SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[grey ghost]

You won't find many terrible movies with 80+ RT scores or many great movies with sub-40 RT scores.

 

Therefore, RT scores are not useless.

Edited November 4, 2015 by grey ghost

[Goffe]

You guys have learned well. 

[Ethan Hunt]

6 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

You won't find many terrible movies with 80+ RT scores or many great movies with sub-40 RT scores.

 

Therefore, RT scores are not useless.

No really it is completely useless

[Fancyarcher]

RT scores are only useless, if you get too worked up on them. If the film interests you, see it, good or bad reviews. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by Daniel Dylan Davis

[Blur]

This is now with 77% on Top Critics.

I prefer to believe them. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by Blur

[moviesRus]

Let's see if this can stay in the green on Metacritic. Still has about 1/2 the total reviews left to go.

[RobinHood26]

RT scores have never once made me not go see a movie. They have made me more excited to see a film however, which usually ends bad for me because its overhyped. 

[AniNate]

I skipped Minions because of it. No regrets

[MovieMan89]

1 hour ago, Daniel Dylan Davis said:

RT scores are only useless, if you get too worked up on them. If the film interests you, see it, good or bad reviews. 

 

Obviously you shouldn't let critics change your own opinion on something. I just think RT has become a very good indicator of how movies do these days. Aside from a few franchises that are critic proof, RT has been very aligned with box office performance the last couple years. Blockbusters that get panned tend to underperform/bomb and the ones that get raved tend to break out. Reviews seem to even be affecting WOM on movies before they come out these days (i.e., Mad Max, F4, Pixels, etc). 

[AniNate]

Look, everyone, people can decide what movies they want to see however the hell they want. If you don't use RT, fine, but stop kidding yourself into thinking that makes you special somehow

[sdeezy]

I use RT because i dont have unlimited time or money to spend at theatres. If there's a movie i"ve been looking forward to i'll probably see it regardless, but otherwise if i have to choose between a few movies that interest me equally, i"m going to the one with better reviews. 

 

And honestly i dont remember seeing a rotten movie that i thought was truly great, and i've never seen a movie above 80% that i thought was truly bad. 

[MovieMan89]

31 minutes ago, sdeezy said:

I use RT because i dont have unlimited time or money to spend at theatres. If there's a movie i"ve been looking forward to i'll probably see it regardless, but otherwise if i have to choose between a few movies that interest me equally, i"m going to the one with better reviews. 

 

And honestly i dont remember seeing a rotten movie that i thought was truly great, and i've never seen a movie above 80% that i thought was truly bad. 

Exactly. If it's a movie you don't know you for sure wnat to see, why spend all that money on something only 15 out of 200 critics liked? Odds are much more in favor of you not liking it either, because it's like putting a sample size of 200 people in a room and getting their opinion. Critics are still just people. Only a few of them are stuck up film snobs or attention seekers. 

[moviesRus]

There's different levels of rotten and fresh, it does come with a percentage rating as well as an actual average rating from critics. I probably would never pay movie theater prices for a movie with 25% on RT. Just based on past experience, I've never enjoyed a film with that low a rating. But 55%? Sure, if it already had my interest why not. 

[Chewy]

3 hours ago, grey ghost said:

You won't find many terrible movies with 80+ RT scores or many great movies with sub-40 RT scores.

 

Therefore, RT scores are not useless.

 

Welp

[ShouldIBeHere]

Anyone who is able to make up their own mind an has some idea of what makes a good movie for him/herself can use RT as a quite useful tool.

 

The focusing on the scores (especially the positive/negative scores instead of the average) is what makes it difficult.

 

Plus, the hypocricy of people: if they love a movie that gets a "bad" score, RT is "useless", if it agrees with their opinion it is "spot-on", etc.

[The Futurist]

Tomatoes, I eat them.

[The Stingray]

Had forgotten how cool Dr. No's opening credits were. Arguably the coolest Bond titles.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q9QyChJeNU

Edited November 4, 2015 by The Stingray

[bapi]

Damn, this is Waltz' 8th villain since Basterds. 8 villains during 6 years. BORRRRRIINNGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Futurist]

A female villain would have been cool.

[bapi]

13 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

A female villain would have been cool.

Yep, someone like Chastain or Blunt would have been great. Or someone younger like Cillian Murphy. Or someone who doesn't play villains so often. Just Waltz is the most obvious, unsurprising choice they could have made.