Talk:List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes/Archive 1

Observation and suggestion
A potential problem with the article is instability. A film with 20 out of 20 "fresh" reviews might be on the list today, but if a 21st review is added tomorrow and is negative, the film would drop off the list. I suggest revising the intro to say this is a list of films with a 100% score or that have once had a 100% score, going by the sources. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

99% of the films in the list are in their Top 100 films list. It might be easier to monitor changes than you think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how easy it would be to monitor changes, but my real concern was having to edit this list every time a review gets added to Rotten Tomatoes and changes the score. I don't think we should have to edit it everytime, we should go with sources saying that at one point, the film had a 100%.Ribbet32 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also noticed that the list is sourced from just one page which lists the top 100 films on RT, which has a cut-off at 31 reviews. Filter by genre, and you get more films with 100% scores and with less than 31 reviews. For example, looking at mystery films shows another 18 films that should be on this list.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Films released before Rotten Tomatoes existed
Even though the list specifically only mentions that these are films with perfect RT scores (not films with perfect reviews in general), I think a distinction should be made between films made before the reviews were aggregated on RT and films made since. Given RT's reputation these days as the aggregator of all notable reviews of a films, a reader not familiar with how relatively recent a phenomenon RT is might have the implicit understanding that, say, The Terminator ' s 100% score means that the film only got positive reviews upon its release when this is not the case; only positive reviews of this film are included on RT mostly because those are the ones available online today. Many films released before RT existed were reviewed in sources that were never archived online and are, hence, not easily referenced to a website. This discrepancy should be noted, perhaps by separating them (perhaps somewhat arbitrarily) into films released before and after the year 1998 (the year RT was launched) or a differently defined set of categories that still usefully explains RT's limitation regarding older film reviews. 24.55.216.27 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Desk Set
Desk Set has 19 reviews and a 100% rating. This list though has to have over 20 right?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Must have 20 reviews
What is the origin of this criterion? Is this something from RT, or did someone here make it up? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it just came from common sense. Otherwise we could start including every film which ever had one or two positive reviews and no other. It's not fair to compare those to films with hundreds of reviews. We thought 20 reviews was a reasonable theshold to start at. I'd be open to lowering it to 10 or 15, but definitely no lower than 10. It needs to point towards a lot of critics agreeing they're great films ultimately.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is we are creating a category out of thin air. This is not a "list of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes". This is a "list of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes after at least 20 reviews have been added". Do independent sources discuss the actual topic? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got the phD, you figure that one out yourself.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a "no". So,how does this meet WP:LISTN? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. Do you really think that any film on Rotten Tomatoes with a 100% rating (it might include hundreds of films with just one positive review) should really be included here?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that having a list that solely consists of ALL films with a 100% rating would be sensible, manageable or desirable. It would fail the page size guidelines for a start, and probably a few others too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying two things:
 * 1) The article's title is not descriptive. This is not the list the title says it is.
 * 2) The AfD arguments discussed whether the concept in the article's title is notable. The 100% rating after 20 reviews recorded is a different question.
 * Currently, we have an article List of people from New York City. Sensible? Manageable? Desirable? Maybe not. Hundreds of entries? Yep. Maybe, to make it manageable, we limit it to people who lived in New York City for at least 10 years. After all, is someone who only lived there for four years at NYU... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. A limit to the most notable who lived there for at least ten years would be reasonable. No sources state the criteria, we just use common sense to exclude some and include others. It's the same with this list. As I say I'd be accepting of lowering the theshold to 10 reviews, but it's not fair to call films which barely have any reviews a proper "100%" rating.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (This response is to an earler version of the comment which has since been edited, changing its meaning.) No, we do not limit it to people who lived there for 10 years. That would be an arbitrary inclusion criterion, just like this one apparently is. Someone pulled "20" out of their butt and that became the number. It is not common sense, it is arbitrary. If it was common sense, you wouldn't be able to go with 10. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My response was to your comment, prior to the change you made stating that we do have such criteria on List of people from New York City. We do not. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So what are you going to do about it?♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you or does anyone have any suggestions for a criterion that is not arbitrary to take its place? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave it at 20 because there are 1,000,001 more important things we need to be doing right now, rather than arguing the toss over something so small as this? Is there nothing more interesting or important than creating trouble just for the sake of it? Move on, ignore it, this is a non-issue in the wider scheme of things. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, feel free to follow this rule: If it isn't the single most important thing that needs to be done, leave it alone. If someone wants to add Ishtar to this list, it's not as important as the Holocaust denial going on elsewhere. Leave it alone.
