Jump to content

Talk:Rotten Tomatoes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Armond White

I think there may be a stain on the integrity of this page. Armond White, here with his lengthy opinion railing against Rotten Tomatoes, is a Rotten Tomatoes critic. How can this man rail against a system for which he volunteers his services? I just found that a link to his website and a whole paragraph of one of his reviews was present in the reviews section of a documentary (This Film is Not Yet Rated.) This skewed the reviews listed strongly towards the negative, when in fact the movie was widely critically acclaimed. No other critic, including household names, was given more than a few words. I strongly suspect White put that there himself, unless he has some extraordinarily ardent fan somewhere. I've never seen a worse misuse of Wikipedia. Any chance we could consider reducing White's elevated importance on this page? Self-promotion and hypocrisy do not strike me as a welcome part of Wikipedia's quest for informative, accurate neutrality. Verminjerky (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is rotten tomatoes always cited?!

ROTTEN TOMATOES SHOULD NOT BE LISTED ON EVERY PAGE. I encourage you to delete their reference. They are a for profit group that uses Wikipedia to get hits on their site to increase revenue. I think they COULD be cited on a FEW film pages, where either the review is shockingly large for a film that makes a lot of money, or for movies that hold a 100% rating. There is no reason they are listed on every page when IMDB and other rating sites are not.214.13.162.2 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start editting out the part about Rotten Tamatoes. It seems they are just hawking their sitein every movie wiki. 217.194.139.3 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 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)


Rotten Tomatoes has to have some sort of payola thing going on.. I mean, why would they favor the top five movies of "Queen Latifya" over a average joe? Also they give bad ratings to movies they would suggest people to see, it's like the people in the show are completely disconnected from the reviewers and just try to sugar coat the reviews of movies that might actually be paying them backend payola. I think the name is a brand and they are just playing it up until they can compete for the attention of people with "kleenex" brand reviewers guys like "Ebert". 97.123.18.247 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


I agree that rottentomatoes should be removed from wikipedia. I thought that they used to have legitimate, original content on their site, but all I can find now is quotes and links from professional (paid AKA biased) reviewers, and not a lick of real human insight. Rottentomatoes.com is a rotten tomato. Eddietoran (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (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)

RT has a completely biased reviews about movies, as example you can look at their "best movies" and you'll find some film's that actually are, at best, terrible movies, that's because there aren't not so many users in that "prestigious" and "honorable" website that actually know something about film industry or acting skills. It's plain simple: RT is NOT a movie authority, period! --201.247.28.25 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


THE IMDB MODEL - it's reviewed by real people, is more fitting with the Wikipedia ethos than Rotten Tomatoes 'for money' business model. Shouldn't Wiki movie pages reflect this and include an IMDB rating too (although it might be pointless because the number of votes and score changes each day) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.193.197 (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the Rotten Tomatoes ratings on Wikipedia. It saves me the hassle of battling their bloated, laggy website. Please keep it up!! --65.127.188.10 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My "in Wikipedia" addition was deleted

Regardless or not of whether "Rotten Tomatoes" is a "for profit" organisation, as specified in my update, a huge number of films on this site refernce Rotten Tomatoes' opinion, which is a democratic source. It is relevant that Wikipedia frequently refers to Rottten Tomatoes in articles about moves, in fact, as a result of Wikipedia's inclusion, when watching a movie on TV, I often check the site. Wikipedia influenced me to use that site to persue personal interest. Wikipedia should own up to that fact. I'm not the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


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)

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

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)

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)

SIGN YOUR POSTS

Type: ~~~~

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

Never!!!11!111! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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.

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)

Toy Story 2 has fallen to 99% and should no longer be on a 100% list. Further, Toy Story is certified fresh, so it should not be on a list of films that fail to become certified fresh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takis4756 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, guys, Toy Story and Toy Story are 100% fresh. Accordingly, the critic who gave Toy Story 2 a rotten rating was actully a mistake. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 00:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the article still needs to be reworded, because it gives the impression that neither Toy Story nor Toy Story 2 are certified fresh. They are.

