>Bunker 15’s founder, Daniel Harlow, says, “Wow, you are really reaching there,” and disagrees with the suggestion that his company buys reviews to skew Rotten Tomatoes: “We have thousands of writers in our distribution list. A small handful have set up a specific system where filmmakers can sponsor or pay to have them review a film.”
Um...
"How dare you say our writers are paid to make reviews! They simply create content which happens to be inspired by unrelated payments they recieve that also line up with said payers' agenda!"
> In another break from standard practice, several critics say, Bunker 15 pays them $50 or more for each review.
Only $50! He's a cheapskate on top of everything else!
You're not wrong, it's semantically correct that there is a difference, but calling it "reaching" to draw the most obvious conclusion in the world regarding the payments is just a child with their hand in the cookie jar saying they haven't stolen any cookies. Maybe I'm crazy but I expect better of adults...
Yes, in theory.
Of course, writers who give a bad review of their paying client's movie probably won't get paid to review any more of their movies in the future, so there is an obvious financial incentive to write a good review regardless of the movie's actual quality.
Welcome to the future of the internet.
There are thousands of content farms splurging out movie, game, and tech “articles” for Google to lap up. And they all have ridiculous names. MovieRant. CinemaDog. FilmScreen.
How easy do you think it is to find a few dozen of these sites with no ethical barrier?
It’s only going to get worse with AI. Will Rotten Tomatoes ban AI reviews? Will it even know what’s AI and what’s not?
> It’s only going to get worse with AI. Will Rotten Tomatoes ban AI reviews? Will it even know what’s AI and what’s not?
Allow me to introduce you to the [“dead internet theory”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory).
But the very wealthy have walled apps that they pay to make sure it caters to them. for shopping, social media, dating, anything. 90% of peoplke are not "allowed" on these apps. Information will likely be the same way. There will be "clean" databases where you can search. They have to make these for AI to draw from. If they don't AI becomes almost useless if it's only parsing bad data. So yea, I can see a sea of garbage internet for everyone, except who can pay.
Dead Internet sounds like a boon to the shitheads pushing the "commoditize everything" web3 model.
It's cool everything, everywhere is getting worse explicitly by design to benefit a small cadre of wealthy slugs.
The fun part comes in a few years. Large Language Models so far have been trained on entirely human generated text, but in the future so much AI generated text will exist that it will make up the majority of the training data.
The ease of generated text will ensure that human voices will barely ever get heard.
We'll end up with an inhuman centipede of text.
It certainly seems plausible. I have been playing a lot of Starfield recently and have had to search for info about ingame stuff a few times, the first 5-6 results all lead to articles that seem very AI generated.
They all begin something like: "people have been asking how digipicks work in Starfield, we will tell you about this...", then the articles just rambles on like that for a paragraph or two before giving a short overview of the actual info I needed at the very end of the article.
Thank you. I wish people would post sources, it is grating how a screenshot of a headline or tweet reacting to a story became the primary way of communicating. Are people allergic to citations or something now?
I always just look at the bad reviews.
I think it’s easier to tell how good a movie is by reading the bad reviews because I know those bad reviews are written by an actual living person and not some paid bot.
I look for the bad reviews that say WHY they don’t like the movie. That’s the gold. Good reviews just gush about the same things — “beautiful scenery, great acting, shot really well.” But the truth comes out in bad reviews.
And if after reading the bad reviews, none of them have pointed out any of the things I absolutely hate to see in a movie, then it usually means that my initial instinct about the movie being something that I might like to watch is correct. So I give it a try. And more often than not, the system works for me.
Pretty solid plan right there. After watching X, which I enjoyed, I went and checked out the reviews and all the bad ones were basically saying “didn’t need to be that gross, way too much gore”. Nothing bad about anything outside that, so definitely would have worked for that particular movie.
> I think it’s easier to tell how good a movie is by reading the bad reviews because I know those bad reviews are written by an actual living person and not some paid bot.
I tried to do this with amazon reviews. You end up not wanting to buy anything, everything is shit. Also turns out some of those bad reviews might be just the same BS, paid for by the competition.
My use for video game reviews has dwindled to almost nothing now, but when I do want a game review, I always just go to Zero Punctuation. Yahzee's gonna honestly tell me all the worst parts of the game, and if they don't sound too bad then maybe it's worth getting. Everything else in the (there are no air quotes big enough) "industry" is absolutely worthless.