 * Any sufficiently complex project involves solving an unlimited number of problems. The most common way of prioritizing them is by establishing core principles. Wikipedia has 5 of of them. The "20" criterion, pulled out of someone's butt without meaningful discussion, violates 2 of those 5. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be so fucking patronising to others: it only ever pisses people off and they'll stop listening to you, especially when you're whining on about a complete non-issue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd wager that calling people "fucking patronizing" pisses people off. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well don't do it then, and you won't piss people off. – SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ? Grow up for crying out loud. If you hadn't posted such a patronising message in the first place it wouldn't have pissed me off, and Dr B wouldn't have nbeeded to tell you to stop being rude. You were the one who introduced the incivility into this, so I suggest you take that on board and move on. I won't bother replying to anything other than an acknowledgement of your willingness to move on. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you stop being so rude? For the record I wasn't even the one who came up with 20. In fact I had begun adding reviews with fewer reviews and I was reverted. But in thinking about it I came to agree that it's a sensible cut off point.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you might have just stumbled upon the root of the problem: Where did "20" come from? There's no discussion here that arrived at it, it just "is". The first mention of it I can find is in the January AfD, where you "agree" with it. I can't really see who you are agreeing with. After that, the next mention of it I see is in [Talk:List_of_films_with_a_100%25_rating_on_Rotten_Tomatoes#Desk_Set] (above), where someone is asking for confirmation that this is the cut off date. Perhaps there is a non-arbitrary source for this criterion, but I certainly don't see it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think it's fair though to list films which only have one or two positive reviews and call them proper 100% listings? In fairness I believe most entries after a while state a consensus and won't give a rating until they think there's a consensus. Do you think that should be the criteria then? But I've seen entries with as few as 2 or 3 reviews with a 100% listing. You can't possibly compare those to films which have had 200 positive reviews. I really think at least 10 reviews will start to show if a film really has a universal positive rating, you can't possibly assess that with 2 or 3 reviews only. Do you at least see what I'm getting at?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand you to be saying that it is not "fair"/meaningful to list all of them. However, "list them all" vs. "list only those that meet our arbitrary criteria" is a false dichotomy. Our guidelines are against arbitrary criteria and I believe there is good reason for that. Is a film's rating with 20 reviews appreciably more meaningful than one with 19? Wouldn't 21 be "better" still?
