MovieChat Forums > Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) Discussion > Rating Manipulation

Rating Manipulation

posted 6 years ago by Eli (63)
49 replies | jump to latest

I've noticed a couple really shady things that seem to indicate rating manipulation on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.

This movie obviously has much less than a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but Disney must have coerced them to cap the score at 50%. It's been at 50% for the last week even though 90% of the reviews have been extremely bad the whole time, and yet it doesn't go below 50%.

Furthermore, they don't let you go back more than about 50 pages even though there are 1800 pages. If you could see all the reviews, you could do your own math and see that it's below 50%

On IMDB, they also stopped letting you sort reviews chronologically, and now it's forced into "most helpful" sort order. And you can't go page by page.

It's odd that this is all happening during the release of Star Wars. It reminds me of how NPR also got rid of their forums exactly when everyone was trashing Hillary Clinton during her battle with Bernie Sanders.

This shutting down of public discussion when things don't go the way of the rich and powerful is really dangerous and saddening.

[–] darkpast (8323) 6 years ago

you can rate with a score without leaving a review. so maybe people just rating 3/5 is positive

[–] Buttholio (198) 6 years ago

It's very suspicious it's holding at exactly 50% though

[–] darkpast (8323) 6 years ago

some Star Wars fans are in denial that this is a very bad film

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

That doesn't explain the capping at 50% with the constant barrage of negative reviews.

[–] darkpast (8323) 6 years ago

could be an error like below

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jigsaw_2017

extremely high aud score

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

That's not an error.

I guess I should be more direct and just say I'm pretty sure the majority of reviewers hated this movie and RT is definitely rigging the ratings to keep movie studios happy. It's pretty obvious. They do this sort of thing all the time.

[–] maximmm (3166) 6 years ago

RT is owned by a film studio and film ticketing company - you do the math ;)

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Under 50 now.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

So it's now been over 24 hours since I posted this, and perhaps 80% of the reviews of TLJ 1/2 to 1 star, and yet user rating has stayed at 50%. That's all the evidence I need that this is rigged.

[–] darkpast (8323) 6 years ago

it did drop to 3/5

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

I didn't notice that. What was it at before?

3/5 is also not believable though.

[–] darkpast (8323) 6 years ago

3.1-3.2/5

[–] AckbartheHutt (1370) 6 years ago

3.1.2-3.2.1/10-5=5

[–] peterkneter (381) 6 years ago

The rating behavoir you mention always assumes to rate just to worsen or to improve the current rating. It is not about rating a movie itself. That's were the difference lies beteen rating groups. Some IMDB users are rating movies the other
want to influence the rating result. For example I am a movie rater and I would rate a really bad movie 3-4/10 a mediocre one 5-6/10 a good one 7-8/10 and a brilliant one 9-10/10 ony in very few times I would go to the lowest rating of 1 just because of respect for the workers in the cast an crew involved.

[–] maximmm (3166) 6 years ago

You only need to know who owns imdb and amazon and then you'll get the rest of the picture.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

You nutcases would be hilarious if you weren't so pathetic in your conspiracy theory delusions.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

You have the discernment of a toddler and the ignorance of a backwoods hermit if you think it's far fetched that review websites would collude with creators of a reviewed product.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

"You have the discernment of a toddler and the ignorance of a backwoods hermit if you think it's far fetched that review websites would collude with creators of a reviewed product. "

I base my views on logic, evidence, and reason. These concepts are obviously very foreign to you.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

None of which you demonstrate here.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

I note with great satisfaction and no surprise that you have offered zero evidence and no logic or reason to defend your ridiculous conspiracy theory. Typical.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

Why do you speak like a 14 year old trying to sound smart?

Took me about 30 seconds to find evidence of industry collusion:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-18/pharmaceutical-companies-influence-doctor-prescribing

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2376-i-get-paid-to-write-fake-reviews-amazon.html

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Publisher-Admits-Game-Review-Scores-Heavily-Influenced-By-Trips-Parties-Swag-48395.html

And also the fact that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by a group of huge media conglomerates doesn't help.

It's not an illogical conspiracy theory. It's a reasonable theory. Don't act like giving a good review because you got a gift from a studio is as crazy as reptilian aliens running the whitehouse.

Don't be an unwitting stooge.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

"Why do you speak like a 14 year old trying to sound smart?"

That's your job, cupcake.

"Took me about 30 seconds to find evidence of industry collusion:"

None of which supports your case that there are ratings manipulations of the sort that your paranoid opening post suggested. You obviously have no idea how to reason from facts to justified conclusions.

Everyone knows that the internet is filled with fake reviews and discussion posts by paid shills. But there is zero evidence that studios collude with movie sites to prevent idiotic losers from writing stupid reviews or giving unjustifiable low scores just because they are butthurt babies.