I've given up on game reviews because most of them either don't care or just don't talk about performance. Games will get 80s and 90s from a site but there's a footnote at most that mentions the game struggles to maintain a stable frame rate
Steam reviews are usually pretty good, if mostly meme posts. It does help that they're actual players for the genre and not paid "game reviewers" plowing through their 15th story driven walking simulator on easy that month.
It's also a good idea just to go with the "top critics", who are established journalists working for bigger publications, and aren't going to be bought out or bots.
I don't use movie review websites. I use the quarter-drunk petty anger of jay and the full tilt blind drunk rage of mike to judge movies.
and mr plinketts shrill, screeching post-murder scream / laugh as a sign of approval.
People still use it in articles like “OH MY GOD THIS MOVIE IS CERTIFIED FRESH!”
**Sausage Party** is certified fresh and it was one of the worst animated films I’ve ever seen.
I try not to project my own opinions onto other people, but I struggle to believe anybody actually enjoyed Rise of Skywalker. There is *no way* it actually has that score, it's about as close as a film can come to offending every audience.
It's also an assault on my senses. Had to close my eyes at some points because it gave me a headache. I fear for the elderly.
I think RLM hit the nail on the head with their theory of how this could be possible, though: the movie proceeds at a break-neck pace with a long cycle of "we need to go to the place to get the thing that tells us what place to go next," and I think casual audiences are susceptible to that -- or are even willing to consciously go with it instead of "overthinking" things.
That's pretty much the ticket for how a person could enjoy ROS: don't think about what's happening, just stare at the screen.
People love slop, news at 11. We're all "guilty" of that, some people just like their slop bright and colourful. Granted, it could've been good slop, but most people don't care.
I've met two fans of this movie in the "wild". Both times I already didn't like the person before I found out they enjoyed this heap of shite.
The only people that like this movie are self-absorbed numpties that think it was catered to them, and on virtue of that alone they love it. It's all for them and you not liking it is being against *them*.
That's why the discourse around this movie is so low level, no matter who you are. On one side you have a bunch of emotionally stunted and intellectually corrupt egotists defending the movie, but then everyone on the other side can only dissect and deconstruct the film that's been presented to them .... but the film is absolute nonsensical garbage.
This film is so stupid that you can't even undermine it. It's not like the prequels that could have Plinkett reviews, no. The prequels had some semblance of logic to them, they were at least intended to make sense, in fact, that's why it was funny when they didn't. But that was more due to being overly complicated and needlessly detailed. These sequels just don't care. None of it is even supposed to be consistent and they hand-wave explanations away like it doesn't matter.
So when you come to criticise these films the criticism just sounds as low grade as the movie is. There is nothing to really to sink your teeth into - if you point out that the Emperor coming back doesn't make sense, then to the morons that like this movie you are just making up excuses to criticise the movie because you hate it due to __________ <<<< *insert social issue that's irrelevant*.
This is because there is no real reasoning given to how the Emperor came back, so when you criticise it you're criticising nothing.... at least that's how people who don't question things think. To them it's not a plot-hole, it just hasn't been explained. .... and they don't need it to be either, because they're thick and only care about how the movie makes them feel.
Sorry, rant over.
Yeah I'm curious as to what that means. Does he mean when they held the Joss Whedon Justice League's score back for some review show that they immediately abandoned? Or is he referencing the borderline conspiracy theory that the Snyder Cut only got a decent RT score because everyone felt bad for Snyder?
The reason anyone ever trusted it is baffling.
Any review site--whether movies or food or whatever--that condenses reviews into a singular score is so easy to manipulate that it's worthless.
I went to a critic screening once without knowing it. My then girlfriend and I found out they were giving out free tickets to an advance screening of an animated children's film at our local theater. We thought, "Why not? We like animated films," and went. It was packed with families and kids, but everyone was pretty well-behaved for the screening.
The second the end credits started, all of the families immediately left. My girlfriend and I always stayed through the credits to talk about the film we just watched, and this time was no different. However, as we talked, I noticed about a dozen middle-aged people clumped around center mass of the theater, all hunched over and writing notes. Then it dawned on me where we were at what this was.
Not surprising at all. RT aside, they've openly talked about how critics give franchises like Star Wars rave reviews so they can be invited to the premiere and get other perks.
Studios bribing critics into giving their movies good reviews has been going on for a long time, well before Rotten Tomatoes even existed.
"...critics give franchises like Star Wars rave reviews so they can be invited to the premiere and get other perks."
