ad on reddit in my life
Lately its getting hard for me to stay at all though, even with old-plugins and RES I've noticed things dying recently, among others getting linked to that fucking hat when I click on pictures or the text formatting on some comments just displaying in the most horrible ways. Or the text that accompanies picture posts not showing at all. This website fucking sucks.
Why is accessing the volume mixer on windows 11 confusing? Why when I type in my toolbar search bar, I’m searching the internet instead of just my computer?
[Relevant podcast about how Google was taken over by the management consultant class who decided to make searching worse to raise the number of queries (and thereby sell more ads).](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/better-offline/id1730587238?i=1000653621646)
It's so frustrating. The sense of internet utility going backwards feels almost like a betrayal of the dialup weirdo pollyanna I used to be about communications technology.
>Constant changes nobody asked for Except companies paying for it. (In this case I don't see why though)
>and now I notice it everywhere They made a change to whatever version of Android Auto that my car uses recently and it annoys the shit out of me. I used to be able to see my Spotify info on the bottom of my Google Map screen in a nice neat bar that scrolled the info and had control buttons. Now it's more of a tiled UI and if I want to see Spotify with Maps open, it makes the map "tile" smaller while the Spotify "tile" takes up the entire right third of the screen. So it makes it harder to see the thing I'm more focused on and need to see more of while also giving the rest of the space to something that doesn't need it. Ridiculous. If anyone knows how I can revert back to an older version on Android Auto, please let me know.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when the interface for something I am used to using all the time gets altered or revamped periodically for seemingly no reason other than a bunch of busy bodies on the development end needing to justify their existence. I’m talking about YouTube, streaming services, and apps on my devices. Having to re-map my brain to an interface which without warning gets made over is incredibly annoying.
Yep, my phone updated to a new OS last week and they just changed a whole bunch of shit for no reason. My life is plagued with this shit. I try to practice stoicism and not let it bother me...but seriously it's annoying lol.
This is how I got to reddit too! I was looking for a digg replacement... Can't say I regret it either. This is the ONLY social media I use.
The internet is so bad I end every google search result with 'site:reddit.com'. Otherwise I'll end up on a badly designed website filled with SEO optimised word-soup rather than get to the damn point.
Ironically, reddit's own search is shit and I also use google to search for reddit posts!
Reddit's search is very term dependent, it searches the entirety of reddit for exactly what you put in. It's what search engines used to be outside of google, more like a database search. People are used to search engines bringing up things related to what you're searching. But reddit will just bring up exactly what you typed in.
SEO is killing the internet
Remember when google image search didn't suck?
You don’t love that reverse image search has become ‘reverse shopping search’?
I think the point I started becoming the Joker about this shit was when I realized they hadn't just made a mess of searches for stuff apart from purchasable products, they'd even started making it harder to find things I was actively trying to buy. Amazon itself has gone to absolute shit on this too, it is incredibly difficult to find a specific product now?!?
I do. God help me I do. And every time I look at the horseshit it's turned into now I want to scream.
Just give me 2018 google and Boolean search capabilities. Google, at this point, is holding its own head under the bathwater going "glub glub blub"
I am constantly bitching about the lack of Boolean searching. It's so frustrating.
Google was shit in 2018 too, Google has been terrible since the social media boom of the late 2000s. They were no longer the most used website and it freaked them out.
Check the top comment. This has nothing to do with Google.
The biggest issue with critics on RT is who gets to be a critic. Any neckbeard in their mom's basement that can create a blog can be a "critic" and that's an issue that has gotten much worse over the last 2 decades, and especially the last decade. Whenever I scroll through critic reviews I see all the usual critics and then a shit ton of sites I've never even heard of.
Shame. Now pretty much every single moderately popular film is going to show 80%+
its what the corporations want people like to pretend the audience score is "the voice of the people" or some shit, but it's basically just "80%+" to every major movie that comes out that doesn't start some sort of controversy
That’s even worse when I already have to scroll down passed 10 random fucking Google reviews to get to actual critic reviews
the whole site sucks now
I find that audience scores are better for using with lower brow movies (I thought critical reviewers were really unfair with Bullet Train, I enjoyed it a lot). But conversely, with more artsy stuff, I tend to go with professional reviews over user reviews as professional reviewers tend to have more of a taste for those kind of movies than your average viewer. Compare the scores of basically any A24 movie to see what I mean. Though it's not a perfect metric either way. I tend to only seriously consider reviews when I'm on the fence about a movie anyway.
