Rotten Tomatoes' Credibility in question since WB acquisition?

Jcaugustine

Jcaugustine

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Got this from Twitter.

If you follow the comic sites: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/sh ... p?t=376165

You'll see Captain America right now is scoring an 80% fresh rate.

But that's not the same story with RottenTomatoes.com anymore since it was bought by Warner Bros just last May of 2011.

There are a couple of comic sites tracking what Rotten Tomatoes has been doing lately with the Captain America reviews, including ComicBookResources and SuperHeroHype. The sites found that Rotten Tomatoes is seemingly front loading all the negative reviews first, while ignoring most of the positive reviews, giving the film a bad first impression.

Rotten Tomatoes had even been Tweeted that Captain America was rotten over and over on the internet this morning.

Currently they have it scored at 59% with only 22 reviews, however, if you look at what the 2 comic sites have compiled (ComicBookResources and SuperHeroHype) you could see there are already over 40 reviews from top critics out with an 80% rating (32 pos, 8 neg).

But what is even more striking is this:
@RottenTomatoes has listed Hollywood Reporter's review of Paramount Pictures' Captain America, for some reason as "rotten" on their site.

But if you actually read it, they gave a positive review of the film with which they gave a Metacritic score of 7/10 - that's pretty fresh to me!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... ilm-213287
​
Plus it even gets worst including a double-standard:
According @RottenTomatoes "Horrible Bosses" by Warner Bros scored 2.5 / 4 by Slant Magazine = *FRESH* at RottenTomatoes.

But "Captain America" by Paramount Pictures got the same 2.5 / 4 from Slant Magazine, however its = *ROTTEN* at RottenTomatoes.

However "Green Lantern" another Warner Bros film got a 2.5 / 4 score and that too = *FRESH* at RottenTomatoes.

So if Warner Bros movies get 2.5 / 4 that = Fresh.

But any other studio gets 2.5 / 4 that = Rotten?

Warner Bros owns Rotten Tomaotes = Not Credible at all.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/revie ... -first-avenger/5636
​
Going back it also seems that there are about 20 more positive reviews for Captain America from top critics that Rotten Tomatoes is purposely taking their sweet time, not updating yet.

In fact the very first review of Captain America, from Roger Moore which was positive and was published yesterday at 6 am ET, didn't get loaded into Rotten Tomatoes until later this afternoon. Yet, they published the first 3 negative reviews of Captain America first and began tweeting how rotten it was to their 390,000 twitter followers. It almost feels sabotage.

What's happening to Rotten Tomatoes?
Click to expand...
Who'd a thought?

Btw, most responses were basically that Warner Bros didn't want to lose a lot of money from people who would be seeing Captain America this Friday, rather than Harry Potter. So rather than put all the positive reviews out now, they're just "delaying" the process as long as they can before eventually putting them on site.

Anyway, I'm more of a METACRITIC.com guy :cool:
 
This is why I don't trust review sites at all. I have learned to look at trailers/footage and just general info about movies/games and then decide if I would like it or not.

It's hard to trust reviewers anymore.
 
Shows positive to me on front page with 67% average. Movie page has 15 positive reviews and 5 negative, or 75% positive, which beats the overall average listed.

Seems fine to me.
 
Yeah, reviews are at most just one piece of the puzzle. I care a lot more about whether the trailer made it look like a movie I'd enjoy, whether it's by a director who's films I tend to enjoy, whether I like the actors in it etc. rather than what the reviews say.

I do still look at places like RT or Metacritic pretty often for movies I'm on the fence about seeing in the theater. But I don't use them to decide whether to watch a movie in general or not. There's not much investment in giving a movie a chance with a Netflix rental, vs. finding time to hit the theater and paying the rising ticket prices.
 
[quote name='Anexanhume']Shows positive to me on front page with 67% average. Movie page has 15 positive reviews and 5 negative, or 75% positive, which beats the overall average listed.

Seems fine to me.[/QUOTE]
You weren't there yesterday when Rotten Tomatoes kept tweeting how Rotten Captain America was based on 5 early reviews which they front loaded with the negatives:

https://twitter.com/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93459353515986944

https://twitter.com/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93540736389218304

https://twitter.com/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93693001913733120

https://twitter.com/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93744058329075713

Before finally giving in and calling it fresh after a lot of complaints since they were front loading all the negative reviews of Captain America first the moment they became available. But waited a day to post the positive reviews that had already been released the day prior i.e. Roger Moore, Entertainment Weekly, Hit Fix, etc.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']This is why I don't trust review sites at all. I have learned to look at trailers/footage and just general info about movies/games and then decide if I would like it or not.[/quote]

This.
 
There was a pt when I hit the web hard for unbiased reviews... those days are long since passed. This is evn more reason to see what I want and form my own humble opinion...
 
Why would anyone ever trust a review on anything?

Reviewers review because they get paid to. If a game site does reviews on games then why would you trust it? Because where do they get the money to pay their reviewers? From advertising with.........wait for it......... game developers. So yes game reviewers are paid by the very peoples products they are reviewing. So how exactly do you trust what they say?

Besides ALL REVIEWERS ARE BULLSHIT, all of them. Every single person who has ever reviewed anything is by fault wrong. Millions love mcdonalds food, millions think transformers are awesome movies, millions think britney spears can sing good, millions think dancing with the stars is great television, millions think emachines are good computers, and so on. But I dont agree with any of them, why would I believe a couple then reviewing a game when their paycheck ultimately comes from the companies that make the games they review?

At best, Ill jump on a forum and ask what someone thinks of a game if I am on the fence. But even that is a rarity.
 
[quote name='gargus']Why would anyone ever trust a review on anything?

Reviewers review because they get paid to. If a game site does reviews on games then why would you trust it? Because where do they get the money to pay their reviewers? From advertising with.........wait for it......... game developers. So yes game reviewers are paid by the very peoples products they are reviewing. So how exactly do you trust what they say?

Besides ALL REVIEWERS ARE BULLSHIT, all of them. Every single person who has ever reviewed anything is by fault wrong. Millions love mcdonalds food, millions think transformers are awesome movies, millions think britney spears can sing good, millions think dancing with the stars is great television, millions think emachines are good computers, and so on. But I dont agree with any of them, why would I believe a couple then reviewing a game when their paycheck ultimately comes from the companies that make the games they review?

At best, Ill jump on a forum and ask what someone thinks of a game if I am on the fence. But even that is a rarity.[/QUOTE]

Stating your opinion is basically a shortened review of something. You "jumping on a forum to ask what someone thinks of a game" is them reviewing the game, which is, by your definition, bullshit. I'm not even sure why I tried to help you find logic in one of your posts, it's a waste of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top