I heard that Terminator: Woke Fate was 40% or thereabouts for the audience, before it jumped up into the 80s, and maybe the same happened here with Charlie's Angels, because it too is in the 80% region, now. Yet I look at IMDb (a score I trust more and more these days, to be honest) and Metacritic, and I can see why people are trusting RT less and less.
i believe rt is now requiring that anyone who votes on a movie has to show that they attended by providing some form of ticket verification, something not required at imdb. or metacritic as far as i know, correct me if i'm mistaken.
so presumably this means less swaying of votes by online troll armies out to kill the ratings of any given film, and it ought to result in a score that actually reflects the opinions of the people who saw the film, making it more trustworthy, not less.
i personally have no interest in seeing this thing, but it had a pretty decent cinemascore, so it may simply be the case that the people who actually did see it liked it just fine.
RT started that last spring, it wouldn't explain the drastic score jumps here.
sharetrue, if there were indeed drastic jumps.
all we're talking about right now is the op saying he heard this happened with dark fate, & his suggestion that it might have happened with this thing.
lots & lots of people have suggested that some film's critic or audience ratings were skewed. maybe, but i'm dubious that such a thing is happening, & until someone actually shows that it is happening, i'm perfectly happy believing that people who saw the films actually liked them.
the most instructive thing to do i believe is see how the audience ratings on rt match up to their cinemascore. the cinemascore is taken as people are walking out of the theatres, so we definitely know those ratings reflect people who saw the film
terminator:
cinemascore - b+
rt audience - 83%
charlie's angels:
cinemascore - b+
rt audience - 80%
dr sleep (another film that didn't do too well, but was liked by those who saw it apparently)
cinemascore - b+
rt audience - 89%
so we see that the ratings more or less line up.
you may not like any of these films, but i don't see any reason not to take the word of people who actually saw them if they say they had a good time watching them.
Many of the reviews on Amazon are 'real', as in the reviewer bought the item and gave it a five star review, and then they get reimbursed. This movie was at 50 something a few days ago when I looked, now it's at 80.
sharei can certainly believe that such a thing happens on amazon, & if there are cases where it's shown to have happened, & people can prove that, i'm very willing to believe that's the case.
but i'm not willing to simply accept that this is the case here without...y'know, actual evidence. there are 1415 verified ratings on rt for this silly film. if we're to believe that a movie studio bribed or got their employees to submit false ratings in enough numbers to skew that rating, then show me some of the people who took the money or the employee who's willing to say such a thing happened.
if the contention is that rt is skewing the numbers, i would again say 'where's the beef?' i guess it's possible they might have some motivation for doing so if they are owned by or colluding with the studio, but if they got caught doing such a thing it would be fatal to their brand, so i'd be pretty shocked if they were willing to take such a risk. seems incredibly unlikely.
and i again return to the cinemascore rating, taken as people leave the theatre, which basically aligns with the rt rating.
regarding your contention that the movie was at a 50 - from what i've seen (i sadly kinda obsess over this stuff) the film has had a consistently solid verified user rating. if you look at its all audience rating, including non-verifieds, you'll see that it has a 59% rating. perhaps that's what you were looking at.
regardless, my point remains the same: there's really no good reason to suspect any kind of conspiracy over this silly movie. the most likely reason it has a fairly good audience rating is that the people who see the movie more or less dig it.
You called it a "silly movie" and yet are willing to believe it legit scored 80%? I do appreciate your skepticism, I wish more had it.
shareOn Amazon, you HAVE to filter the reviews by Verified Purchasers to get any semblance of reliability. There are products on there, that when you run that filter, you get zero. Yes, zero actual purchasers out of hundreds of reviews. Bots rule the Internet. The new normal.
shareAfter the blatant attempt by Rotten Tomatoes to intentionally affect the score of the latest Chappelle special, I'm surprised anyone gives RT any consideration whatsoever anymore.
shareThe name now an ironic reflection of the site itself and those involved with it. Wouldn't you love to get your shot with a basket full of rotten Better Boys?
shareRT is fake news.
shareYeah I never bought the idea that studios pay people to shill for a movie on RT, but the hugely favorable "audience score" for Terminator: Dark Fate has made me rethink that. How can there so many fans of the movie in public when the film is bombing horribly and getting an overwhelming scathing response and negative reviews all over the internet?
sharei just did a long-winded post about this above, so no need to repeat myself - but if you look at the cinemascore for dark fate, you'll see that the people polled right as they came out of the theatre were pretty positive.
message boards & twitter & everywhere else are often aflame with people declaring some film the worst thing ever. & that's fine, those people probably believe that. but it's entirely possible that those people are just very passionate (haha, i really want to say annoying & trollish) outliers.
the most likely reason for the high audience scores is that the people who saw the film actually thought it was just fine.
Basically this.
shareGenerally word of mouth would have kicked it into gear by now, so 'no', the RT audience scores are cooked.
sharewell, i think that's something of a false dichotomy you're proposing there.
if the film doesn't hold strongly, that may just mean that no one wants to see it.
this is an aside, but i can tell you firmly that i don't want to see it. if someone came up to me & tried to tell me they thought it was great & worth seeing, i promise you those words would fall on deaf ears. i would rather do anything else in the world other than see this film.
if the film fails, that doesn't prove that any audience ratings are cooked. there are other possible, & much more likely explanations. a film can fail, have a small audience, but still be enjoyed by the small audience that does see it.
Respectfully disagree - short of a whistle-blower at RT, there isn't going to be 'proof' of anything. However, this isn't a courtroom, it's the real world, where real conclusions are reached with imperfect data by every single person every single day. It is what it is, and when the stories don't make sense (i.e. It's the boys fault for low attendance.), one is forced to piece together the available information.
They 'cooked' the ratings for Ghostbusters by changing the algorithm for calculating scores, and they're likely to be doing it here by whatever technique they think will work, and for the exact same reasons.
Do I care? Not really. It's their business to sink with SJW f##kery, let 'em have at it. But, if I were looking for a low stress popcorn movie for a nice Friday night date, a positive word of mouth for Charlies' Angels from someone I knew would have been enough for me. If the movie still sucked, which apparently it did, it'd still be good for a laugh as we left the theater.
It's been years since I took online reviews overly seriously anyway. I'm sure when SW Episode 9 comes-out, it'll be rated a 8.8 on IMDB. Early ratings are all a factor of the marketing budget these days.
I’ve never used RT. I’ve looked at IMDB as my most trusted reference for 15 years now. Apart from the marvel movies it’s mostly spot on.
RT is like a takeout joint that you’ve always heard of but have never had interest in going. It’s the Carl’s Jr of ratings.
after the ghost busters 16 and captain marvel fiasco's, RT has decided to scrub all negative reviews of a movie.
share