Do Rotten Tomatoes scores mean anything to you?

[Ohnooze]

I’m just curious if you guys put any stock in RT scores. I used to for whatever reason consider them before I went to see anything. Now a days, not so much.

Seems like more and more I just don’t really agree with their opinion or how they do their scoring.

And it’s interesting to me how movies like the new ghostbusters is at 73% yet movies like Jason Bourne is at 56%. Not that either movie is worth throwing a party over but Ghost Busters was a 30% or so movie. The jokes feel flat, it was completely unoriginal and extremely unforgettable…..and it’s a 76% movie? If I had to guess, and it’s just a guess, it’s scores were pretty dependent on the all-female cast….as in switching from male to female. I went to see it with my daughter and neither of us liked it. It just was not good…..

Anyway, point being more and more I think the “pro” reviewers and pretty terrible.

What say you guys?

[Drz]

Nope,

It's the same for meta critic and games, if you don't care for majority of the reviewers then why would you want this aggregated number based off reviewers you don't care for? For movies I only want to hear from Doable Toasted and Red Letter Media, why? Because it is entertaining to listen to them.

[Sighphi]

i use RT as a gateway to read reviews. I never visit the Wrap website but i will read a review from them linked in RT.

I dont use the scores for anything because i actually read the reviews and there's a good amount of time where the review seems to be opposite of what RT rated the review as. l

[plo12]

No.
But to be honest the site can be extremely misleading for a lot of people who just check the "Tomato meter" without taking a closer look to the average score below in tiny letters.
If a film is reviewed by 100 critics, who let's say all rated the movie 5.9/10 (for the sake of example), then the Tomato meter will show big green splatter with 0%. While the average score is still 5.9 which is overlooked by many people.

[eckesg1]

I noticed Star Trek Beyond use a Rotten Tomatoes score in it's ads. This is going to be the norm, I fear. I think BvS set that off.

[sneakyflute]

I think the approval rating is a pretty good indicator of a movie's quality. If a movie has a 24% then I probably won't see it at the theatre.

[MrHashasheen]

I only ever check with Angry Joe and Jeremy Jahns, and even then it's Jahns more often than Joe.

[Tofali]

Definitely.

In situation like this where the movies get bad reviews i just save my money and watch a matinee for less than half the price or not watch at all.

[Buried Alien]

I don't know. My judgments only line up about 50/50 with theirs, and while I find that they're quite spot-on when they're on, they're also way off when they're off.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[kalorama]

Nope. I can count on one hand the number of times I've even been to the site.

[mr_crisp]

Nope...........

[Shawn Hopkins]

Sure. They're a guide to the general sentiment of reviewers. It's interesting to hear what other people think. I can never know what I'll personally think until I see it for myself, though. I liked Ghostbusters a little more, for example, than the overall RT score. If it's possible I liked BvS less.

One place it's dicey is old movies that predate the site. Sometimes there won't be many reviews and you'll get a skewed perspective. Sometimes the reviews will be people taking a look back at a "classic" and that can color reviews. Better to use only contemporaneous reviews.

[Monkey Genius]

They don't determine whether or not I see a movie, but they will help me set my expectations.

[kalorama]

And it’s interesting to me how movies like the new ghostbusters is at 73% yet movies like Jason Bourne is at 56%. Not that either movie is worth throwing a party over but Ghost Busters was a 30% or so movie.

That doesn't really make much sense.

Those percentages are not ratings of the films' actual quality per se, but rather the percentage of reviews that the site deems as "positive." So saying that a film is a "30% or so movie" is basically saying that only 30% of the critics should have given it a positive review. And there's really no basis for quantifying that, esp. since a "positive" review can be anything from an outright rave to "yeah, it was an ok way to kill a couple of hours."

[Shawn Hopkins]

Another thing we need to always keep in mind is just because you disagree with the opinion of a reviewer or an RT score, it doesn't mean they are "wrong." It just means opinions vary.