It is certified fresh 100%. Read the Toy Story article's page It says 100% freshness Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 14:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rotten

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

No. Shralk (talk)

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)

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)

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)

Critics

On movie pages, when it says the movie got _____ from the critics at rotten tomatoes does it mean top critics or critics in general? Thanks, and this will help me alot! Ehccheehcche (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes not allowing account deletions

This seems like it would be a big story. According to their FAQ, "...we're unable able to authenticate whether a request to disable an account actually originates from the account owner..." (sic - notice the "unable able"). Here's the link: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/faq.php?faq=vb_user_maintain#faq_account_disable Tonkytonk (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of touch

They must use some pretty awful reviewers. Example: Scooby Doo got a "Rotten" rating of 28%. The movie went on to make over $275 million. Doesn't that tell you that "Rotten Tomatoes" is just plain ROTTEN? (193.250.53.163 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I see what you did there 68.202.97.110 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Bobby

Turnout =/= a good film. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The show

Shouldn't we mention somewhere that there's now a Rotten Tomatoes show on Current? - 67.81.106.84 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sale to Flixster

I've seen this in the press etc, I just wonder if anyone has told the guys at Rotten Tomatoes as they still have the IGN Entertainment logo on their site. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re American Radical

re this: Sorry, I hadn't watchlisted the page so only noticed this now. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/american_radical/ what makes it even more interesting is that it is likely one of the few documentaries to be able to make the 100% freshness claim. Unomi (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the ""Fresh"/"Rotten" extremes" section on the page?

I see absolutely no reason why it should be on the page. A 'best of' and a 'worst of' list are both available on the site. Delete it? Qliks (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why it was expanded to the current degree, but so it goes. I think that the 100% fresh movies do have positive value (less certain about the 0%), however, if it continues to grow I think it might be a good candidate for a list article in its own right. Currently I don't think the length constitutes an issue, the article isn't that big and the columns do their job well. un☯mi 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

International version gone?

I tried to access uk.rottentomatoes.com and the main page from germany but it always shows the US front page. Can anyone confirm that there are not regional versions anymore? Or was it just changed for german viewers? --Real Joe Cool (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny?

Bugs Bunny Road Runner Cartoons also scored an 100 percent on Rotten Tomatoe. Don't believe me look it up on Rotten Tomatoe for yourself!!! I swear even if for some reason you don't find it it's the truth!!!-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.142.207 (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes gone?

Can't find any news articles on the subject, but it looks like Rottentomatoes is gone and has been replaced by a Flixter page. Maybe someone can find out what happened and place it in the History section to give her a decent wiki-burial?

Maybe related to Warner Bros. purchasing it: [2]

NVM - it's back now. Odd. Musta been a mixup when they moved it to the Warner server. 68.126.124.163 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Beginnings

I don't have any idea who started Rotten Tomatoes, but I'm pretty certain it wasn't "Hugh Jarection." Somebody should probably edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.173.152 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Extremes section

Is there really a reason for this section? It's constantly changing and not being updated (eg - star wars: a new hope is no longer 100%). Stevehim (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I can't see any great point in presenting the reader with an unreadably long list of 250 films (where some are universally popular or unpopular, and others are just quirks of Rotten Tomatoes' percentage system) and leaving them to work out any meaning it might have. We're just mirroring an ever-changing list of stats from the Tomatoes website, and it seems like textbook WP:NOT#STATS. --McGeddon (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll give this a couple more days, but unless someone can explain why it's a good idea to keep a difficult-to-maintain list of 250 film titles in spite of WP:NOT#STATS, I'll go ahead and remove it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Films lacking a 100% fresh rating?

