91% on RT
Kevin Feige Is A God
shareIt's more like they own RT.
Well, not exactly Disney. A corporation named Comcast owns Rotten Tomatoes. And Comcast and Disney are very close partners. Comcast distributes Disney content in TV, and they're both behind Hulu. They share common interests.
By the way, a similar thing happens in videogames. Disney is behind Epic, and behind the campaign against Cyberpunk 2077
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0zmn0hEv24
You do realize that Rotten Tomatoes merely aggregates all the reviews, then offers a percentage based on positive vs. negative, don't you? Of course you do, yet you still want to tout some conspiracy theory about Disney paying another corporation to do incorrect arithmetic and hope no one notices. Weren't you also the one convinced Disney was buying tickets to Captain Marvel to boost sales? You're full of yuks, kuku, and appropriately named.
shareRT aggregates reviews. That doesn't mean they 'merely' aggregate reviews. They can pick reviews, they can dismiss others, they can weight or shadowban them, and they have banned accounts that didn't vote 'correctly'.
RT is actively tweaking the algorithm and purging accounts so they can make the score 'correct'. And it's not me who says that. THEY said it.
https://www.infowars.com/rotten-tomatoes-purges-50000-user-ratings-after-captain-marvel-review-bomb/
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2468380/rotten-tomatoes-may-be-making-even-more-changes-to-combat-trolls
You are talking about user reviews. An RT score is based on critic's reviews, and that's what matters. Trolls and bots can easily alter the RT audience score, which is why no one references or rates it, but the RT score is the gold standard. They don't pick and choose reviewers, they MERELY add up every review and show the percentage of positive to negative.
shareThey don't pick and choose reviewers, they MERELY add up
Ooops, lie detected. ;-)
1. They pick reviewers. Here you have the page. The guidelines include requirements as 'insight' and 'quality'. Who's the judge? RT.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics
I'm choosing reviewers, but only those with enough insight, dedication and quality. And who judges whether they have insight, dedication and quality? Me. Well, at the end of the day that's just me picking the reviewers.
2. They decide whether the critic approves the movie. It's true that sometimes it's quite straightforward. Sometimes it's not. When it comes to mixed reviews, they decide whether to consider it as 'approval' or 'fail'. Depending on what they choose, they can make a movie having many mixed reviews reach +90% or fail. share
Lie detected? Don't make things up. They include all legitimate critics. They don't eliminate any based on how they review a film. They include all the critics from all the major outlets. You can try your best to make it sound like some grand conspiracy theory, but you're ignoring reality, just like with your ridiculous Captain Marvel theories.
share[1] «Don't make things up. They include all legitimate critics.»
And they decide who are the legitimate critics, which means they pick the reviewers. Why you keep denying it?
[2] «They don't eliminate any based on how they review a film.»
Basis?
[3] «You can try your best to make it sound like some grand conspiracy theory»
A Disney partner owns the site. Corporations that invest in media, they like that media favor their interests. Calling it 'conspiracy theory' is not an argument, it's just name-telling.
A Disney partner? Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fandango, which is in turned owned by Comcast. Warner Brothers kept a minority stake after the sale. Which among those is a partner to Disney? Warner Brothers is a direct competitor, and the other two have nothing to do with Disney, at least not in any way that would benefit them by boosting Disney's ratings. Meanwhile, they risk invalidating their entire site, currently the industry gold standard for film ratings, if anyone ever caught on to their nefarious plan.
As for critics, yes they decide-- they decide to include all of them. Can you name a single critic who you believe belongs on the list who isn't?
Why are you so opposed to facing the truth? Marvel has made movies that are loved by audiences and critics alike. Their movies make money. Captain Marvel made over a billion dollars, and none of it came from tickets secretly purchased by Disney. 91% of all major critics who have so far reviewed the new Spider-Man film gave it a positive review.
1. Comcast is NOT owned by Warner Brothers. Please, don't lie, manipulate or suggest it. Having a bunch of shares doesn't mean you own something
2. Comcast and Disney are equity stakeholders in Hulu, which is the most important project for Disney right now. Comcast is not only a Disney partner. Right now, Comcast is THE Disney partner.
I said this before. You chose to ignore it.
3. Comcast is the owner of Rotten Tomatoes.
Right now, Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the main partner of Disney. That's a fact. Why are you so opposed to facing the truth?
I did not write that Comcast is owned by WB. Go back and read what I wrote, or let me paste it here: "Warner Brothers kept a minority stake." And FWIW having a bunch of shares is the exact definition of ownership. When you own a share in a company, you own a % of it. Again, however, I did not say WB owned a controlling stake, merely that they retained a minority stake in Rotten Tomatoes.
Beyond that, the fact that both have a stake in Hulu doesn't make them Disney's partner. It means both have a stake in Hulu, in much the same way that Warner Bros. has a stake in Rotten Tomatoes.
