Fuck rotten tomatoes, okay?

5/14/2008 9:17:10 PM

fear and loathing sucked balls

5/14/2008 10:00:03 PM

wat

5/14/2008 10:07:05 PM

Quote :

"The Ice Storm (80%) --> Ride With the Devil (63%) a difference of 17% Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (97%) --> Hulk (61%) a difference of 36% Rotten Tomatoes FTW!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA for believing that Rotten Tomatoes is an indicator of quality

5/15/2008 2:13:01 AM

the whole broken lizard team, doing super troopers -> club dread.

5/15/2008 6:29:03 AM

^ OH GOD that's right. I loved Super Troopers, but Club Dread was TERRIBLE. I didn't laugh once during the whole damn movie.

What a HORRIBLE movie.

5/15/2008 7:15:33 AM

^^^
It only takes into account the perspectives of some of the top critics in the industry.

And excuse me for taking the word of my peers rather than listening to some message board blathering.

5/15/2008 3:43:58 PM

well film critics are pretty useless too

5/15/2008 4:13:07 PM

thanks

5/15/2008 4:20:33 PM

in my experience, people who bash rotten tomatoes or think it is completely useless have horrible, horrible, dreadful taste in movies.

such as my friend who thinks "Van Wilder- the rise of taj" is legitimately superior in every way to There Will Be Blood.



[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : fdsfes]

5/15/2008 5:48:21 PM

Quote :

"well film critics are pretty useless too"

yeah, but even just depending on the ones selected by the site you notice a huge difference: metacritic and rotten tomatoes have different critic ratings for the same movie

Quote :

"in my experience, people who bash rotten tomatoes or think it is completely useless have horrible, horrible, dreadful taste in movies"

hahahahahaha, OMG SOMEONE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN ME BECAUSE OF A BUNCH OF USELESS RATINGS ON THE INTERNET!

Quote :

"It only takes into account the perspectives of some of the top critics in the industry. And excuse me for taking the word of my peers rather than listening to some message board blathering."

use sites that make sense of ratings (like criticker) and save yourself from trying to argue that the ratings on sites like imdb and rotten tomatoes mean something: users seek out these sites to rate movies poorly or highly more often than not

although this is completely irrelevant to the thread because the suggestions in here are all SUBJECTIVE

so I'm sorry you disagree with me, RawWulf, but trying to claim that you're right using rotten tomatoes is just ridiculous

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 8:52:37 PM

does nobody else agree with rob reiner?

5/15/2008 10:13:03 PM

I didn't say you were wrong ... I've never even seen Ride with the Devil.

I was just pointing out that Crouching Tiger to Hulk was a bigger fucking drop in most people's and critic's opinions.

It's like you're trying to say StillFuchsia's opinion >>>>>> everyone else's opinion.

Jesus Christ, are you always looking for a confrontation?

5/15/2008 10:21:08 PM

She's a miserable person, dude. Haven't you learned by the elitist shit she says?

It's like...you're talking about Ang Lee here.

ANG

LEE

5/15/2008 10:33:24 PM

Quote :

"It's like you're trying to say StillFuchsia's opinion >>>>>> everyone else's opinion."

I didn't say anything of the sort. But I also didn't try to say your opinion was invalidated by a bunch of votes on a website, like you tried to say about mine.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:35 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 10:34:23 PM

I bet she's one of those John Waters-loving types, too.

5/15/2008 10:35:07 PM

StillFuchsia, using RottenTomatoes shouldn't be considered wrong. If a lot of critics say a movie is good, as well as a lot of other people, then the movie is probably pretty decent. Of course everybody has different taste in movies, but it is convenient to be able to go to a site to find out what you can and base your decisions on that before forking over actual money on a movie ticket or rental that you didn't like.

5/15/2008 10:37:27 PM

I didn't say it was wrong

I said it was a lame basis for saying that a movie is objectively "good" or "bad"

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:38 PM. Reason : everything about those votes and the posts in this thread is subjective]

5/15/2008 10:38:10 PM

haha I just looked at Criticker.

I'm going to take some dumb fuck on the Internet's word over a professional movie critic ... riiiiiiiiiiiight.

