zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
Rotten tomatoes is actually very useful if you know the magic formula:

* If tomatometer & audience score are within 5% of each other, you can trust the ratings to give you a decent indiciation of movie quality.

* If tomatometer is more than 15%+ higher than audience score, it means it's an artsy fartsy movie that critics like and movies don't.

* If audience score is 15%+ higher than tomatometer, it's a fun movie even if it's not oscar worthy. (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/old_school is a perfect example)

>>ernest+d93
Low audience vs critic reviews can also indicate review bombing. This often happens on films or TV shows targeted by rightwing media for being too “woke”.

The show that always sticks in my mind as an example is HBO’s Watchmen, which has 96% with critics and 56% with the audience.

>>broken+pl3
I think anti-woke review bombing is vastly overestimated. I think the opposite is more common honestly news articles get written about something being "review bombed" and then you get a much larger sea of 5 stars artificially inflating the score.

The Watchmen TV show is a horrible example as it's literally fan-fiction with little to no real connection to the graphic novel. So that fact alone pissed a lot of people off.

It completely ignored the only actual "squeal" (Doomsday Clock) to create the story they wanted to tell while borrow the popularity of the name to get attention.

Even ignoring all that did you actually even watch it? 96% is complete bullshit. 96% means some of the best TV ever made. I don't think it's a 56% but the 56% is way closer to reality then the 96%.

>>tick_t+Aq3
Yup, I watched it and it was great. And the fact that the show was review bombed by rightwing trolls was well documented by media coverage at the time, whether you believe that or not.

You seem not to understand the Rotten Tomatoes score though. 96% just means that 96% of critics gave it a positive review. That says nothing about how positive the review was.

Idk how many of them would describe it as one of the best shows ever, though that’d be an interesting score as well.

>>broken+sx3
I was a huge fan of the graphic novel, but that show disgusted me from the moment I saw how they had demonized Rorschach. I'd tend to agree with OP that many fans of the graphic novel were turned off by the TV nonsense. 'Right-wing trolls' kinda seems like crying wolf - it's an easy scapegoat, but basically impossible to prove.

>>nverno+4D3
The show didn’t demonize Rorschach. The white supremacists in the show twisted his ideology to legitimize their beliefs and provide a powerful symbol for their cause.

You might disagree, but that’s just an example of what makes the show so good. It’s shocking and subtle and up for interpretation. It makes you think, regardless of whether you agree.

>>broken+7H3
I can see how that could be interesting, but I didn't enjoy it cause I saw it as a perversion of an awesome character. That's a problem writers face when they reinterpret beloved series/stories. I've hated nearly all the recent TV/movie adaptations that were based on written series I love - foundation, eye of the world, the lotr show, watchmen, come to mind. One exception was the Dune movie, which I thought was rad, even though it didn't entirely align with the way I imagined it, their interpretation was great.

With these types of shows, the TV writing will almost certainly be orders of magnitude worse since the originals were written by great authors with great imaginations. So, the more the TV writers try to innovate, the more glaring it's likely to be to fans of the originals. Plus, the innovation typically involves TV writers just ham-fistedly hacking in the drama de jour. I just can't treat the TV versions as independent from the source material when I try to watch them.