Also it’s essentially impossible to aggregate subjectivity into a single rating, different people will get different things from the film. I’m sure there’s stuff I’ve watched and loved through some combination of where my head is at at the time and perhaps not knowing tropes or “writing is bad because X”.
Part of the problem is there’s no distinction for a movie that KNOWS it’s bad. Cheesy horror or action flicks are the biggest victims.
Take Sharknado. It’s got a 3.3/10 on IMDB, and if it were trying to be a serious action/disaster movie, that rating would be reasonable. But it’s not. It’s a movie about a tornado full of sharks. It was always going to be goofy, over the top, and filled with cheese. If you go in with that expectation, it’s a fun movie. Maybe not award winning, but definitely not 3.3/10.
The amount of times I’ve found absolute gems that have a 50% rating has caused me to go out of my way to watch them.
Some of them stink, but I feel like critics are like everyone else and some of them can be pretty dense
Also it’s essentially impossible to aggregate subjectivity into a single rating, different people will get different things from the film. I’m sure there’s stuff I’ve watched and loved through some combination of where my head is at at the time and perhaps not knowing tropes or “writing is bad because X”.
Part of the problem is there’s no distinction for a movie that KNOWS it’s bad. Cheesy horror or action flicks are the biggest victims.
Take Sharknado. It’s got a 3.3/10 on IMDB, and if it were trying to be a serious action/disaster movie, that rating would be reasonable. But it’s not. It’s a movie about a tornado full of sharks. It was always going to be goofy, over the top, and filled with cheese. If you go in with that expectation, it’s a fun movie. Maybe not award winning, but definitely not 3.3/10.
A common mistake people make is that a site like rotten tomatoes has a different rating system.
If a movie gets 100 mildly positive reviews, it gets a 100% fresh rating.
If a movie gets 50 mildly negative reviews and 50 highly positive revies, it gets a 50% rating.
They just didn’t have the budget to pay Rotten Tomatoes for rating manipulation like these blockbusters do.
You mean by bribing every single reviewing media Rotten Tomatoes uses in their score?
RT doesn’t rate things, it just combines the score of every review they can find.
They can’t be manipulated.