I was looking through the list of films rated 100% fresh and I've see that some have no rating (such as Sherlock, Jr. and Sonic the Hedgehog) or some that are not rated 100% fresh (such as Fantasia and 2001: A Space Odyssey) and I ask why they remain on the same list with films rated 100% fresh? 64.166.145.51 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous section, it's presumably because we're trying to manually maintain a copy of a constantly changing website, so we're always going to be lagging behind in random places. And from this incoherent edit summary it sounds like some people are just adding or removing films they feel strongly about, on the basis that nobody's going to check the actual RT rating. --McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If a film doesn't have a 100% rating but may have had it in the past, will it still remain on the 100% fresh list? 192.235.7.100 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz actually has a 100% rating, not a 0% rating as the article claims. Someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etony33 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when, by whom, and why is Rottentomatoes a de facto citation in Wikipedia movie articles?

First of all, I want to say that I don't have an opinion on whether Rottentomatoes is a 'crap' site, if it is financial, professional, if it should be cited in Wikipedia articles or whether their reviews are 'right' or not. This is not my point.

I only want to ask just what the title says, purely for historical reasons: I never ever saw in any Wikipedia guide or voting or official concescous that Rottentomatoes should be a preferrable citation in all the movie articles. So I really wonder who, why, and when, started all this trend. And how come it was so unanimously adopted by editors of almost all movie articles, and as a result a Rottentomatoes rating can be found almost everywhere since the last few years.

Such questions have been expressed above but there have been no answers by any relevant people so I clearly redefine this question hoping for an answer by anyone who may know. As I said above, I don't intend to challenge Rottentomatoes or its citations, I am just curious about the origins and adoption of this observable and unquestionable "preference" to Rotentomatoes. Since it has not been de jure officialized by Wikipedia, I can only refer to it as a trend.

Actually I came to this article in order to find an explanation to the origins of the trend, the presence of Rottentomatoes in Wikipedia, or anything like that, and found none. But since we are talking about an everyday fact here, shouldn't this fact have a mention in the article? 91.132.141.80 (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of the Rotten Tomatoes article, not for Wikipedia link policy. WP:MOSFILM mentions Rotten Tomatoes as "citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews" and says how the site's pages "can be included as external links instead of links to individual review". --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
My point was that this article doesn't mention the role of RT in Wikipedia as perhaps it should. So as a matter of fact I was discussing the RT article as well. Anyway thanks for your reply. 91.132.141.80 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
When we write Wikipedia articles, we cite reliable sources. To discuss anything about Wikipedia using Rotten Tomatoes in its articles about films, we would need reliable sources. From what I can tell at Google News Search and Google Books Search, it's not really something that's observed. Metacritic ought to be referenced too since both websites have different approaches to gauging reviews. However, for old films, the websites are discouraged because they may not be an accurate reflection of contemporary consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If you allow me a correction: Wikipedia using RT in its film articles is observable by any Wikipedia reader. What I asked was whether it was also citeable or sourceable. I wondered whether the article should include a reference that RT is acceptable by Wikipedia for citations, mentioning some document such as the WP:MOSFILM by McGeddon above. 91.132.141.80 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, there does not appear to be any sources to cite. We cannot mention WP:MOSFILM in the article, unfortunately, since Wikipedia cannot be self-referential. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If you take a look at the archived talk page, there was a discussion about this a few years ago. It seems that Rotten Tomatoes hired people to create all these entries to drive traffic to their site. So it wasn't a wikipedia consensus so much as a for profit marketing initiative that succeeded and is now irreversible. 76.191.157.140 (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have concerns about the quality or provenance of external links, and believe that a consensus was never reached regarding their inclusion, you should bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film or Wikipedia talk:External links. --McGeddon (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of historical completeness, the presence of RT in Wikipedia is commented in WP:ROTTEN. Although not an official policy, I see that it represents a de facto conscensus. Hope that helps anyone wondering. As this talk page is for the article, further discussion should start there. 91.132.141.80 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubled paragraph in Description Section

The last paragraph in the Description Section is doubled. Right after citation mark 12 the paragraph starts over again, finishing with citation mark 13, which is the same as 12. Requires cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.48.202 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.--В и к и T 15:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism during SSL Upgrade