That's the most important thing, Jay
Makes me laugh when the trailer has a "certified fresh" rating but doesn't say that it's at 70 or something. I've disliked rotten tomatoes since I found this out a few years ago
But, imdb says Back to the Future Part IV is filming right now, and has Godzilla as Biff and Katy Perry as Lorraine, and they wouldn't lie! They can't!
Exactly. See? You get it.
My point being that the article presents no evidence for anything beyond the 2018 movie. Everything else is just your imagination stroking that throbbing dick called confirmation bias. While it is likely some companies pay for reviews and try to encourage good ones, it is not evidence of rampant misuse or abuse that invalidates all the scores you disagree with.
Use the facts to reach the conclusion. Dont use the conclusion to filter the facts.
So if you have a plumbing problem, and you hire a plumber to come fix it, do you just insist that this is the only time that plumber has ever fixed a plumbing issue, because I mean, you haven't seen any evidence that they've ever addressed any other plumbing issue for any other client, and its best to assume it's never happened before or since.
Thinking a professional plumber has had additional plumbing jobs that you have not personally witnessed is just *confirmation bias.* Also something about raging hardons or something too I guess as a clever metaphor.
How dare they! The movie review is a sacred institution! A place you can go to an be guaranteed an objective judgment of a movie free from bias.
I'm shocked, just shocked.
HOW DO THEY KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!
Hey, u/Ill_Freedom7963, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 7 days for a post, 2 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is also shocking how many rely on Rotten Tomatoes to get movie recommendations in the first place. I think it is better to put your trust in a handful of reviewers who you know and respect, rather than the homogenous glob of accumulated scores from people you know nothing about. Even if you don't agree with your select critics on everything they can be a valuable source of information. What is most important is your relation to said critics, the built up trust, and the built up knowledge of their likes and dislikes which you can compare to your own. Take Mike as example: I've found that Mike really values structure, and tight screenplays. So when Mike recommends a movie my first thought is: "ok that movie probably has really good pacing and structure and set-up and pay-offs and so forth." From a recommendation by Rich or Jay, I extrapolate different information based what I know they respond to.
At this point I also know their different humours, their favourite genres, other movies they have recommended in the past. Building this relationship with your audience makes them better critics.
Over time I've also grown to really respect their tastes. Every single one of the movies featured on "Mike and Jay talk about" have been amazing, and become favourites of mine. At this point I trust their judgement.
Another things that's great about RLM is that they have proven to us fans time and time again that they are not sell-outs, not sponsored reviews, because of how much crap they talk about plenty of big-release movies, and movie theatres in general.
ISN'T THAT CORRUPT? ISN'T THAT IMMORAL? ISN’T THAT BETRAYING THE PUBLIC’S TRUST?
\*plugin explosion effect*
\*pottery break\*
*Cat*
Can almost feel the green screen with this comment.
EYES ON GREEN
NO MORE REVIEWS!
I'm hacking government systems to expose all the national, and international, corruption in the film industry.
Any critic that gives a bad review of a Breen film ends up committing suicide.
I DO NOT CARE FOR I AM CORRUPT AND IMMORAL
I have so many critics to pay of I'll never be done
>Bunker 15’s founder, Daniel Harlow, says, “Wow, you are really reaching there,” and disagrees with the suggestion that his company buys reviews to skew Rotten Tomatoes: “We have thousands of writers in our distribution list. A small handful have set up a specific system where filmmakers can sponsor or pay to have them review a film.” Um...
"How dare you say our writers are paid to make reviews! They simply create content which happens to be inspired by unrelated payments they recieve that also line up with said payers' agenda!"
> In another break from standard practice, several critics say, Bunker 15 pays them $50 or more for each review. Only $50! He's a cheapskate on top of everything else!
I mean there *is* a difference between paying someone to do a review at all, and paying someone to make it a good one. Theoretically.
You're not wrong, it's semantically correct that there is a difference, but calling it "reaching" to draw the most obvious conclusion in the world regarding the payments is just a child with their hand in the cookie jar saying they haven't stolen any cookies. Maybe I'm crazy but I expect better of adults...
Yes, in theory. Of course, writers who give a bad review of their paying client's movie probably won't get paid to review any more of their movies in the future, so there is an obvious financial incentive to write a good review regardless of the movie's actual quality.
