Talk:Rotten Tomatoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotten Tomatoes article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Why is rotten tomatoes always cited?!

Allright, because we at wikipedia always scite rotten tomatoes's scores for films, i decided id look into it. What ive found is that the reviews at that site suck balls. They are wrong 99.9% of the time, give crappy films good scores and great films crappy scores, and i think that the reviewers are complete idiots (guys who say stuff like "300 was so historically innacurate that it amazes me!" when anyone whose read the actual battle of Thermopoly know how very accurate it was, and everyone who hasn't should at the very least know that the film was based on a comic, not the actual battle). I for one think we should stop using this site as our score center. DurotarLord 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a whore-able site with not to many users.

-G

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't do the reviewing themselves. They find all the professional reviews of the film and create a composite score based on all of those. So if you have an issue, take it up with the right people. --Cronodude360 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


""guys who say stuff like "300 was so historically innacurate that it amazes me!" when anyone whose read the actual battle of Thermopoly know how very accurate it was""
I've read it, I've studied it, and I know how much innacurate it is. Like most of the "historical movie". Gladiator, accurate ? Marie-Antoinette, accurate ? No way. In most of theses film, authors past their american nowadays view of things on events. Except Stanley Kubrick, very few authors give attention to details. I agree the film was based on a comic, but the comic itself is not accurate. Miller himself said it was closer to heroic fantasy than reality.

Let's just ignore the dude with the warcraft name ;) -76.172.41.63 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


You two emos get off, durator has right...most Reviewers are not Neutral and not professional in Rotten Tomatoes, they give crappy Film like South Park a fresh than the opposite Films a rotten.So it can be a bullshit site! 16.03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiHero2 (talk • contribs)

Welp, to adress everything that was said:

A. Nice noticing its a warcraft name. It is, I used it in WC3, and now I keep it for everything else because everyone of my friends recognizes me by it, so they can keep track of me. B. Read my comment about 300. I never said it was a documentary, but it did not destroy history. The battles were all accurate, the timeline was, the oracle, the wall, the size of the persian army etc. etc. My point was, these guys were so ignorant that they thought the only part of 300 that was at all based off of fact was that the Persians were in it. C. Heres a link to another review I've found. Read what the reviewer thought happened in I Am Legend, and then for those of you that have seen the film, laugh at how stuiped he was. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1183734/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1697594 D. In response to the person that stated "Rotten Tomatoes doesn't do the reviewing themselves.", please explain to me the possible relevance that has on this debate?! If your going to a porno site, and all the actresses on the site are ugly, would you keep subscribing to the site thinking "Well, its not the site thats acting, if I have a problem with their actors I should talk to the actors, not unsubscribe from the site." NO! Rotten Tomatoes is to be held acountable for who they choose to allow to write reviews. If they pick 30 people with an average IQ of 68, then Rotten Tomatoes isn't a very reliable site... 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're an idiot. You claim that RT shouldn't be cited because they are wrong, even though that's simply your opinion, and therefore there is guaranteed to be at least one person who disagrees, and yet when someone points out that RT doesn't do the reviews, but compiles critic ratings to give an average score, just like Metacritic, which is used on nearly every video game page on Wiki, you freak out over it and try to insult the writer, rather than refute the claims. So, good sir, your fun little analogy of the porn site is useless, and your attempt at insulting the non-existent "RT-writers." RT doesn't use writers. They just take scores already given by major critics, like Ebert and Roper, and those of major newspapers, and give you an average. You don't like it? Tough nuts. Morte42 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] shock joke

"Radio shock jock Greg "Opie" Hughes, of the duo Opie and Anthony claims he loves Rotten Tomatoes."

who really cares what he thinks. maybe i should edit in my sisters thoughts on the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whywhywhy (talk • contribs) .

All of the O&A fans care. Sincerly Steve from Yellowstone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.160.5.25 (talk • contribs) .
Well, I'm a fan of what his sister thinks, so I think he should put her view points on. Based on your arguement, thats enough of a reason. 71.253.203.171 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV???

& Who the Christ wrote this?

"all UK users can not now access the American site proper and have their own dedicated UK site. Despite reassurances that the content is the same, for UK users the front page is UK focused - disappointing considering that the latest movie info originates in the US."Wickedxjade 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not only UK users, other European users as well are locked out of the U.S. version (when I try to access www.rottentomatoes.com from Germany, I am forced to uk.rottentomatoes.com). This sucks and smells like internet apartheid. Looks like an extension of DVD "region codes". Hopefully the UK content really is the same and they never ever do a German version. 84.152.209.240 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC) aw

[edit] Another thing to add to Controversy?