Whenever an upgrade to SSL is attempted on this page, the page gets reverted. Please keep SSL support. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

define the rating of movie

how can i define the rating of movies are "Man of honor"paths of glorry"the wall"Knight and day"underworld 4" Titanic" The mummy rittens" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.186.27.150 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

100% rating

I strongly disagree that this list doesn't compliment the article but I'm referred to WP:Review aggregators. Given that the critics on Rotten Tomatoes are generally the top critics, I think it is very significant those films which they universally laud and give a 100% rating which is in effect a list of the greatest films ever made in the eyes of critics. As a major film buff I find this list tremendously useful and I'm always wanted to know what films had a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes as it's quite exciting for a film to have such a grade. Numerous reliable sources document this, is it really that inappropriate to add it? I understand the flaws in bias and time with Rotten Tomatoes, but looking at the list and comparing it to others, I think it seems to be a very good list and really does reflect professional critical consensus. Many reliable sources Business Insider, Huffington Post, Metro, Reuters, Oakland Tribune, Woman's Health Weekly discuss 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating. Sources should indicate notability on this. Given that this is an article on the website, why is it unfeasible to document the films it revers the most?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

List

Films which multiple film critics consider to be the very best films of all time are given a 100% fresh rating. These films are those which at least 20 critics agree deserve to have a 100% rating; many of the films also appear in the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies lists, but there are many others, and several entries which are considered surprising to some experts.[1]

1. Is this just all sourced from [3] or are there films in the WP list that aren't on the RT list? If the former, than "20 critics or more" is redundant. Either way the films' 100% scores needs to be sourced to somewhere.
2. Many reliable sources say 100% is notable, but the list here doesn't explain why they say it's notable, which would give context.
3. "Films which multiple film critics consider to be the very best films of all time are given a 100% fresh rating. These films are those which at least 20 critics agree deserve to have a 100% rating." Source? I was under the impression that "Films which all film critics consider to be good are given a 100% fresh rating. Films with at least 20 reviews are considered."
4. This list is about good films, in fact, it's about the very best films. It is not about Rotten Tomatoes; the RT score is just being used here to judge which films are the best, and it doesn't really belong here, it belongs at List of films considered the best.
— Reatlas (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Rotten Tomatoes is a film review website and it's main purpose is to review films. Those films which it reviews and multiple critics unanimously approve of them are rare and are certainly relevant to the article. I'd argue that films with a 0% rating are also worthy of mentioning as the worst films. I can move this list into that list sure, but I still think such a list form a leading review website for films is appropriate to wikipedia in some shape or form.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Rotten Tomatoes is a film review aggregator website, and its main purpose is to collect and compile the reviews of critics. The site itself doesn't review films. I'm not saying such a list isn't relevant to Wikipedia, just that in its current shape there are some major issues with it. As for 0% films, [4] might be a useful addition to List of films considered the worst. — Reatlas (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see your point, Thanks for your work on it but sadly it was deleted from the list of best films. I've reinstalled it in List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I'm tired of having to move it. If somebody still wants to be fussy they can AFD it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

I suggest that the Rotten Tomatoes page should include more on how Hollywood and other film companies feel about their (RT's) influence especially from a box office standpoint. I recommend having quotes or additional opinions on the topic at hand and use the evidence to give readers more outlooks. With that being said I believe that the page as a whole is still very informative and very solid. Not much to say but it has a ton of well thought out research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rotten Tomatoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

i comment on is rotten tomatoes publisher of content or publication.

i raise on film project discussion of if rotten tomatoes should be italic in citation, since Tenebrae preference no italic. discussion previous at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#i comment about reference format.

related is issue of is rotten tomatoes publisher. from Betty Logan in discussion previous:

I sympathise with Joeyconnick's point that Fandango could be considered the "publisher" in this case, but I would say this is only true if Fandango execute a level of control over the content. If this is the case then I agree that Rotten Tomatoes should be considered a "work" and italicised; hoever; if Rotten Tomatoes operates autonomously then I would consider RT self-publishing and Fandango simply the "owner" rather than the publisher, in which case the title should not be italicised.

i note about page:

...Rotten Tomatoes became part of Fandango's portfolio of digital properties...

and rotten tomatoes data on developer fandango website. however in press release:

"We are absolutely autonomous, like any news organisation..."

but i not sure if mean fandango have no control.

also i note rotten tomatoes has own editor in chief but newspaper also do. i also observe in article fandango editor has been rotten tomatoes editor in chief.

what you opinion? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

i also note issue related to if current article should have italics title. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I find it very dishonest that IUpdateRottenTomatoes did not include Betty Logan's entire statement, but only the part he agrees with. Shame on him.

