- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It's not a flaw to rely on the ratings. Considering how anal some reviewers can be, knowing a widely released and reviewed film was liked by 98% of the reviewers is a huge indicator that it is worth a watch. If you are around 80% you know a chunk were harping on details but the target audience would enjoy it. You get lower and even fans of the kind of movie are beginning to not like it.@FoolKiller
Yeah, I am aware that the scores on RT are aggregate data based on the number of positive or negative reviews collected. I don't know the specific algorithms carried out, but I could somewhat infer the basis of the displayed score by noticing the relation between the number above and the labels of the linked reviews below. Say, on May 11, all the reviews for this movie collected on RT had the tomato labels, and the rating displayed was 100%. It's just that Rotten Tomatoes' scores are commonly used by people to determine if a film is really worth watching in the theaters or not, hence why I decided to refer to the number 98%. Actually I was wondering if I really should mention it at the start of my post; I had a feeling that someone would just point out that it's kind of a flaw to rely on RT ratings.
Nevertheless, I usually don't check or rely on Metacritic scores, and I wasn't aware of how they got to their numbers. That's good to know! Sounds like a more reliable representation on how good a movie is.
If audience scores are off from reviewer scores by a large number then I worry about the actual rating.