I think there is another reason Rotten Tomatoes might not be so effective. It only records reviews, many of which are written by members of the same Media company. One could argue, for example, that anything Roger Ebert writes is prejudiced since his movie review show is produced by Buena Vista which is in turned owned by Disney. Has he ever criticized a Walt Disney production? What of the other reviewers, who are mostly quoted from major publications that are often owned by another company that produced the picture? In our wonderful world of media consolidation, this seems to produce a biased error for movies. Or perhaps it is only because I so frequently disagree with Rotten Tomatoes' ratings... but I digress. What do you think? I won't change it unless others concur.----Edgar Kavanagh

I think that's a worthy thing to add. Also let's not forget that now Rotten Tomatoes is itself owned by News Corporation, which also owns 20th Century Fox, the big movie studio. Even if the Chinese walls between the divisions of the company are thick, even the potential for a conflict of interest can be damaging to the integrity of the site - "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.169.46 (talk • contribs) .
no it doesn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.102.204 (talk • contribs) .
I disagree with this point. Of course one can doubt the veracity of Roger Ebert on a Disney movie (except for the fact that he also works for the Chicago Tribune and is the most famous movie critic in America), but the whole concept behind RT is that it collects from multiple sources to get a consensus opinion, thus averaging out those who might be biased towards or against a paricular director, company, etc.
Ebert works for the Sun-Times.Kakomu 03:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Some anti-media types may claim that ALL professional reviewers are biased towards big movie companies, but if that were the case, then every movie should be getting overwhelmingly positive reviews, but that obviously is not the case.
Lastly, RT also provides the ability to view only the reviews of your 'favorite'(trusted?) critics, and furthermore also now gives you user reviews (hypothetically not tainted by 'big media').
Let's leave the conspiracy theories out and stick to the facts. :-P Ubernerd 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
PS - I forgot to respond to the 2nd comment about News Corp! Fox only bought RT this past year, RT has been around for more than 5 years, their rating methodology and list of critics is standardized (and critics add their own reviews to the site). So unless they change this, I don't think there's any backup for pro-fox bias either. (no, I don't work for RT, just a long time user!) Ubernerd 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versus Metacritic

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Metacritic's way of averaging reviews and giving a total score is a superior system to Rotten Tomatoes, in that Metacritic does not simply categorize things into negative/positive, but rather, a true numerical value? So in other words, Metacritics system seems more accurate and less prone to accidents (also, rotten tomatoes lacks a middle-ground for reviews; there is no "mediocre"), and is thus superior -- would anyone else agree, or am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.6.222 (talk • contribs) .

  • It falls in line with the thumbs-up/thumbs-down manner of judgement. Rotten Tomatoes simply determines the percentage of thumbs-up (or, in their case, "fresh tomatoes") reviews amongst all the reviews collected for each movie.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that Metacritics way of averaging reviews and giving a total score is a superior system to Rotten Tomatoes, in that Metacritic does not simply categorize things into negative/positive, but rather, a true numerical value?
Not necessarily. In particular, under Metacritic's system it is possible for a single reviewer to bias the aggregate score by giving the movie a rating more extreme than they believe it actually deserves. For example, say that the Metacritic rating for a given film is a 4, and a new reviewer believes that it deserves a 6. They could either give the film a 6, shifting the average to (say) 4.2, or give it a 10, shifting the average to 4.6, and closer to the value of 6 that they feel it truly deserves.
The same problem applies to user ratings on IMDB, only more so, because they don't have so much of a reputation to protect as a professional reviewer, who would lose credibility if they gave ridiculously extreme ratings. Nonetheless, Rotten Tomatoes bypasses this problem by only permitting the reviewer to give a single positive or negative vote, and I believe that this makes it a superior system. I was mildly surprised that there wasn't a note to this effect in the article, but I suppose that the explanation is a bit on the lengthy side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.185.68 (talk • contribs)

[edit] North American review bias

I noticed that Rotten Tomatoes gives little to no emphasis on international reviewers. It's fairly North American-centric, save the occasional review from the BBC or Empire Magazine. That's kinda of bizzare, considering the number of films that are released internationally within a few days of one another.

It's also a bit weird when the site reviews foreign films (say Kung Fu Hustle) yet there are no critical opinions from its original release in Hong Kong. Yes, those reviews are not in English, but they really shouldn't be discounted from the site.

This problem is not limited to RT; Metacritic's film reviews also have a similar problem. However, the latter uses a broader source of international reviews for its music album critiques.--Madchester 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

yes obviously its aimed at the american movie market, the release dates they are listing are for US releases, but that doesn't mean its not a useful tool for people outside of the US. I believe the critics they use are part of US-based journalist critics groups or are self-registered critics. So this may be why there aren't many critics from outside the US (much less ones that aren't in english).
Logistically too... how would you organize it if you had every language in the world participating? Who collects the reviews and the quotes if a review is in swahili?
You can call it bias, but that doesn't mean its intentional or something worth complaining over. just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.5.122.54 (talk • contribs)
RT is rolling out a UK version of its site and further international versions will follow. Despite the fact that websites are accessible globally, precedents exist for local websites and you can't criticise RT for choosing a biassed sample of critics by simply operating in its own country. Empire, you could claim, was biassed towards British release schedules and uses only British critics to write its reviews, but that's not bias, that's regional influence. 64.60.245.243 07:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIGN YOUR POSTS

Type: ~~~~

Thanks: Travb (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

In this section I added a {{fact}} tag[1] which was deleted by the anon vandal:

On the other hand, the website is sometimes criticized for being a measure of how many people liked a film, rather than how high they scored it. Thus only films with broad appeal get the highest scores, while great but controversial films can sport low ones. Another complaint is that reviews in more obscure entries may be labeled incorrectly (and a positive review given a "rotten" score) and go uncorrected. These mistakes can tip the balance in a close rating and can be enough to change the "consensus" on the site. This may happen more often in videogame entries.