 * RT giving a "consensus" is certainly one possible -- non-arbitrary -- criterion. Another would be film's whose 100% rating has been covered by independent sources (making this more of an article about a 100% rating (as some sources will merely list 100% films, other will list surprising 100% films), rather than an exhaustive list. I'm sure there are other non-arbitrary criteria we can identify... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a fair weight of common opinion about 20 being a threshold for those who engage their common sense drives [https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=%22rotten+tomatoes%22+%22over+20+reviews%22&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DSGP_en___GB504&q=%22rotten+tomatoes%22+%22over+20+reviews%22&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.13155...........0. they may not all be from reliable sources], but I'd take that (and the implied consensus of the existance of this page) as being more relevant to anything you've whined about so far. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the search results, I see a number of blogs, forums, etc. If there are reliable sources there, could you point some of them out? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We've got to have a cut off point somewhere. That you can't see this Summer is rather frustrating. 20 reviews is perfectly reasonable. Definitely not under 10 reviews anyway because you really need a few reviews before you can truly consider it to be an accurate outlook of critical opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing what I am saying. First of all, I agreed above that there might be a reasonable limiting criterion we can use. Second, you seem to be unaware that you are locked into the mindset that we must either include all of them or set our own limit based on number of reviews. There are probably other possibilities. That the arbitrary 20 reviews limit that arose from we-don't-know-where is "the way we've always done it" seems reasonable to you is not much of a basis in my book. Ultimately, I would prefer something verifiably non-arbitrary. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, , , and  could comment on whether 20 is a reasonable cut off point or whether we should include every film with a 100% rating even if only two reviews.♦  Dr. Blofeld  10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather rephrase that question: What should the inclusion criteria be for this list? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 20 seems reasonable to me. Maybe bump it up to 25, since that's usually when a consensus is added (as far as I've seen, at least. I'll look for a source on that later today). I must admit, I'm perplexed as to why this nunber is being considered original research in the first place. We aren't claiming that only films with >20 reviews have 100% ratings, just that the list here only includes those that have 20 reviews (which is provable by, well, reading the list). This seems like a non-issue to me.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that we have an arbitrary inclusion criterion. We have List of people from New York City. Even if we can verify who lived in NYC for 10 years or longer, that is not an inclusion criterion because it is arbitrary. 20 reviews (or your preferred 25 or someone else's suggested 10) is arbitrary. Essentially, we're creating a concept and claiming it is notable by fiat. Instead, membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. We do not, for example, have a "List of really long movies" where we come up with our own criteria for what defines a "really long movie", even though there are certainly sources that discuss long movies and we can find reliable sources for the lengths of various movies. We've deleted categories and articles for this reason Category:Fictional cancer survivors, for example, didn't survive because there was no objective basis for how long made someone a "survivor". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who gives a flying rat's ass if it is arbitary!! Nobody cares. Move on, for the sanity of mankind!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not having arbitrary criteria "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." You !voted for 10 or 15, SchroCat wants to keep 20 and Corvoe says maybe bump it up to 25. Four people have weighed in with four different opinions. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Three of us agree that 20 is reasonable. Move on, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld  05:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline so there is no need to rush. One of four people solidly agrees to an arbitrary criterion of unknown origin. Two of the others have suggested changes in opposite directions. I've suggested a completely different criterion. And now... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts here to stir things up! Maybe it's time and not votes that could be the inclusion criteria. I don't see any merit on adding a film released last week that has one rating of 100% and adding it to the list. Maybe an inclusion criteria of the film must have been released at least 2 years ago, for example, to get a more balanced rating? Failing that, then 20 votes would seem a fair cut-off...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is de ad 12:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...a completely different criterion. A consensus is not based on a declaration, it is based on numerous voices. Yes, two have loudly stated they want the discussion ended. That doesn't change our policy: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." No one is discussing our guideline regarding arbitrary inclusion criteria. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would support changing it to 25 reviews.Mussobrennon (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's painful to see how some editors, like User:Dr. Blofeld, want to end this discussion by continuously writing we need to 'move on'. Is the claim that films with "one or two positive reviews" get a "100%" even true? For "0%" scores to show up, at least 5 reviews appear to be required. Does anyone have proof that less than 5 reviews already shows "100%" on the film's page? We should not set an arbitrary review minimum. It is Rotten Tomatoes that decides when "100%" and "0%" show up. The 20 review minimum this article uses is WP:OR and should be removed. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're speaking Dutch, I don't understand a word you're saying.