In fact, the only evidence I saw suggested it was butthurt fanboys doing the manipulation.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

Using the term "butthurt fanboys" portrays you as a mindless parrot.

I don't know why I continue to feed the trolls, but here's some more, from the RT review board:

I believe I can show that the current audience score of 49% which RT displays for the Last Jedi is false. I can only speculate as to why they are lying but they clearly are. I did a statistical analysis of all of the audience reviews I was allowed to view. There are nearly 2000 pages of reviews and I was able to access 46 of them. This is a perfectly reasonable sample size which I believe represents an accurate reflection of the overall audience opinion. A five star rating system translated to a scale of 1 to 100 means that each star is worth 20 points. A half star is 10 points etc. Here are my results...

.5 stars - 339
1 star - 173
1.5 stars - 66
2 stars - 90
2.5 stars - 23
3 stars - 19
3.5 stars- 12
4 stars - 26
4.5 stars 25
5 stars 95

A sample size of 868 audience reviewers awarded a total of 23390 points for an average user score of 33.8594. Less than 34%.

I don't know why RT is lying to the public, but they are clearly preventing the audience score from falling below a certain level. If RT is protecting Disney's interests then this is a conflict of interest of the highest order and this site cannot be trusted.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

Again, you have no ability to reason from evidence to a rationally justifiable conclusion. The fact that you can't see the vast, vast majority of the reviews completely invalidates your argument and makes you look like a paranoid idiot.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

I'm a software engineer and know that it's trivial to allow users to see all reviews instead just a small portion, and in fact that's how it used to work. Both rotten tomatoes and IMDB changed their systems to only allow you to see a few reviews. There's absolutely no technical reasons for that. Using your precious logic, that only leaves the possibility that they want hide reviews from users to hide how they calculate aggregate scores. But an establishment suckling whore such as yourself is too blind to see that.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

"sing your precious logic, that only leaves the possibility that they want hide reviews from users to hide how they calculate aggregate scores. "

That's clown logic there, not the real thing. The fact remains that you have absolutely no evidence to back up your conspiracy theory. You have about the same relationship to objective reality as a creationist or Trump spokesperson.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

You dismissed all the evidence that I presented because it is circumstantial
Or otherwise not direct. Let's test your convictions. Do you believe in Trump colluded with Russia?

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

"You dismissed all the evidence that I presented because it is circumstantial."

No, puppy, I rejected your "evidence" because it was complete garbage. You took a non-random sample of just a fraction of the scores--garbage data--and tried to draw a conclusion from that data that no rational person would draw. And that's all you have to support your case: nothing.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

You ignored my question. Do you believe Trump colluded with Russia?

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

I can understand why you want to change the topic since you aren't doing very well, but I'm not playing that game.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

It's very relevant. I can understand why you avoid the question - because your dumbass only demands double blind scientific studies and photographic evidence when it doesn't fit your beliefs. I'm sure you believe Trump colluded with Russia, even though there is still nothing but circumstantial evidence yet. I believe he colluded as well, but at least I'm consistent because I am fine using inductive reasoning and circumstantial evidence to come to a conclusion on a situation where my judgement has no effect on the outcome. Unlike your pedantic yet inconsistent ass.

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

You see, the problem with braindead SJW like you is that you dont even realize how stupid you act in public. Eli made a lot of evidence. You could indeed try to search arguments against them, but all you did was whine about how bad the messager is. Thats pure SJW level of braindeadness! And as always: You are just damaging the thing you are "fighting" for.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

" Eli made a lot of evidence. "

Apparently, like Eli, you have no sane or rational conception of what "evidence" actually is.

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

A sample of 868 reviewers is way more then you get even at election forecasts. So sorry that you dont stop to make yourself an idiot in public. Im not a Star Wars fan at all. But even I know that this movie is pure shit and KK and Johnson only destroyed the Star Wars saga. So I dont give a sh*t about that rating. But what I really hate is SJW that think that they can manipulate reality. Samples are an evidence. If you dont like .... simply dont comment on it. But only attacking the messenger lets you appear as some straight idiot.

So this thread is done for me. I got the information with the samples. Thanks, Eli. Therefor for the sane majority out there its clear that TLJ isnt liked by almost two third of the movie viewers. But even if you include the bought and before movie release reviews ratings 49% is still the worst rating ever for a Star Wars movie. And thats the only interesting part of that thread. Another SJW, which dont accept facts .... isnt that much of a surprise at all :) .

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

"A sample of 868 reviewers is way more then you get even at election forecasts. "

Excuse me, pumpkin, but samples need to be randomized if they are to be valid at all. See what I'm talking about? You deluded nutcases have no conception of what evidence looks like.