5/15/2008 10:38:15 PM

criticker uses your own votes to predict what movies you'll like:the users they use to make your TCIs have the same taste in movies that you do

maybe you should look more into a site before judging it

you love the internet dumbfucks over at rotten tomatoes better, I guess

seriously, you'd trust a critic over someone with the same taste as you?

(not to mention that they used to have professional ratings on criticker, they've been tweaking lately and have disabled the tab for now)

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 10:39:16 PM

Don't forget about John Cameron Mitchell, pretenchos.

5/15/2008 10:39:21 PM

it's also safe to say that since crouching tiger is a more recent movie, and usually a directorial followup to a well-received movie will be rated better because people will have a bit of a bandwagon effect from the previous movies.

i haven't seen ice storm, but i'm with SF in saying that trying to treat RT as some sort of objective measure between two movies is kinda silly. especially when those movies are obviously two entirely different genres.

5/15/2008 10:41:33 PM

well most of time (not always), the sites are right. I get the feeling too many of the reviewers are a little heavy handed and too high browed for my tastes, but the grand majority of the time if I see a movie that was rated good, it usually kicks ass. If it gets low reviews, it usually sucks. Of course, context should be considered. You really don't have to see the latest Scary Movie, Meet The Spartans etc to know that it sucks. I haven't seen Meet The Spartans, but I can guarantee you without a doubt that that movie is probably one of the worst abominations ever made. An exception can be made for Craig Lindsey, the idiot movie reviewer for the News and Observer who gave Night At The Museum fucking four stars

5/15/2008 10:41:59 PM

by the way, I think this thread should be getting back on topic about now

5/15/2008 10:43:13 PM

Quote :

"but i'm with SF in saying that trying to treat RT as some sort of objective measure between two movies is kinda silly. especially when those movies are obviously two entirely different genres."

That's absolutely all I was saying.

I'm all for getting this thread back on track

5/15/2008 10:47:09 PM

In case you've never looked at Rotten Tomatoes, the site features professional reviews. Not random Internet chatter.

While people can post their own opinions on films, that is not what is featured.

Sure I used collaborative scores to justify the greater gap between Crouching Tiger and Hulk; but if you take a quick look (on Rotten Tomatoes) at what top critics felt, the results are amplified.

An example:
The Ice Storm (73%) ---> Ride with the Devil (56%)
a difference of 17%

Crouching Tiger (97%) ---> Hulk (53%)
a difference of 44%

So once again, Rotten Tomatoes FTW!

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 10:49:24 PM

I'm gonna pull a stillfuschia here and say BOB CLARK

BUT NOT FOR RHINESTONE AFTER A CHRISTMAS STORY EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, ITS TOO OBVIOUS AND I WANT TO PROVE ORIGINAL

I WANNA SAY BLACK CHRISTMAS FOLLOWED BY BREAKING POINT

5/15/2008 10:50:20 PM

^^you're still not getting it

metacritic also has critical reviews, but the numbers are different from those you posted: why is that, if this rating movies is such an "objective science" to you?

and again, critics are PEOPLE with just as subjective opinions as random users

I mean, if you want to worship critics, fine... but that's not what my opinion of the two films was based on

and since you haven't even seen one of them, it's sorta silly you want to debate it

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 10:50:34 PM

because they pull from different sources.

One may use Bob Buttfuck who is an excellent critic from the Times New Faggottown Herald. But the other might not.

That is why the results are different.

And I could be wrong on this one, but if you look at any review aggregate site, you'll probably still find that Crouching Tiger to Hulk was a bigger drop in popular and critical opinion than Ice Storm to Ride with the Devil.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 10:55:15 PM

Quote :

"because they pull from different sources."

yeah, exactly

even the critics they pick is subjective

so why are you putting so much stock in one over another? or even letting this be the basis of your argument at all?

You haven't even seen one of the movies I posted and you're calling me wrong automatically? I merely disagreed with you and you just can't let it go, trying to use whatever "data" you can get your hands on about which drop is bigger: 1) it's subjective and 2) doesn't even matter.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 10:58:12 PM

It's because you're comparing 2 hollywood blockbusters to dark, subversive indie bullshit like the Ice Storm.

She's basically beating you since you fail to acknowledge this.