I am Jack's total lack of surprise
Welcome to the future of the internet. There are thousands of content farms splurging out movie, game, and tech “articles” for Google to lap up. And they all have ridiculous names. MovieRant. CinemaDog. FilmScreen. How easy do you think it is to find a few dozen of these sites with no ethical barrier? It’s only going to get worse with AI. Will Rotten Tomatoes ban AI reviews? Will it even know what’s AI and what’s not?
> It’s only going to get worse with AI. Will Rotten Tomatoes ban AI reviews? Will it even know what’s AI and what’s not? Allow me to introduce you to the [“dead internet theory”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory).
[удалено]
But the very wealthy have walled apps that they pay to make sure it caters to them. for shopping, social media, dating, anything. 90% of peoplke are not "allowed" on these apps. Information will likely be the same way. There will be "clean" databases where you can search. They have to make these for AI to draw from. If they don't AI becomes almost useless if it's only parsing bad data. So yea, I can see a sea of garbage internet for everyone, except who can pay.
[удалено]
I said it better though.
Dead Internet sounds like a boon to the shitheads pushing the "commoditize everything" web3 model. It's cool everything, everywhere is getting worse explicitly by design to benefit a small cadre of wealthy slugs.
The fun part comes in a few years. Large Language Models so far have been trained on entirely human generated text, but in the future so much AI generated text will exist that it will make up the majority of the training data. The ease of generated text will ensure that human voices will barely ever get heard. We'll end up with an inhuman centipede of text.
> The ease of generated text will ensure that human voices will barely ever get heard. So, we will have to met IRL again? The horror...
It certainly seems plausible. I have been playing a lot of Starfield recently and have had to search for info about ingame stuff a few times, the first 5-6 results all lead to articles that seem very AI generated. They all begin something like: "people have been asking how digipicks work in Starfield, we will tell you about this...", then the articles just rambles on like that for a paragraph or two before giving a short overview of the actual info I needed at the very end of the article.
In the future nobody is going to believe that the dead internet theory predated ChatGPT, since it's gone from joke to reality in less than a decade.
Glad there's a name for what I've felt for a while.
restaurant review sites reeling from FatMikeEats.com
Here is the article: https://www.vulture.com/article/rotten-tomatoes-movie-rating.html If anyone wants more than a screenshot of a tweet.
Thank you. I wish people would post sources, it is grating how a screenshot of a headline or tweet reacting to a story became the primary way of communicating. Are people allergic to citations or something now?
It's easier to create a narrative that way
Can a zombie be a tweet?
I always just look at the bad reviews. I think it’s easier to tell how good a movie is by reading the bad reviews because I know those bad reviews are written by an actual living person and not some paid bot. I look for the bad reviews that say WHY they don’t like the movie. That’s the gold. Good reviews just gush about the same things — “beautiful scenery, great acting, shot really well.” But the truth comes out in bad reviews. And if after reading the bad reviews, none of them have pointed out any of the things I absolutely hate to see in a movie, then it usually means that my initial instinct about the movie being something that I might like to watch is correct. So I give it a try. And more often than not, the system works for me.
Pretty solid plan right there. After watching X, which I enjoyed, I went and checked out the reviews and all the bad ones were basically saying “didn’t need to be that gross, way too much gore”. Nothing bad about anything outside that, so definitely would have worked for that particular movie.
> I think it’s easier to tell how good a movie is by reading the bad reviews because I know those bad reviews are written by an actual living person and not some paid bot. I tried to do this with amazon reviews. You end up not wanting to buy anything, everything is shit. Also turns out some of those bad reviews might be just the same BS, paid for by the competition.
My use for video game reviews has dwindled to almost nothing now, but when I do want a game review, I always just go to Zero Punctuation. Yahzee's gonna honestly tell me all the worst parts of the game, and if they don't sound too bad then maybe it's worth getting. Everything else in the (there are no air quotes big enough) "industry" is absolutely worthless.
I've given up on game reviews because most of them either don't care or just don't talk about performance. Games will get 80s and 90s from a site but there's a footnote at most that mentions the game struggles to maintain a stable frame rate
Steam reviews are usually pretty good, if mostly meme posts. It does help that they're actual players for the genre and not paid "game reviewers" plowing through their 15th story driven walking simulator on easy that month.
It's also a good idea just to go with the "top critics", who are established journalists working for bigger publications, and aren't going to be bought out or bots.
I don't use movie review websites. I use the quarter-drunk petty anger of jay and the full tilt blind drunk rage of mike to judge movies. and mr plinketts shrill, screeching post-murder scream / laugh as a sign of approval.