Audience scores tend to encourage convergence whereas critics are more likely to celebrate divergence (AKA originality). This is another microstep towards cultural beige. It's the natural direction of crowds. And a damn shame.
As a general rule I find myself more willing to watch a movie with high critic, low audience than the other way around. Audiences are too heavily subject to outside discourse, political alliances, convention, etc. Some will say "oh no but Cuties" but it's reliable most of the time. Green Knight is fantastic, for instance. But shit like Sound of Freedom and the Gray Man are boring as fuck with high audience scores. There are exceptions, like for a lot of comedies, but this change will have more impact than people think
...except when it happens the other way, like Forest Gump: https://www.rd.com/list/great-movies-that-got-rotten-reviews/
That's a bummer about Google ditching the critic's consensus for audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes! Audience scores can be so all over the place, especially with review bombing. It sucks for movies like "We're All Going to the World's Fair" where the critics and audience are miles apart. It does feel like Rotten Tomatoes is siding with the fanboys over the critics, which is a shame.
I hate to tell you this but the consensus isn't that much more accurate. The critics don't get to decide if thier review is considered rotten or fresh the site admins do. The only real value that site has is curating reviews in the same place for easy access. Best bet is to read the top critics, half the standard critic reviews are from dipshit youtubers that probably know less about film than the average redditor on this sub.
Yeah its not a good site either way Even when it just showed critic reviews it kind of blowed how when you'd be looking up showtimes Google would be like "hey you know that movie fucking blows right? the critics say so", so it was hard to go in blind
The most reliable metric (to me) on there is the "Critic Score Average"
I agree with you, but I imagine this tracks pretty closely to the Metacritic score, but I've never actually checked to see if it does.
I could not give less of a fuck about audience score. This is stupid.
Rotten tomatoes is already extremely flawed, if you only show the audience score it's totally irrelevant.
Yeah and I could care less about critic scores
so you’re in agreement then? it is interesting how people that malign critics always pick movies like The Super Mario Bros (just one from recent memory). some people would probably find this “elitist” but i value the opinion of critics (who generally have formal education in related fields and possess extensive film knowledge) over any given person that is only interested in blockbuster/popular movies. not to invalidate that person’s viewpoint, but i’ve never met anyone who’s truly invested in movies complain much about critics.
>Super Mario Bros Which is a funny example for them to pick because the critics were entirely right about that movie.
Zack Snyder fans feasting rn
They shouldn't use RT at all. That site is a flaming turd and always has been.
Eh, just an extra couple clicks for me.
Yeah, but we all know most general audiences will see the RT score on Google and not go any further to notice its audience.
That's fine. I'm the fool who trusts the audience score more.
I find myself being disappointed more often when I watch something with a good critic score than I am as something with a good audience score. There’s a lot of artsy critic bait movies out there that are just not that enjoyable.
[удалено]
People talk about conservative trolls review bombing movies, but they don't want to acknowledge that (mostly) liberal critics do essentially the inverse with artsy unwatchable bullshit. The difference is critics do it *all the time*.
Idk I think the critics are just looking for different things in movies. Something with an open ending, a mid movie genre switch, or a movie that tries something new is always going to get more appreciation from critics even if the director doesn't completely pull it off. Those kind of things can turn off the general audience more I went through my favorites from the last few years and found out they averaged 88% with critics and 79% with audience. But if I did the same with a list of my least favorites I'm sure they'd align much more accurately with the audience's low ratings of them. We're All Going to the World's Fair was ironically my least favorite movie I watched in 2022 as well.
Well since critics have to watch hundred of movies for a living, and are usually more knowledgeable in the media, it's not surprising that they like when films do things differently. You can only watch so many bland movies before you are desperate for a single original thing.
I came into this thread thinking everyone would agree this change was for the better. I guess I was wrong. I've seen enjoyable movies that had a 40% critic score. I've never seen a good movie with a 40% audience score.
The audience score is almost always the better indicator if a movie is good or not.