5/15/2008 10:59:30 PM

maybe not the WORST but i was really disappointed with almodovar's "bad education" as a followup to "talk to her" (one of my favorite movies)

5/15/2008 11:00:13 PM

ok, almodovar ftw on pretentiousness.

5/15/2008 11:01:52 PM

all right metacritic ... 39% difference between crouching tiger and hulk ... 3% difference between ice storm and ride with the devil.

I see your opinion, and that's great.

But for you to say "So wrong" because I saw a bigger drop between a different set of films by the same director, shows that you're a pretentious theater worker who can't seem take her nose out of her own ass.

I never said you were wrong, I said, "More like." Which is popular and critical opinion.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 11:01:53 PM

oh for fuck's sake, you honestly took "so wrong" LITERALLY?

well no wonder you can't get off your high horse

I thought it was obvious that when I posted that I liked Ice Storm better, that was COMPLETELY FUCKING SUBJECTIVE

seriously, I've never said my pair was OBJECTIVELY CORRECT, unlike you

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM. Reason : but hey, let's descend into personal attacks! that's fun!]

5/15/2008 11:02:34 PM

Anything after the Royal Tenenbaums

5/15/2008 11:02:48 PM

All right ...

StillFuchsia thinks Ang Lee's follow-up to The Ice Storm, Ride with the Devil, was the biggest catastrophe in Lee's career.

RawWulf thinks Ang Lee's follow-up to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hulk, was the biggest catastrophe in Lee's career.

Neither are wrong, and both are right.

Happy?

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2008 11:08:16 PM

Perfectly.

5/15/2008 11:09:02 PM

Entertainment is like the UNC of TWW.

5/15/2008 11:10:38 PM

^^^^i agree, especially royal tenenbaums -> life aquatic

darjeeling limited is really growing on me though.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2008 11:11:44 PM

Seriously, this was over with Rob Reiner. He made This Is Spinal Tap, Stand By Me, and The Princess fucking Bride, three awesome movies. Then he made Alex & Emma and Rumor Has It, and.........do you really want to see those two shit bombs?

5/15/2008 11:16:48 PM

^^^ OMG, Scrumples finally came out!

5/15/2008 11:17:23 PM

YOU KNOW YO ASS IS DOOMED

5/15/2008 11:52:51 PM

Quote :

"hahahahahaha, OMG SOMEONE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN ME BECAUSE OF A BUNCH OF USELESS RATINGS ON THE INTERNET!"

wat?


anyway, I'm not saying rotten tomatoes is the end all be all, i've liked plenty low percentage movies, but to say the site is completely useless especially in extreme 3% vs 97% cases is just silly. If someone tries to argue that prom night is a BETTER FILM than there will be blood or no country for old men, using rotten tomatoes as a source shouldn't be completely out of the question in cases like that... but it's obviously not scientific and saying an 80% movie is definitively better than a 70% movie is just retarded.

5/16/2008 12:57:41 AM

Quote :

"Anything after the Royal Tenenbaums"

personally, i'd say rushmore -> royal tenenbaums was a HUGE dropoff. i really didn't care for that movie. i think it is b/c of my deep hatred for ben stiller.

5/16/2008 8:57:16 AM

^^ there is no sense arguing with StillFursha

5/16/2008 9:13:16 AM

Yeah, I'm convinced she's the AIM bot SmarterChild

5/16/2008 11:17:42 AM

^^^i prefer rushmore, but i think royal tenenbaums was his tightest(?) movie.

5/16/2008 11:21:43 AM

Quote :

"anyway, I'm not saying rotten tomatoes is the end all be all, i've liked plenty low percentage movies, but to say the site is completely useless especially in extreme 3% vs 97% cases is just silly. If someone tries to argue that prom night is a BETTER FILM than there will be blood or no country for old men, using rotten tomatoes as a source shouldn't be completely out of the question in cases like that... but it's obviously not scientific and saying an 80% movie is definitively better than a 70% movie is just retarded."

I didn't say it was useless, I just said there's no objective way to quantify which movies are "better" than others, that's all. You're saying that it's not scientific or perfect, and that you've liked some of the films with a low percentage: that's exactly my point.

5/16/2008 12:39:39 PM

Dogma > Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back




I fucking loved dogma, but hated strike back.



*shrug*

5/16/2008 12:46:06 PM