Why don't they use metacritic for their aggregate site?

HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
I went to see Mission Impossible tonight and listened to the podcast on the way home. This has come up before, but they were shocked at how high the Rotten Tomatoes rating was. I also seem to remember them bringing it up in the past that they know how Rotten Tomatoes works. So if Jim says, "You should absolutely go see this movie," why are they surprised the fresh score is so high since that's basically all it's saying.

I know Metacritic isn't perfect either, but at least it gives a little better of an indication of how critics felt about a movie.

Comments

  • Man...  I can't remember how hard I reciprocated the Rotten Tomatoes shock on that cast.  I seem to remember that being the cast where I broke down the methodology of Rotten Tomatoes and said it's not that surprising but that might have happened on another podcast.  However, I often get caught up in the "this is the best movie in the world because it has a perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes" misconception, so it might have been one of those instances.

    Metacritic is a better reflection of overall movie quality, I think.  I stopped using it way back in the day when the design of the site was so awful I just couldn't stand going there and since RT was doing a similar thing and had better design, I stuck there.
    FreibergTravis
  • kuman07kuman07 Kansas City
    You can also see average rating on Rotten Tomatoes. For example Mission Impossible has a 8.3/10 average critic rating. I don't know if that is new or not, i just recently came across it.
  • As an aggregate metric I think Rotten Tomatoes is the best because the whole point of an aggregate should be a quick temperature check to gauge the reaction to a movie, it is not intended for deep analysis. It's also valuable to check how many critic ratings are determining any given score since a good or bad RT score based on only a dozen or so critic reviews isn't nearly as useful. 

    However I don't understand the OP's issue because I was also shocked at the RT score even though I know exactly how it works. This is a summer action movie that 97% of of the critics that RT tracks and reviewed it liked. I just looked it up and as of now that's 297 critics that liked it vs. 8 that didn't. That's extremely rare for a summer action movie, so how is that not shocking? 
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    edited August 2018
    ghm3 said:
    As an aggregate metric I think Rotten Tomatoes is the best because the whole point of an aggregate should be a quick temperature check to gauge the reaction to a movie, it is not intended for deep analysis. It's also valuable to check how many critic ratings are determining any given score since a good or bad RT score based on only a dozen or so critic reviews isn't nearly as useful. 

    However I don't understand the OP's issue because I was also shocked at the RT score even though I know exactly how it works. This is a summer action movie that 97% of of the critics that RT tracks and reviewed it liked. I just looked it up and as of now that's 297 critics that liked it vs. 8 that didn't. That's extremely rare for a summer action movie, so how is that not shocking? 
    I don't think it's that shocking since the bar for being "fresh" is 60%. I don't think it's an amazing movie and probably will never watch it again, but I'd still give it a 4/5 if I was a critic.

    It's pretty easy to see why almost all the critics gave it at least 3/5. It's a fun movie, there are some incredible action scenes set against amazing backdrops, the acting is decent and the characters are likeable, there's more thought put into the plot than most summer blockbusters, and it's not overly violent. It's a pretty easy movie to recommend to pretty much anyone going to see a movie.

    I can't really think of anything aggressively bad about the movie.
  • Hunkulese said:
    ghm3 said:
    As an aggregate metric I think Rotten Tomatoes is the best because the whole point of an aggregate should be a quick temperature check to gauge the reaction to a movie, it is not intended for deep analysis. It's also valuable to check how many critic ratings are determining any given score since a good or bad RT score based on only a dozen or so critic reviews isn't nearly as useful. 

    However I don't understand the OP's issue because I was also shocked at the RT score even though I know exactly how it works. This is a summer action movie that 97% of of the critics that RT tracks and reviewed it liked. I just looked it up and as of now that's 297 critics that liked it vs. 8 that didn't. That's extremely rare for a summer action movie, so how is that not shocking? 
    I don't think it's that shocking since the bar for being "fresh" is 60%. I don't think it's an amazing movie and probably will never watch it again, but I'd still give it a 4/5 if I was a critic.

    It's pretty easy to see why almost all the critics gave it at least 3/5. It's a fun movie, there are some incredible action scenes set against amazing backdrops, the acting is decent and the characters are likeable, there's more thought put into the plot than most summer blockbusters, and it's not overly violent. It's a pretty easy movie to recommend to pretty much anyone going to see a movie.

    I can't really think of anything aggressively bad about the movie.

    But saying you're shocked at how high an RT score is isn't at all condemning the movie, it's simply being surprised at the percentage of critics that liked the movie. These movies typically have mediocre RT scores (i.e. low critic appreciation) with much high audience percentages. 

    To me RT's biggest flaw is in older movies whose scores are heavily influenced by reviews written decades after release.
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    I find the idea of using an aggregate score really strange.
  • HunkuleseHunkulese Québec, Canada
    chrisk said:
    I find the idea of using an aggregate score really strange.
    They're super useful for getting a general idea of what the critics think in about 5 seconds. I guess that's a pretty good reason to use Rotten Tomatoes over Metacritic since the Metacritic site does suck.
This discussion has been closed.