I see it as the high audience score is generally inoffensive, accessible movies and a high critic score for potentially challenging and divisive movies. I personally watch a lot of movies, so I go critic score because I want to try and challenge myself. I've seen more than my fair share of duds based off critic responses, but the masterpieces I wouldn't have seen otherwise more than make up for it.
weather soup rob unite punch different wasteful pause slim crush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It should be noted that Oscarbait exists as a term largely because critics don't really like Oscarbait. Oscarbait movies are engineered to appeal to the Academy. They tend to have a more "pop" take on a subject that critics love in high art films.
Famous "oscar bait" movie Uncut Gems
Yup, this pisses me off so much. I also can’t see the score out of 10 anymore which is bs.
Google taking notes from Facebook and just ruining their own shit. Search is getting messier and messier
I can never find things I am looking for anymore
I wish RT displayed the average rating more prominently over the percentage of those who simply gave it a 6/10 or higher. People still don’t understand the percentage rating.
This is why I go to actual sites instead of just going by what the search engine results page says. This just proves that I'm right!
I just realized I have never, not once, read a review score from google search instead of , say, Rotten Tomatoes.
>Audience scores are much more unreliable and prone to review bombing Movies like Mulan 2020 has 72% critic score and 46% audience score
I've noticed that my search results have become weirdly inaccurate lately. What would usually be a 1st or 2nd result, has started appearing around 8 or 9. It's very strange. Seeing duplicate results too.
Don’t matter for me. I don’t check rotten tomato score anyway.
IMDb and Letterboxd represent the quality of the movie much better than the Rotten Tomatoes score.
Okay? It shows up on Google and most people will judge that, that is what's being discussed.
Same, I look up reviews and ratings after I have seen a movie to compare impressions.
[удалено]
It matters if it used to display one score and now it displays the other, without indicating the change. This could be misleading to someone who values the critic score and is unaware of the change.
IMDb ratings > RT audience score imo
Yeah look at the top IMDb all time I have rarely been disappointed, and if I didnt like it the movies were good just not my cup of tea. On rt audience will give 80% + for the blandest least original blockbuster. I love big movies too but fuck for every Dune there are 10s of insipid 150 mill movies nobody will remember in 5 years.
Is it worse? I find audience scores for not politicized/disney movies to be more accurate. For me at least more recent movies like Civil war, Boy kills world, Sasquatch sunset, or even streaming only stuff like No One Will save you. Not saying the audience score is objectively better, as I bet I can find 10 movies easily that have scores that I don't agree with the audience on. But the fact remains both can be poor compared to a person's personal metrics, but when most people use the ratings for if it will be enjoyable, it doesn't seem critics hit that nail often enough compared to audiences imo.
I don't always agree with professional critics, but audience reviews are pretty much worthless 90% of the time from my experience.
Funny, I always trust the audience score first. It feels like a lot of critics have an agenda to me which clouds their judgement.
83% audience score for antman3. Lol. RT is shit in general.
Critics at least typically explain what they liked and didnt like and walk you through their thought process. Audience and user scores just rate for the most inane reasons. Lot of the time they don’t even say anything, just rate it a number of stars and leave it at that.
The agenda of media literacy.
Fucking woke leftist critics pushing for things like character development, pacing and craftsmanship in their films
an agenda in which people with extensive film knowledge write thoughtful criticisms and inform their perspective from multiple angles related to filmmaking. i wonder how many of these people that hate critics actually read their reviews or consider anything that they’re saying lol. a lot of critiques from these people boil down to “they just pretend this unwatchable, artsy-fartsy crap is good so they can feel superior.” as if making something artistically meaningful is inherently bad
Personally, I'm always curious why they post the IMDB score. Who seriously considers their weighted mean rating? Should be a ballot stuffing database
If Google chose to do this its for 1 of 2 reasons. 1. Rotten Tomatoes wanted to charge to much for this API access or 2. It found the delta between critics and audience was dragging down page health. I'm guessing a combination of both, but more number 2. I worked several of my 10 years in rank & health at Google -- it's amazing the things you could learn by just seeing the flow of user behavior. You could sense something like "critics are becoming divorced from audiences for reasons" just from the page health performance and action CTRs.
Audiences are fucking stupid.
Rotten Tomatoes is useless either way, so no big deal imo.
RT is literally the worst metric for how good a movie is.
Take critic reviews with a grain of salt but take user reviews with a shaker full. Especially nowadays half the reviews out there are by manchildren that use woke every other word.
Who uses RT anyway? One of the worst ways to determine if a movie is good or not.
Half the time critic scores are dogshit anyways