Per MOS:ITALICTITLE websites that are not online newspapers/magazines are taken on a case-by-case basis. As far as I can tell there is no policy or guideline that dictates whether "Rotten Tomatoes" should be italicised. I sympathise with Joeyconnick's point that Fandango could be considered the "publisher" in this case, but I would say this is only true if Fandango execute a level of control over the content. If this is the case then I agree that Rotten Tomatoes should be considered a "work" and italicised; hoever; if Rotten Tomatoes operates autonomously then I would consider RT self-publishing and Fandango simply the "owner" rather than the publisher, in which case the title should not be italicised. It is worth noting that Wikipedia's article about Rotten Tomatoes does not italicise the title, unlike we do for films, newspapers, books etc. I would argue that this debate needs to be settled at the article talk page itself because we should be taking our formatting from how the title is formatted at the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILMMOS does not italicize Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo. Neither do their three respective articles.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
i find it strange you raise question of agreement, honesty. i raise most relevant statement for discussion. discussion is about if rotten tomatoes is publisher. if it is work, not publisher, current article maybe incorrect. manual of style maybe incorrect. i unsure why current article is final authority on italics. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is the publisher. Fandango is the owner. Websites don't work the way magazines do, where the publisher exercises control over editorial. And it's not just FILMMOS that does not italicized it, it's also the article Rotten Tomatoes. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
you observe current article is rotten tomatoes. we discuss if current article have italics also.
here options:
if current discussion decide rotten tomatoes is publisher not website, rotten tomatoes go in publisher field. no italic discussion.
if current discussion decide rotten tomatoes is website but no italic, rotten tomatoes go in website field. put format in reference or possible discuss at cite web template, but i doubt productive.
if current discussion decide rotten tomatoes is website and italic, rotten tomatoes go in website field. change current article. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
also you agree rotten tomatoes is name of website, not just publisher? IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to change the name of this article to Rotten Tomatoes, you need to initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
i not saying title change is only option. i also not suggesting move to title with italic, can use {{italictitle}} to show title italic. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Bias in Influence section

My edits conformed to WP:PRIMARY but a biased editor named Mrschimpf has reverted them TWICE without sufficient explanation. I realize there ARE people trying to vandalize the page, but my edits met the requirements. Please reinstate them as the page is now protected or explain to me why you don't follow your OWN rules.

Also, is there a sanction process against users for abuse of the system? If so, I would like to engage. I'm not a regular Wikipedia user but I find this behavior abhorrent. Are you trying to drive away new people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.123.197 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is using the phrase "Certified Fresh" okay in articles?

There's a discussion here that began over the deletion of that phrase, as it's apparently a form of peacock words. I do not agree with that stance. "Certified Fresh" is simply a designation applied to shows and films meeting a certain criteria on RT, not a subjective statement of quality. As long as the work in question does have that label and it's cited appropriately, I don't see an issue with including it. We weren't able to reach an agreement, so this seemed like the next best place to get other input. Caivu (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

We have many other ways to calculate a critical consensus out of a sampling of numbers outside of one organization's trademarked branding for 'this is a really good (media product)' which mashes together the same consensus The New York Times does as Greg McMoviefan at some website few know or "Critic Who Loves Everything Ever Because He Gets Free Stuff" at WFKE-TV in Utica. We shouldn't be deigning to only one aggregation authority and their ratings calculation to determine if something is good or not. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how this answers my question. It's not a matter of "Is this work good?", it's a matter of "Is this phrase an example of a peacock term?" Caivu (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television is the actual "next best place" to solicit input. Nardog (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, but do you have an opinion on the matter? Caivu (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
At the top of the page, you can clearly see: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotten Tomatoes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. -- /Alex/21 00:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I got it, thanks. Apologies for missing that. Caivu (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Bug, censorship or what?