Rotten Tomatoes is owned in part by Comcast, and in part by others, including Warner Bros. None of those companies have any interest in risking the integrity of the world's leading movie rating site in order to boost the sales of Disney, a company with whom the directly compete in most arenas.
You hate Disney. Good for you. Just accept that they're making great films now. Perhaps in time that will change, but don't make things up to support some harebrained conspiracy theory you've cooked up.
[1] «I did not write that Comcast is owned by WB. Go back and read what I wrote»
And that's why I didn't say 'write'. I said 'suggest'. Probably you should go back and read what I wrote. It's never too late. Even after you answered the comment, it's not too late to finally read the comment you answered.
[2] «Beyond that, the fact that both have a stake in Hulu doesn't make them Disney's partner. It means both have a stake in Hulu, in much the same way that Warner Bros. has a stake in Rotten Tomatoes.»
Comcast owns a third of Hulu. WB is not even a major stakeholder in Comcast. It's not 'much the same way'. It's not even close.
And I said this before. And again, you chose to ignore it. Or perhaps you didn't read it neither... You keep trying to deny that Rotten Tomatoes, that favors Disney, is owned by a close partner of Disney, and that's a fact that I have already proven to you: again, Disney and Comcast are the two companies behind Hulu (minor stakeholders aside), and that's right now the most important project for both of them. That creates a strong shared interest. Rotten Tomates belongs to Comcast. That's the reason why RT favors Disney.
[3] «You hate Disney. Good for you. »
Nope. Disagreeing with you (or with any other other SJW or NPC) is not hate. To be something, it would be common sense. For some reason, SJW keep seeing hate everywhere.
Anyway, labeling my arguments as 'hate' is not even an counter-argument, it's just name-telling.
We're just going back and forth as you try to justify things you've written. When I wrote:
Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fandango, which is in turned owned by Comcast. Warner Brothers kept a minority stake after the sale.
and you replied
Comcast is NOT owned by Warner Brothers. Please, don't lie, manipulate or suggest it.
That was more than a case of you "suggesting" that I'd implied WB owns Comcast. You were trying to make it sound as though I'd said they do.
But that isn't the real issue. You are something of a fringe crackpot (that is not an insult, please don't take it as one), no different in my mind than the "SJW or NPC" you incorrectly lump me in with. Like them, you take words out of context, and twist them to fit what you want them to say. I never labeled your arguments as hate. I did not engage in "name-telling." It certainly seems from this, and many other of your posts that you do hate Disney, but I don't think your arguments are hate-based or hate-filled.
No, I'm neither SJW nor NPC. I'm also not a fringe conspiracy theorist. You're the latter, so I suppose in your eyes anyone who opposes your theories must be the former.
The salient point: Rotten Tomatoes is by definition unbiased. They identify every legitimate critic, from both minor and major outlets, and weigh every opinion equally. Everything is transparent, and there is no hidden formula or secret algorithm. The reason RT is so trusted and respected is for those reasons, and while I understand that like, say, a flat earther, you are convinced there is a secret conspiracy at work behind the scenes, sometimes things really are the way they seem, and in the case of RT, they are. That's the beauty of 100% transparency-- nothing left to the imagination. Unless, of course, one is as imaginative as you, then any conspiracy is still possible.
[1] «We're just going back and forth as you try to justify things you've written. When I wrote: [....]
and you replied [...]»
Again, I didn't say that you said it directly. I said that you suggested it. I quote you: "It means both (Disney and Comcast) have a stake in Hulu, in much the same way that Warner Bros. has a stake in Rotten Tomatoes.". Disney, Fox and Comcast were the equal founders and owners of Hulu. You stated that this was the same case with Warner Bros and Comcast, trying to convey that WB had a big share in Comcast, which is a lie.
[2] «But that isn't the real issue. You are something of a fringe crackpot (that is not an insult, please don't take it as one)»
Insulting somebody and then saying that it was not an insult already got old in kindergarten. This is kid's stuff.
[3] «No, I'm neither SJW nor NPC. I'm also not a fringe conspiracy theorist. You're the latter, so I suppose in your eyes anyone who opposes your theories must be the former.»
And more name-telling.
Whatever.
Honestly its never worth it to engage with these fools. Notice how they rarely if ever speak on the actual content of the film. They don't explain how or why their own personal opinion differs from the RT critics, or how the critics got it wrong, yet they will go on and on about how the RT scores aren't valid.
Its just a means of disruption for an otherwise peaceful board.
then don't look at rt.
look at metacritic, where you'll see that far from home has a perfectly nice 71% rating, which is lower than the rt rating of 7.53, though we'll have to see where that number settles.
regardless, 71% shows that ffh is getting positive if not overly rhapsodic reviews.