zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
To me, RT turning to shit is just Goodhart's Law in action - "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

Originally, RT was more or less a 'good faith' measurement of the general sentiment\quality of a film, but it is so easily manipulated it was inevitable that it would become meaningless.

>>smiley+hX2
Which became more and more obvious with the plethora of examples today of disconnected Audience and Critic scores.

While they definitely measure on different metrics, the goal of a critic is supposed to be to measure films worth watching (even if only for a subset of the total audience). When 95% of critics tell you to see a movie that only 10% of people enjoy, something's broken.

>>deaddo+263
I'm not sure if you have a particular film in mind, but it's not uncommon for critically acclaimed films to be box office bombs. If you're talking about non-contemporary films, it's also worth considering that different films have become cult classics or fallen out of favor. Plus, they way RT calculates each score is different. There's lots of reasons why the percentage of critics who give a movie a "thumbs up" might be different from the viewers' average score on a scale of 1-100.

>>dfxm12+6b3
I specifically said they use different metrics. The different score isn't the problem, it's the size of the schism.

40 million people not paid to review movies seem to hate this movie; but the 100 people who love it are both A) paid to watch it and B) seem to entirely fit the vast minority of viewers who like it.