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you link to a Rotten Tomatoes page of a film with less than 5 reviews that has a 100% score? (Sample image, with 38 reviews, of what I mean here; mirror here.) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I wasn't the one who decided 20. If you want to change it to 5 I suggest you open an RFC and get consensus to do so. Personally I'm not bothered, There's quite a few films I can think of with 15-19 odd reviews which I think its a pity are excluded but I do see that there needs to be some sort of threshold. 5 reviews only seems rather low.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, this movie has four "fresh" reviews, but no tomatometer score yet. I'd take that as evidence that at least five reviews are necessary before a score is awarded. I don't know the statistics - is there a significant number of 100% movies with very few reviews? So many that this list would become overly long if we added them all? If not, there certainly is no good reason to define an arbitrary number of reviews as inclusion criterion. Huon (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That was my main concern yeah. If 5 is actually the threshold for a rating and you can prove that then it is technically a list of films with a 100% rating so should really be as comprehensive as possible. What I suggest first is a] Somebody who is keen to list all 100% rated films make as comprehensive a list of films in their sandbox as they can find and see how many we're dealing with. b] Introduce something which documents how many reviews each entry has had so readers can access those ones which have a lot more reviews from those which haven't that many. Naturally though it would need a lot of maintenance work and updating which I personally am not even slightly interested in doing. I really don't think though that 5 reviews is enough for a rating, and there's many many entries which will need to constantly be removed as the review count grows. That's why over 20 positive reviews makes it less likely of happening and was a good threshold I thought as well as an indication of universal acclaim (which was the intention of this list really). I don't really see how you can gauge that with just 5 reviews.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article. It now has references (including access dates) for all entries and it also lists the number of reviews for each entry, just like the List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. As it turns out, 66 entries already have less than 20 reviews. I have removed the footnote about the arbitrary inclusion criterion. It's possible to sort the "# Reviews" column, so this allows readers to easily find the films with most reviews. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now we have the review column so readers can see the ones which have had a lot of reviews and those which have had less. I'm fine with that now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2015
172.56.22.31 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Could "The Life of Oharu" be added to the list? It's got a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes with 15 reviews.


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This article is not Semi-Protected, so you can edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Could "Ugetsu" (1953), "Sansho the Bailiff" (1954), "A Geisha" (1953), and "The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums" (1939) be added to the list? Each has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, with 22, 13, 7, and 6 reviews respectively (though "The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums" is listed on RT as a 1979 film, for some reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.96.238 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

MAD LOVE
Add Mad Love. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1038641-mad_love/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:E00:1D23:8046:508C:F45:5E11 (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

publisher=Rotten Tomatoes
I'm curious to know why we need to include this, I know for other pages it makes sense, but here it doesn't since the source would come from Rotten Tomatoes and nowhere else, can we remove this or not bother putting it in, also I have a lot of work head of me, I'm adding over 400+ titles, and check titles to see if they still have 100%, (the ones i'm checking aren't overlaid with the list I made). I just got done with 0% List, so this is good place to be, hope to hell there isn't a Certified Fresh list.TVWolf (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add Treasure Island (1950 film). http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1021964-treasure_island/ --72.67.245.191 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add Never Cry Wolf (film). http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/never_cry_wolf/ --72.67.245.191 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add The Journey of Natty Gann. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/journey_of_natty_gann/ --72.67.245.191 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add Country (film). http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1004795-country/ --72.67.245.191 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add Pépé le Moko. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pepe-le-moko/ --72.67.245.191 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add M (1931 film). http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012928-m/ --72.67.245.191 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you think?
Do you think any of the pre-1998 films has been nonimated for a Golden Raspberry Award get a either Rotten Tomatoes rating of 0% or 100%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.63.155 (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming releases
Should upcoming films really be allowed? Films get the majority of their reviews after they have been released, and even one negative review would mean a film that initially had a 100% rating would have to be removed from the list. If nothing else, it's simply premature. Life of Tau (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. There are several films listed that one expects will not remain on the list once they are fully reviewed. What's the point in including movies that one cannot go and see right now? How is this beneficial? It only serves to ensure that this page requires more maintenance by adding then removing movies. Cpflieger (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)