RT removed the Streamline score. Has anyone seen this happen before? archive, jan 5 - now, jan 28.Theys York (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theys York: It's probably a bug. I see that the year is slightly different between the two URLs. It's possible that some change in the year resulted in the related data being dropped. You should contact Rotten Tomatoes to see if they can fix it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia always use Rotten Tomatoes?

Why does Wikipedia always use Rotten Tomatoes when discussing Critical Reception? There are shows like Bill Nye Saves the World which have been panned, but have "Fresh" scores, or movies like Home Alone, which got good reviews, but have "Rotten" scores. IMDB has more accurate scores, but Wikipedia never uses them. FakeSquid (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes for good or bad provides a quick and easy overview. Good Wikipedia film articles only use the score to provide an overview and good articles then go on to include reviews from individual critics and actual analysis of the films in question.
IMDB scores are not accurate. IMDB scores are voted by users of the site. User voted web polls are very easy to manipulate and are often wildly inaccurate. Film critics actually watch the movies, there's no evidence IMDB users have necessarily even watched the film they are reviewing. (There have been cases of people shilling and upvoting or downvoting movies before they have even been released. The recent Ghostbusters remake got many negative votes on IMDB based on prejudices rather than any critical evaluation by people who actually watched the film). -- 109.76.249.25 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
And yet if one bothers to peruse the reviews of 2016 Ghostbusters, it is not hard to find many reviews with blurbs such as "it's ok but it's not enough" and generally unfavorable analysis being marked as "fresh" for reasons unknown. It can't be hard numerical metrics (which are almost irrelevant or generous depending on one's perspective, with 2.5/4 simultaneously being given either a pass or a fail irrespective of the review itself [2] [3]), so we're left with the RT staff's dubious abilities to read hundreds of reviews and render a verdict. With 70% being the threshold the film at 75% is nearly borderline "certified fresh"; the aggregate numerical value assigned to is it 6.5/10 or 65% which is both incongruous with the much more prominent, actual percentage and is under most graded systems considered a fail, as it demonstrates a lack of mastery of the subject (approaching guesswork at 50%). The fan rating is often the more honest evaluation, and it's really no wonder: people outraged at a movie who go online to dispense judgement get one click on these websites, and take their anger to forums or chat rooms to discuss it at exhausting length. Claims that there was an engineered backlash are obvious strawmen, and ignore the fact that virulent defenders of the film can do the exact same thing. Indeed they may be more invested in such an effort, given their love of the thing, which would lead one to wonder if the ultimate fan rating is not overly favorable to the film as a whole.
Consider the case of The Orville, which has been absolutely panned by critics but has a very strong viewer rating on the site [4]. Unless one wants to allege that Seth MacFarlane or FOX has orchestrated a massive campaign to bolster the show's support, the disconnect here seems very obvious: critics had a vested interest in evaluating the feminist GB positively, and RT was perhaps inclined to nudge the film towards a Certified rating. But there is no such incentive for critics to laud a show made by toilet-humor funny-man Macfarlane, because he garners no sympathy. 70.162.91.240 (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Rotten Tomatoes' Most Surprising 100% Fresh Movies". Hollywood.com. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
  2. ^ http://www.clevelandmovieblog.com/2016/07/ghostbusters.html#more
  3. ^ http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-ghostbusters-women-phillips-ent-0719-20160718-column.html
  4. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orville/s01
Sorry this got so long. The tl;dr version is; RT is used over IMDB because, for all their issues, aggregators (RT, Metacritic, etc.) are still better than sites which are entirely unverified user content (IMDb). And, when you're trying to figure out why the critics and audience numbers are sometimes so varied on RT, it's best not to make assumptions about the reasons without first familiarizing yourself with the media being reviewed.
Long version: At the risk of pushing this thread just a bit further into FORUM - it's ironic that the discussion specifically mentions people on IMDB reviewing things without seeing them, and then there is speculation as to the divergent scores in RT for The Orville, from someone who obviously hasn't watched much of the show (at least when this was written). The Orville has been in-large-part penned, produced and directed by prominent voices in scifi/fantasy, including several from the Star Trek universe, as well featuring a handful of that franchise's stars. And while there are certainly jokes in the show that you'll never find in an episode of ST, less than 1% of the humor in the show is anything remotely "toilet." One of the Executive Producers is Jon Favreau (I shouldn't need to explain his cred) and the rest of them have written for and directed shows like 24, Friday Night Lights and Cosmos (which McFarlane also co-produced). How much toilet-humor do you think Jonathan Frakes is looking to direct?