It is esential to say who is criticizing the website, otherwise this is just some anonymous wikipedian telling the world his opinion. Wikipedia:Verifiability As soon as this article is unprotected this section needs to be removed to the talk page, or verified. Travb (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can find no article on rotten tomatoes on the internet or lexis nexis academic research which substantiated this section. Therefore, it should be deleted. Travb (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I removed the following:

This site has been praised as an effective way for film reviews to challenge the hegemony of movie marketing by providing a simple, yet comprehensive, resource in which reviews can be referenced.

On the other hand, the website is sometimes criticized for being a measure of how many people liked a film, rather than how high they scored it. Thus only films with broad appeal get the highest scores, while great but controversial films can sport low ones. Another complaint is that reviews in more obscure entries may be labeled incorrectly (and a positive review given a "rotten" score) and go uncorrected. These mistakes can tip the balance in a close rating and can be enough to change the "consensus" on the site. This may happen more often in videogame entries.

I removed the following above. If someone has a problem with this, you are welcome to add this back, but please add the {{weasel}} or {{unsourced}} tag when you do. Travb (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Forums

I wonder what relevance this section really has. In addition to being weaselly written, it's just not up to the standards of the rest of the article. Plus, I doubt that anyone who doesn't post at RT really cares and, if someone already does(like me), they probably know enough about the boards already. Suggest deletion? Willpower 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it belongs either. At most, there should be a short paragraph noting what is discussed at the forums, how active they are (I imagine it's the most active movie forum other than IMDb), and stuff like that- things that are notable and verifiable. This current 'history of the forum' essay that is in there is loaded with original research (WP:OR) and not at all relevant to the article anyway. The same goes for the 'Photoshop Contest' section, IMO. This article is supposed to be about the Rotten Tomatoes web site, not about what RT forum posters do to fill their time. SubSeven 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The Rotten Tomatoes article is not the place for a detailed account of the discusisons and contests that happen on the RT.com discussion board. I vote for deletion. (For the time being I have edited the Discussion Forums section to reflect a NPOV and I have removed ads insterted by RT discussion board users.) NoahWolfe 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Seconded, per above! HawkerTyphoon 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted section, due to consensus Cronium 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion Forum sections had been added and were again deleted per. this policy. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 02:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More than 43

According to the current page, there are only 43 films that have garnered a 0% freshness rating, but this is not true. There are 43 action/adventure films that have garnered a 0% freshness rating. In reality the number is much higher, with more than 120 in comedy alone. Did the person who originally wrote that make a mistake or am I just missing something?

[edit] Section: Discussion board

"Some users host contests on the board."

Is this relevant? Can't you argue that this is unencyclopedic, as contests are held at a lot of discussion boards, and the article doesn't assert the importance of this? In my humble opinon this doesn't belong in this article, unless these contests are somehow important for those not using the message board.

If nobody protests, I'll remove this sentence. Delta Tango | Talk 01:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rottentomatoes.com is that relevant?

Recently i have noticed a link or reference to a rotten tomatoes.com score within a film's main article text in wikipedia,- is Rotten Tomatoes that well known or relevant to be referenced in a film articles main body of text instead of perhaps in the link or trivia section? Just seemed wrong to me: a; for being un-informative in any real relevant manner to the film being described for an encyclopedia, and,- b; that perhaps an agenda of advertising free is occuring here. Book M 11:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's that well known. I've seen references in the wikipedia article on 'Clerks 2' as well as a few others. Rottentomatoes.com is probably the best known film website to industry people and critics.

[edit] 100% Fresh

ummm.... Toy Story 2 isn't the best reviewed film To Kill a Mockingbird also got 100% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.45.81.132 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Toy Story 2 is notable as it is the most reviewed film still maintaining a 100% rating. There are MANY films with 100%, but most of them have alot fewer reviews than TS2: here is a link to the best reviewed movies of all time (according to RT). http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt_year.php

Toy story 2 stays. End of story Philip1992 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Philip1992

So The Terminator doesn't count either then? --Cronodude360 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with some of these 100% ratings is that they are for film that predate the start of RT. So the reviews they are adding are from sources making best of lists, and the like. People don't often talk about mediocre movies 20 years later. A 100% rating on a recent movie really means something. --Steve Stair 17:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten

Is it related with Rotten.com? KeNNy 18:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Shralk (talk)

[edit] Video game section removed?

I am not completely sure about this, but it seems Rotten Tomates does no longer feature videogame reviews. All references seem to have been removed from the website. It's possible that they decided to give it up, as the IGN Network already has another websites that focuses on videogame review aggregation specifically (GameStats). 89.217.145.163 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rottentomatoes 2007-05-05.png

Image:Rottentomatoes 2007-05-05.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rt-logo.svg

Image:Rt-logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)