zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Up a level: any notion of a "score" for a movie is inherently BS. The box office totals are there, if you want a score.

Pick one or two critics you know & respect, read them, and decide for yourself if you might like that film.

>>Albert+ZO2
Under this methodology, the best film in history was Avatar.

>>single+8R2
I didn't even name any critics, so how would you derive that?

>>Albert+aV2
He's responding to "The box office totals are there, if you want a score."

>>mlyle+693
Misunderstanding it, though. I didn't say you should go by them.

>>Albert+y93
If you say it's a possible figure of merit, don't be expected when people point out problems in that figure of merit or say why it's even less suited for purpose than RT and MC.

>>mlyle+bd3
Just goes to show there's nothing you can possibly say that someone won't either misunderstand, or be offended by, or both.

Read the whole message before jumping on it. The last paragraph, which most people would take to be the conclusion, was:

Pick one or two critics you know & respect, read them, and decide for yourself if you might like that film.

>>Albert+Wr3
I just don't understand what your intended point is. You're mentioning that there's an unrelated attribute about movies, but "objective"... Then you're surprised when people quibble with said attribute's utility.

RT & MC, although flawed, are superior metrics for watchability of a movie to box office totals. The existence of another, less useful metric (which isn't free from biases or opportunities for manipulation) has no probative value on whether one should use RT.

And, then, you mock others and break the site guidelines in the cousin thread.