Just as RT scores have some issues with bias and presumptions, it's very easy to presume why RT scores are as they are, based on our own biases and presumptions. Even though I found the trailer funny, I avoided A Million Ways to Die in the West for a while, because I abhor all of McFarlane's animated shows. Whatever humor it is, that produces Family Guy or Ted, just doesn't appeal to me. But when Seth is being himself, in a scenario where Seth McFarlane just doesn't belong, it works. It's Mel Brooks breaking the 4th wall to state, "I gotta work with a younger crowd," or Kevin "Silent Bob" Smith delivering one of his eloquent speeches after having only been able to mime a jerking-off motion five minutes ago - and I do not invoke either of those names lightly. That film didn't make me an instant fan of McFarlane, but it definitely meant I had to rethink my initial reaction to anything new he made. And that was very useful for Orville.
I admit fully, I'm a fan of the show. But the point is that you're assuming what it is - and what that must means about the RT scores - based on McFarlane's most popular work to date, as if that's literally all he's ever done or wanted to do. You might as well have assume that The Book of Mormon is going to have satellites coming out of someone's ass or vague references to Satan's relationship with Saddam Hussein. Hell, you might a well be waiting for Michael Palin to start singing, "I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay," when you're watching his travel shows. McFarlane has recorded multiple studio albums - dude is on a Streisand album - and he created a Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive at the Library of Congress. Obviously his repertoire isn't limited to Stewie.
As for the first reactions of the critics - think Firefly. In the first season, they didn't get what they were looking at. The show is basically, "What if Star Trek happened, but the people exploring space also grew up with Star Trek, and Spaceballs, and Elton John, etc.?" That premise is as spun around as a "A Western, with a captain who is also a cowboy, because it's in outer space." The Orville Season 2 reviews are only just coming in, but the shift in the numbers is already visible - it's unlikely the critics and audience scores will be so divergent this time around. Eventually it will look on RT like the show was always lauded by critics - just like Firefly, whose current RT numbers would make anyone wonder how in the 'verse it only got 14 episodes. Which is why editors of the Orville page are already making note of reports on the differences between audience and critic reactions to this point, because it will be noteworthy (i.e. encyclopedic) information to retain about the series in the years to come.
To the thread's point - I believe that RT is a good one to use, in tandem with others, because it does present both access to the individual reviews and aggregate information, in addition to giving the audience feedback angle - with less evidence of tampering on that score, than the IMDB has going on. But obviously one of the major problems with the RT system is the binary nature of their methodology. Which is why most articles have, at the least, 3 different sources of aggregate information - all of which are more reliable than IMDB's ratings. Sorry, but this year my IMDB account will be 20 years-old, and I am very familiar with history of schilling and similar tactics on the site - just as I remember when the forums went from a pleasant conversation to the cess pools they ended as. I do prefer their 10 point system to an positive/negative system, but otherwise their ratings are not more reliable resources. CleverTitania (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is not without problems but I think we can all agree that IMDB is far worse. Rotten Tomatoes provides a useful overview and although it is not perfect most of us accept that and try to provide other information to compensate, such as the more selective and less polarized system used by Metacritic, or by expanding the reviews and actually explaining what reviews liked or disliked about a film.
I mentioned above the problem of people voting without actually having seen a film but when it comes to Rotten Tomatoes scores for television series this is known problem too. Although Rotten Tomatoes counts reviews and presents scores as if they are for a whole season of a show, it is very rare that reviewers have actually watched the entire season of the show. In fact, it is often clear (reviews often plainly admit as much) that a review is only based on the very first episode of a show, or the first few episodes that have been provided to reviewers in advance, and yet Rotten Tomatoes counts these reviews to give a score for the whole season (and yes, those harsh reviews of the Orville definitely didn't watch all twelve episodes of season 1 before writing their reviews, and it can be inferred from various reviews that critics only had the first 3 episodes to preview[5]). I would love to add something about this to the article but so far I haven't found any reliable sources that have called out Rotten Tomatoes for their misleading practices when creating scores for TV shows. -- 109.77.209.168 (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmptyGallonofMilk (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SeaCalChiSperky.

