Filter to 1-star and note how many reviews are direct copies of each other - many referencing that the Obamas are executive producers.
Filter to 1-star and note how many reviews are direct copies of each other - many referencing that the Obamas are executive producers.
For a few years now, I’ve purposely sought out movies and TV shows on RT and Metacritic with very high critic ratings, and super low user ratings.
The only time this really happens is if reviews are brigaded. If the user reviews were honest, it’s pretty rare that you’d see more than 20-30% difference between critic and user score (MAX). So when you see a critic score of 95%, and user score of 1.8/10, then I know I’m in for a good time. Same with games to a lesser degree.
I’m not even kidding, this is almost always a sure way to find a film or show I enjoy. In fact, I wish they’d introduce a “Controversial” category with things that have a big gap between critic and user scores (though when it goes the other way, that is high user score to super poor critic reviews, it’s almost always PureFlix-style Christian propaganda garbage).
Removed by mod
Nostalgia has a bigger effect on user ratings than it does on critic reviews.
Removed by mod
Yes, and those movies end up with a reasonable gap between the two scores. It will have a lower user score than critic score, but it’s only ever below 2 or 3 if it’s been brigaded. This can be easily confirmed by just reading a few of the user reviews.
Can you give some examples? I’d love to discover some gems.
Word of warning - I usually find that movies on rotten tomatoes with low critic scores and high audience scores are hitting the midweek sweet spot for me. Low cerebral requirement, high distraction. If you get me.
I’ve found the same thing, critic scores are harder to use as predictors because there is too much variance between their individual special opinions about the importance of character development vs the average user enjoying a movie for what it is. Obviously crap is crap, but a 56% critic and 82% user score is usually more appealing than vice versa
Rotten tomatoes doesn’t get the average of all critics scores, they only look whether or not the review was positive or negative. It doesn’t look at their individual special opinions.
Yea I’m still surprised that people don’t understand this. The most mediocre film of all time can get a 100%.
Literally anything critical of Christianity (or anything that could even be perceived as critical of Christianity, we can’t actually expect them to watch it first).
I guess I should have kept better track over the years… Let me see if I can find a few.
An obvious one (video game though) that I can think of off hand is The Last of Us 2. Fantastic game, user scores brigaded everywhere “because gay/trans.”
In fact, I think The Last of US TV show was review bombed after episode 3. Again, “because gay.”
The TV show “The Watchmen” was brigaded by users (not sure if they’ve filtered those out, or if the score has been adjusted since, but when it originally aired, user scores were very very low due to review bombing). Anyone who’s seen the show could tell you exactly why that happened.
Here is an article about it happening to a film about the Armenian Genocide (I haven’t seen the film so I can’t say if it’s good, but I’m sure it doesn’t deserve 1-star)
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/the-promise-film-christian-bale-armenian-genocide-imdb-turkey-oscar-isaac-a7378881.html
I will have to try to keep track from now on. Sometimes it becomes a cultural moment, like with TLOU, but lots of times it goes under the radar, and a show/movie/game gets quietly fucked over by idiots on the internet who have no interest in even trying the media first.
Another example of a movie where the audience score is higher than the critic score is Tommy Wiseau’s The Room. Not sure if this applies in general to movies “so bad they are good” (though personally, at this point I believe Tommy knew what he was doing because he’s been able to repeat that “so bad it’s good” despite knowing how they are received, whereas if it was really driven by his ego, I’m sure that same ego would have forced him to change it up to get the critical acclaim the was supposedly chasing.)
I’m not really of the mind that a piece of media can be “so bad it’s good.”
I understand the sentiment, but I generally do not agree. Maybe “so bad that it’s fun to laugh at with friends,” but “good”? Nah.
To be honest, I agree with this. It would be more accurate to say, “so bad it’s entertaining”, but it’s generally laughs at the media rather than with it.
Though since I think Tommy did that deliberately, I would argue that “so bad it’s good” does apply to The Room. Though the ethics are a bit questionable because I don’t think he let any of his staff or cast in on the joke. I also suspect those sex scenes were real sex and one of the big motivators for the movie.
Sound of Freedom Comes to mind as a recently brigaded film. Trailer came up for me on Prime and I didn’t realize what it was. I don’t care how embellished the story is, what based on a true story isn’t? But Jim Caviezel‘s acting in the trailer is so bad I can’t imagine sitting through it.
Just to prove you wrong: 32% difference, and yes it’s objectively terrible. Even higher differences can easily occur organically without review bombing when critics happen to be smelling their own farts – which yes is what a definite 100% of those 37% critics who reviewed it positively were doing. I’m seriously worried about their mental state.
Ok… Finding one exception doesn’t really disprove anything. I don’t think I ever claimed that it was a hard rule that every movie fits into. Just a rule a thumb I use to find media that I otherwise might have missed.
Velma was absolutely review bombed. 39% is on par for what it is considering TV has on average higher rankings than movies do.
Be that as it may it’s still objectively terrible and has more than 30% difference, which was my actual point.
As to review bombing: It would likely not have caught so much flak if it was stand-alone and not a Scooby Doo reboot – then it would simply vanish alongside other terrible shows that few people ever saw and even fewer rated, with middling score because of course there’s always some people who like something for inexplicable reasons, and without attracting a larger audience those are pretty much the only people who vote because they’re the only ones who care.
But it had a brand name, it walks all over the original (and I don’t mean race swapping who gives a fuck, I mean thematically), is neither witty nor funny nor insightful so… yeah. No need for an organised campaign to draw ire, and if some racists spent time review-bombing it over the race swap then all the better: They wasted their time as noone likes it anyway.
I don’t buy that argument at all. It was entirely about changing the race of the characters and going after white men. Scooby Doo has been rebooted dozens of times and they just exist, they don’t make the originals worse. This new series is not a betrayal to the source material without Scooby anymore than the first time they had a real ghost. I don’t think I finished it, but it is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. The Pilot is, but that’s pretty typical especially with a cast full of non-voice actors recording during Covid. By episode two and three everything is better put together. I found it similar to a lot of current high school shows. Mindy received a ton of hate over it too, and she’s neither the show runner or writer of it. She was running two other shows at the same time so it’s hilarious how many idiots claimed she’s a no talent hack over it.