Talk:Rotten Tomatoes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotten Tomatoes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 31 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Versus Metacritic[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.185.68 (talk • contribs)

More than 43[edit]

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?

Critic demographics[edit]

Couldn't this study be integrated into the article? Reflecktor (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article link that works. Link to the PDF of the study: Critics Choice?. (This wiki article about Rotten Tomatoes already included Meryl Streep claiming Rotten Tomatoes disproportionally represents the opinions of male film critics, and counter point to that criticism.)

Are film critics disproportionally more white and male than the rest of journalism and news media? Are critics unable to be objective and unbiased? Would more diverse critics be biased in meaningful or significantly different ways? Would any of this matter to Rotten Tomatoes specifically? For example Pauline Kael was not immune to bias, but ultimately Rotten Tomatoes still reduces it all down to positive or negative, like asking a roomful of people for a show of hands, so it isn't likely to matter. Merely diluting the pool isn't likely to make it magically cleaner, or as Vulture.com put it I might quibble that adding 500 women and another 500 men, three-quarters of them white, to an already overwhelmingly male and white group of around 2,500 does not seem like it would radically alter the imbalances that precipitated the original criticism. https://archive.ph/erboM#selection-1815.528-1815.784 -- 109.76.192.132 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of "other criticism" section[edit]

My paragraph on the anti-Christian bias on Rotten Tomatoes was reverted, while other criticisms were allowed to remain. The reason given does not make sense to me. Almost every Christian film ever produced is described as a Bomb on Wikipedia, with references to Rotten Tomatoes.

My impression from reading hundreds of articles is that a pervasive bias exists in Wikipedia that is profoundly Left-wing, atheist, and materialist in nature. Not only are alternative opinions downplayed, but those with different views are not permitted to have any input whatsoever. There is zero interest in citations, facts, or evidence. The only interest is in adhering to the Party Line, which states that Christianity is Bad, and anything deriving from Christianity is also Bad. Censorship is the rule and not the exception.

Since Wikipedia is merely another tool of indoctrination, isn't it rather amusing that the ones being brainwashed are asked to donate towards their own indoctrination? Threadbareparson (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your personal views, which were apparent in your edit and the reason it was reverted (along with comparing a Christian film's lack of critical acclaim to a hard-R crime film no sane parent would make their child watch). We're interested in neutrality and factual sources, not poorly-constructed comparisons between two completely divergent works and some kind of unsourced 'bias' easily explained by a smaller pool of reviews to draw from. I won't choose to respond to the other arguments because that's not why we're here. Nate • (chatter) 18:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Average rating not appearing for TV shows[edit]

For several days now, the average critics reviews rating (example: 7.00 out of 10) has not been available for TV shows. I've searched but have not found information on whether the score details for TV has been removed permanently or temporarily. I've brought this up at MOS:TV. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the average score is now visible again for TV shows. Οἶδα (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Average ratings[edit]

It is worth noting that clicking on the critic score now displays the Tomatometer score and average rating of "Top Critics" by default. You must now also click on "All Critics" to view the average rating for all reviews. I am sure this will cause confusion in future editing. Οἶδα (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]