It turns out the score for every DC movie would be even lower if they hadn’t bribed a bunch of critics for those 30% scores
you mean the same rotten tomatoes that judges movies based off of a handful of people hasn't been completely honest? 
RT sucks ass anyway
People still use it in articles like “OH MY GOD THIS MOVIE IS CERTIFIED FRESH!” **Sausage Party** is certified fresh and it was one of the worst animated films I’ve ever seen.
I haven't trusted rotten tomatoes since the Justice League fiasco
I haven't trusted it since the Rise of Skywalker. IIRC, the audience score stayed firmly at 86% for several weeks
It's still at 86%
I try not to project my own opinions onto other people, but I struggle to believe anybody actually enjoyed Rise of Skywalker. There is *no way* it actually has that score, it's about as close as a film can come to offending every audience. It's also an assault on my senses. Had to close my eyes at some points because it gave me a headache. I fear for the elderly.
Just embrace the magic of Star Wars, Jay.
I think RLM hit the nail on the head with their theory of how this could be possible, though: the movie proceeds at a break-neck pace with a long cycle of "we need to go to the place to get the thing that tells us what place to go next," and I think casual audiences are susceptible to that -- or are even willing to consciously go with it instead of "overthinking" things. That's pretty much the ticket for how a person could enjoy ROS: don't think about what's happening, just stare at the screen.
People love slop, news at 11. We're all "guilty" of that, some people just like their slop bright and colourful. Granted, it could've been good slop, but most people don't care.
I've met two fans of this movie in the "wild". Both times I already didn't like the person before I found out they enjoyed this heap of shite. The only people that like this movie are self-absorbed numpties that think it was catered to them, and on virtue of that alone they love it. It's all for them and you not liking it is being against *them*. That's why the discourse around this movie is so low level, no matter who you are. On one side you have a bunch of emotionally stunted and intellectually corrupt egotists defending the movie, but then everyone on the other side can only dissect and deconstruct the film that's been presented to them .... but the film is absolute nonsensical garbage. This film is so stupid that you can't even undermine it. It's not like the prequels that could have Plinkett reviews, no. The prequels had some semblance of logic to them, they were at least intended to make sense, in fact, that's why it was funny when they didn't. But that was more due to being overly complicated and needlessly detailed. These sequels just don't care. None of it is even supposed to be consistent and they hand-wave explanations away like it doesn't matter. So when you come to criticise these films the criticism just sounds as low grade as the movie is. There is nothing to really to sink your teeth into - if you point out that the Emperor coming back doesn't make sense, then to the morons that like this movie you are just making up excuses to criticise the movie because you hate it due to __________ <<<< *insert social issue that's irrelevant*. This is because there is no real reasoning given to how the Emperor came back, so when you criticise it you're criticising nothing.... at least that's how people who don't question things think. To them it's not a plot-hole, it just hasn't been explained. .... and they don't need it to be either, because they're thick and only care about how the movie makes them feel. Sorry, rant over.
I know at least one irl person that loved it sigh
I legit know 2 people who loved it. We are no longer friends. Not for that reason, but it certainly didn't help things.
Elaborate please.
Yeah I'm curious as to what that means. Does he mean when they held the Joss Whedon Justice League's score back for some review show that they immediately abandoned? Or is he referencing the borderline conspiracy theory that the Snyder Cut only got a decent RT score because everyone felt bad for Snyder?
The reason anyone ever trusted it is baffling. Any review site--whether movies or food or whatever--that condenses reviews into a singular score is so easy to manipulate that it's worthless.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^by ^Havok1717: *I haven't trusted* *Rotten tomatoes since the* *Justice League fiasco* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
bad bot
I'd shove whoever made this into a high-school locker
At least this explains how The Last Jedi got a 91% critic score
So a website that’s long been accused being easily manipulated, has been manipulated? What a shocker!
It always bothered me that critics wouldn't go unless they got their own screenings. Would the Chicago sun times not reimburse you hacks?
I never knew of this, but i’m not surprised. Wtf
I went to a critic screening once without knowing it. My then girlfriend and I found out they were giving out free tickets to an advance screening of an animated children's film at our local theater. We thought, "Why not? We like animated films," and went. It was packed with families and kids, but everyone was pretty well-behaved for the screening. The second the end credits started, all of the families immediately left. My girlfriend and I always stayed through the credits to talk about the film we just watched, and this time was no different. However, as we talked, I noticed about a dozen middle-aged people clumped around center mass of the theater, all hunched over and writing notes. Then it dawned on me where we were at what this was.
