Talk:Rotten Tomatoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotten Tomatoes article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 shock joke 2 Another thing to add to Controversy? 3 Versus Metacritic 4 North American review bias 5 SIGN YOUR POSTS 6 Weasel words 6.1 Removed 7 Discussion Forums 8 More than 43 9 Section: Discussion board 10 Rottentomatoes.com is that relevant?

[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) .

[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.

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[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)