And what bizarre random spasm of neurons firing in your brain makes you think that anything about this topic has to do with the alt-right's obsession with gender and race issues? You really need to step on your medication.

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

Thats bull. Randomized samples is just used within cheap studies, cause that way you cant be sure that you dont prefer one group too much (for example phone polls during daytime are wasted money, cause all persons you reach are housewives, unemployed and students). You have to use random samples within given groups to get useful results.

So what does that mean in that scenario? Eli liked to research the recent rating for SW TLJ. And he used for that purpose 868 recent (!) votes. So everything at his method is fine. But I see that science isnt your thing. Your thing is feeling and why bad Eli dont pay enough attention for your hurted snowflake feelings. But that isnt top priority when the question is, which rating SW TLJ got during the last few days. Case closed for now. Have a nice day.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

"And he used for that purpose 868 recent (!) votes. So everything at his method is fine. "

No, idiot, that's not fine.

A. Given that butthurt losers have bragged about organizing attacks on the ratings, the entire pool of self-selected ratings by users who could have multiple accounts and who don't even have to have seen the movie is contaminated nonsense. Even the former chief editor of Rotten Tomatoes has said that he does not trust the site's ratings as an accurate measure of audience reaction. Case closed.

B. Given A and common sense, a sample that is limited to only recent reviews is doubly garbage data. That's why it has to be random. That's like doing a political poll that only samples one county in a state.

Or course, since you are a deluded nutcase with no concept of how to understand objective reality, this will all sail right over your head.

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

I see. Organizing attacks! Thats the reason. And the desaster in China is sourced by the cultural differences (which werent any problem at all at Interstellar or TFA). Case closed, dumbhead.

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 6 years ago

It is simply a fact that butthurt losers have bragged about using social media to get fellow butthurt losers to artificially raise the number of online bad reviews and scores for the film.

It is also a fact that even the people who run these sites know the numbers are not reliable measures of audience reaction, and say so.

As for your bizarre thing about China, that's you arguing with the voices in your head.

Case close, deluded nitwit.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Quint (952) 6 years ago

The real score of TLJ is at 33% (like you mentioned). But you shouldnt forgot that ahead of the movie start and during the movie release there were many 5 votes from fans which havent seen the movie yet and then indeed the usual bought 5 stars from studio marketing bought voters.

But now that its known that this is the worst Star Wars movie in history the score is indeed at 33% (like you shown). But you shouldnt forget that there are almost 70.000 to 80.000 votes from fans done before the movie and bought by studio marketing. Thats what keeps the overall score at 49%. But thanks for calculating the real score - with all the bought and early votes removed.

[–] TexasJack (12515) 6 years ago

Moreover, boosting the "audience" score on RT and imdb is a trivial exercise for a movie studio with a nine-figure marketing budget just for one film.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 6 years ago

who cares, think for yourself.

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

The more people that call this shit out the more it snowballs and garners mainstream attention. If Disney realizes that the jig is up maybe they will make a better movie next time in fear of lost profits.

[–] Vechtersbaas (550) 6 years ago

This.
We only want this shit to happen because then MAYBE we can finally get a worthy Star Wars movie.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

How many decades has this been going on? 20 - 30 years?

It's not going to happen

[–] Eli (63) 6 years ago

Rogue One was amazing, and a recent movie, and made by Disney. It's totally possible.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Good point, but it was only loosely tied into the rest of Star Wars... Once filmmakers touch existing characters and such, they'll clash with the existing cannon, divergent fan biases and the ever literal and fundementalist Star Wars original trilogy fanatics... The fans who have torn down every single film since the first three...

You cannot square away being faithful to the original trilogy and current cultural corporate norms within big studio filmmaking...

I think Disney will double down by getting rid of even more of the legacy StarWars elements, so that the Brand name will carry on, but with an entirely different set of characters from the old movies... There will be less outrage at the next main StarWars once they rewrite of Han Solo's legacy (expect a lot of complaining then) and most of the older characters have been purged in the last jedi anyway...

A lot of the fans will come around and the series will end up with Marvel level numbers, but slightly higher (with movies made for lower budget)... A key thing will be whether or not the current producing team will last until then... with the decent financial results of Last Jedi, they could make it until then, as long as Solo doesn't bomb and ends up within 20% or so of Rogue One numbers... Assuming they didn't go way over budget...

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out... I think the Solo movie could open big enough to get them there out of sheer brand loyalty and effectively kill off StarWars as it is currently known... it's more than half way there with The Last jedi... We'll see...

[–] Droideka (3) 6 years ago

Or maybe some of us just like the movie?