• [object Object]@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    8 days ago

    I don’t know if “certified fresh” or “rotten” is good on the website rotten tomatoes, and at this point I’m scared to ask.

    • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Fresh means most critics liked it, certified fresh means the majority of critics liked it.

      But those are just critics, pay attention to the audience score (popcorn bucket) instead.

      • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Nah. The audience score is vulnerable to being manipulated by both bots, coordinated hate campaigns and diehard fans that loose objectivity. I understand why some people will prefer a general population consensus but I always put more weight with the well written columnists over the flippant audience reviews.

        Edit: exactly what I’m talking about lol

        • bigbangdangler@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          Rotten Tomatoes having both scores is exactly why it’s more reliable than IMDB.

          I usually pay most attention to the critics score. If there is a massive disparity between the critics score and the audience score, it might be sus.

          • Ilandar@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Rotten Tomatoes having both scores is exactly why it’s more reliable than IMDB.

            IMDb also has both.

          • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Ty! Without your correction my comment would loose all mean, I write fast and lose. Their needs to be standards for those who choose too post.

    • SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s considered good, it means at least generally positive reviews … of course, that’s not always a useful metric because some films that review badly can be a lot of fun

  • blarth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Rotten tomatoes is worthless. Metacritic is where it’s at.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      The trailer just…it just looks pretentious or something. Can’t quite put my finger on it, but I did not like the trailer I saw. The deer?

      Hope it works better in the movie than it did in the trailer.

      • AccoSpoot1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I mean I’m just not gonna bother. Spielburg outer space fantasy optimism just doesn’t hit the same way anymore, and, yeah, the adverts didn’t sell me.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    81% For a big budget movie doesn’t sound that great. I suppose it could be worse.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      This is the problem with aggregated review and the mentality surrounding them. It doesn’t mean that it scored an objective 81% score, it means 19% of people didn’t like it. Film is art and art is subjective and viewers are not monoliths.

      I don’t care what Joe Schmoe at the the NYT thinks about a piece of art, the only reviews that matter to me are the ones written by people with similar tastes.