— Assignment last updated by SeaCalChiSperky (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Censorship of "other criticism" section

My paragraph on the anti-Christian bias on Rotten Tomatoes was reverted, while other criticisms were allowed to remain. The reason given does not make sense to me. Almost every Christian film ever produced is described as a Bomb on Wikipedia, with references to Rotten Tomatoes.

My impression from reading hundreds of articles is that a pervasive bias exists in Wikipedia that is profoundly Left-wing, atheist, and materialist in nature. Not only are alternative opinions downplayed, but those with different views are not permitted to have any input whatsoever. There is zero interest in citations, facts, or evidence. The only interest is in adhering to the Party Line, which states that Christianity is Bad, and anything deriving from Christianity is also Bad. Censorship is the rule and not the exception.

Since Wikipedia is merely another tool of indoctrination, isn't it rather amusing that the ones being brainwashed are asked to donate towards their own indoctrination? Threadbareparson (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your personal views, which were apparent in your edit and the reason it was reverted (along with comparing a Christian film's lack of critical acclaim to a hard-R crime film no sane parent would make their child watch). We're interested in neutrality and factual sources, not poorly-constructed comparisons between two completely divergent works and some kind of unsourced 'bias' easily explained by a smaller pool of reviews to draw from. I won't choose to respond to the other arguments because that's not why we're here. Nate • (chatter) 18:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Critic demographics

Couldn't this study be integrated into the article? Reflecktor (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article link that works. Link to the PDF of the study: Critics Choice?. (This wiki article about Rotten Tomatoes already included Meryl Streep claiming Rotten Tomatoes disproportionally represents the opinions of male film critics, and counter point to that criticism.)
Are film critics disproportionally more white and male than the rest of journalism and news media? Are critics unable to be objective and unbiased? Would more diverse critics be biased in meaningful or significantly different ways? Would any of this matter to Rotten Tomatoes specifically? For example Pauline Kael was not immune to bias, but ultimately Rotten Tomatoes still reduces it all down to positive or negative, like asking a roomful of people for a show of hands, so it isn't likely to matter. Merely diluting the pool isn't likely to make it magically cleaner, or as Vulture.com put it I might quibble that adding 500 women and another 500 men, three-quarters of them white, to an already overwhelmingly male and white group of around 2,500 does not seem like it would radically alter the imbalances that precipitated the original criticism. https://archive.ph/erboM#selection-1815.528-1815.784 -- 109.76.192.132 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Average rating not appearing for TV shows

For several days now, the average critics reviews rating (example: 7.00 out of 10) has not been available for TV shows. I've searched but have not found information on whether the score details for TV has been removed permanently or temporarily. I've brought this up at MOS:TV. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears the average score is now visible again for TV shows. Οἶδα (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Average ratings

It is worth noting that clicking on the critic score now displays the Tomatometer score and average rating of "Top Critics" by default. You must now also click on "All Critics" to view the average rating for all reviews. I am sure this will cause confusion in future editing. Οἶδα (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotten_Tomatoes/Archive_1&oldid=1251518506"