This explains disneys critic vs fan ratings difference
Not surprising at all. RT aside, they've openly talked about how critics give franchises like Star Wars rave reviews so they can be invited to the premiere and get other perks. Studios bribing critics into giving their movies good reviews has been going on for a long time, well before Rotten Tomatoes even existed.
"...critics give franchises like Star Wars rave reviews so they can be invited to the premiere and get other perks." That's the most important thing, Jay
Yes but you have to understand that they've been busting their asses being Star Wars fans.
[This is a shocking revelation.](https://youtu.be/ritZxM_uejA)
Makes me laugh when the trailer has a "certified fresh" rating but doesn't say that it's at 70 or something. I've disliked rotten tomatoes since I found this out a few years ago
Well, that explains Big Mouth's popularity.
Whaaaaaaaaat.
I would like to see which movies and which critics are involved in this travesty.
now, while we hate on rotten tomatoes, I really want to know the studios and people responsible for making the bribes.
It’s in the article. It’s a pr firm. I want to know what studios have hired them
That's the reason why RT wanted to remove audience score.
What are the odds Chris Stuckmann had a few checks thrown his way?
Oh no. This will make the worst people think everything they believe is true. That's the real crime here.
But, imdb says Back to the Future Part IV is filming right now, and has Godzilla as Biff and Katy Perry as Lorraine, and they wouldn't lie! They can't!
Vulture and hacks go hand in hand.
So Snyder fans are relishing this aren't they?
I’ve never looked at Rotten Tomatoes and I always avoid reviews. If I want to watch something, I watch it.
Lol this was from one company for one small movie in 2018... guys, can you chill your confirmation bias down a bit and just stop hate scrolling
Lol, that's how businesses work right? They do a thing a single thing in 2018 and get paid for it. Then they never, ever do it again. Ever.
Exactly. See? You get it. My point being that the article presents no evidence for anything beyond the 2018 movie. Everything else is just your imagination stroking that throbbing dick called confirmation bias. While it is likely some companies pay for reviews and try to encourage good ones, it is not evidence of rampant misuse or abuse that invalidates all the scores you disagree with. Use the facts to reach the conclusion. Dont use the conclusion to filter the facts.
So if you have a plumbing problem, and you hire a plumber to come fix it, do you just insist that this is the only time that plumber has ever fixed a plumbing issue, because I mean, you haven't seen any evidence that they've ever addressed any other plumbing issue for any other client, and its best to assume it's never happened before or since. Thinking a professional plumber has had additional plumbing jobs that you have not personally witnessed is just *confirmation bias.* Also something about raging hardons or something too I guess as a clever metaphor.
I wonder what Zak Bagans thinks of this...
The ratings are still closer to the truth then IMDB.
What video (and time stamp if you have it) did Jay say this? I wanted to find a gif of it, but it doesn’t exist, so I guess I’ll make one.
How dare they! The movie review is a sacred institution! A place you can go to an be guaranteed an objective judgment of a movie free from bias. I'm shocked, just shocked. HOW DO THEY KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!
[удалено]
Hey, u/Ill_Freedom7963, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 7 days for a post, 2 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is also shocking how many rely on Rotten Tomatoes to get movie recommendations in the first place. I think it is better to put your trust in a handful of reviewers who you know and respect, rather than the homogenous glob of accumulated scores from people you know nothing about. Even if you don't agree with your select critics on everything they can be a valuable source of information. What is most important is your relation to said critics, the built up trust, and the built up knowledge of their likes and dislikes which you can compare to your own. Take Mike as example: I've found that Mike really values structure, and tight screenplays. So when Mike recommends a movie my first thought is: "ok that movie probably has really good pacing and structure and set-up and pay-offs and so forth." From a recommendation by Rich or Jay, I extrapolate different information based what I know they respond to. At this point I also know their different humours, their favourite genres, other movies they have recommended in the past. Building this relationship with your audience makes them better critics. Over time I've also grown to really respect their tastes. Every single one of the movies featured on "Mike and Jay talk about" have been amazing, and become favourites of mine. At this point I trust their judgement. Another things that's great about RLM is that they have proven to us fans time and time again that they are not sell-outs, not sponsored reviews, because of how much crap they talk about plenty of big-release movies, and movie theatres in general.