zlacker

[parent] [thread] 20 comments
1. justin+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-09-07 16:23:23
Well that could explain The Rings of Power getting 83% on Rotten Tomatoes. I certainly can't think of any other explanation.
replies(7): >>Ekaros+L2 >>aleksi+B7 >>mitchd+Qi >>bee_ri+iH >>goto11+cV >>noname+ZY >>steven+cK1
2. Ekaros+L2[view] [source] 2023-09-07 16:32:52
>>justin+(OP)
I kinda understand the big movie titles. You want to get the early access and pre-screenings... So you cannot be too critical. But streaming shows? Or maybe they ban Amazon accounts...
3. aleksi+B7[view] [source] 2023-09-07 16:50:09
>>justin+(OP)
Rotten Tomatoes calculates critics score and audience score differently.

83% of critics gave it a positive review on a binary scale. Not an average rating of 83%.

Whereas 38% of audience gave it higher than 3.5 stars.

They aren't exactly comparable.

replies(1): >>didntc+J31
4. mitchd+Qi[view] [source] 2023-09-07 17:32:42
>>justin+(OP)
It seems to me like fans of LotR decided before it even came out that they didn't like it and have brigaded platforms with negative reviews. Maybe its not even a conscious effort. Lots of people dislike Amazon. And lots of the fans disliked the whole notion of turning this content into a show. I think that has colored the reaction to the show among the public while critics can usually take a more objective view
replies(9): >>Timon3+kr >>mcpack+BA >>readth+tE >>bena+hF >>mook+MJ >>justin+uO >>DrThun+JO >>svacha+YP >>redman+JU
◧◩
5. Timon3+kr[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:04:10
>>mitchd+Qi
I've seen a couple of critiques on it, and they all seem to be well-founded. How do you differentiate between "decided before it even came out that they didn't like it" and "have real grievances that support their view of the show"?
◧◩
6. mcpack+BA[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:42:43
>>mitchd+Qi
That sounds like the sort of cope the show creators would come up with to shield their egos. It's not the creators fault, it's the audiences' fault for hating new things or something... I disregard these narratives. Blaming the audience is pure cope.

I knew some LOTR superfans who were upset with the first three Peter Jackson movies only being about a thousand hours long and omitting various plots and characters.. but these people were a minority and most loved the new thing. And then when Jackson made the hobbit movies the reception was very different. The audience didn't change, his new movies just weren't up to the same standard they expected. And if the show is getting hate, I think it's fair to assume that's because the show isn't good either. Maybe it would get better reviews if it were original IP and didn't have Jackson's first three LOTR movies casting a shadow on it, but blaming the fans for this isn't right.

◧◩
7. readth+tE[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 18:57:27
>>mitchd+Qi
The most tolerant person I know said the show sucked.

But, it's doubtful I know anyone well enough to ask their opinion on a fantasy series who hasn't read the Silmarillion.

◧◩
8. bena+hF[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:00:20
>>mitchd+Qi
Rings of Power is ok. More flash than substance. And the dialog and writing is genuinely bad in places. In one episode you had two characters pull the "don't kill him, we may need him" trope on each other within a minute of each other over the same character. And nothing had really changed otherwise. They both wanted to kill the guy and both stopped the other from killing him because, I don't know, show.

It's a solid C+. Like Wheel of Time or Foundation. Not horrible. Not great either. Not the best take on the source material, but it's fine I guess.

I don't know, I feel like both the people who say it is great and the people who say it is horrible are both wrong. If you would ask me for an opinion, I would say it is a show that I watched.

9. bee_ri+iH[view] [source] 2023-09-07 19:10:42
>>justin+(OP)
What’s 83% on Rotten Tomatoes mean?

I mean, just to be silly, if we translate it to typical US grade scale… that’s like on the B to B- cusp which seems reasonable for the show.

replies(1): >>errant+KL
◧◩
10. mook+MJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:19:30
>>mitchd+Qi
Existing IP comes with existing baggage seems fair to me. If they did something original people wouldn't have those expectations, but in return also not the existing fame.
◧◩
11. errant+KL[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:27:35
>>bee_ri+iH
It means 83% of reviewers gave it a 'passing grade' which is defined as a 6/10+.

The formulation is a way to collapse precise scores into a binary classification of thumbsup or thumbsdown. So, another way to put it would be 83% of reviewers 'liked it'

Side note, I used to really like Rotten Tomatoes 10+ years ago but I noticed a drop in quality, likely Goodhart's law in action as some other commenters here have pointed out.

◧◩
12. justin+uO[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:39:55
>>mitchd+Qi
I have no strong attachment to LotR. The Rings of Power was just bad: the characters were shallow stereotypes, the acting was poor, the plot wasn't interesting.

I was surprised when watching the first episode, after seeing 83% from critics on RT. It did not match my expectations from prior RT scores. I remember one movie that had a 90-something rating from critics and 30-something rating from viewers, whose name I unfortunately can't remember. It was strange, like a C movie from an alternate universe with different tropes. I can imagine being a reviewer, bored to death of the endless rehashes I have to watch, enjoying it because at least it's different. Rings of Power, not so much.

replies(1): >>justin+FW
◧◩
13. DrThun+JO[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:41:10
>>mitchd+Qi
They did a really good job of shitting on their fan base before it came out. Every criticism with met with you're a bigot, or a racist, or a misogynist.

They decided to slap the name on a show that only represented LOTR in name. So, I think they fairly get to receive the backlash of an obvious money grab.

◧◩
14. svacha+YP[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 19:47:19
>>mitchd+Qi
I looked for their critic reviews and they only list one. That one saw two episodes and said it's off to "a promising start", mostly talking about the production values which I don't think anyone will argue against. I think I might have given it a positive rating after a couple episodes too. The plot soon veers into too many nonsensical moments to ignore though, like an elf swimming across an ocean.
◧◩
15. redman+JU[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 20:09:02
>>mitchd+Qi
Subjectively, I liked it. Maybe I'm just simple though.
16. goto11+cV[view] [source] 2023-09-07 20:11:10
>>justin+(OP)
RT ratings are weird because they don't reflect how much critics liked a movie, only whether they rated it "positive" or "negative". The movie with the highest rating ever is Paddington 2 - not because any reviewers thought it was the best movie ever, but because nobody hated it. It ranks higher than Citizen Kane, despite many reviewers literally calling that the best movie ever - but at least one reviewer didn't like it. So RT ratings favors inoffensive and uncontroversial movies appealing to the largest possible demographics.

And shows are often reviewed after only a few episodes. Typically two to four episodes are released to reviewers before the premiere, and this is what the review is based on.

So a high rating means most reviewers reacted positively to the first few episodes.

replies(1): >>namdna+992
◧◩◪
17. justin+FW[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 20:20:34
>>justin+uO
On the very off chance that anyone knows the name of this strange movie, here are my recollections of it: they come out when you sleep, beats of 4, talking to strangers, robotic face visors, going with the flow vs. machines.
18. noname+ZY[view] [source] 2023-09-07 20:31:45
>>justin+(OP)
I don't think people are buying television show ratings. Usually, when a TV show is way off the rating you'd expect, it's because it got really bad at the end of the season and critics only screen the first few episodes. For whatever reason, Rings of Power also had serious podcast energy behind it, like nerds with their own shows really wanted it to be good just to be worth talking about. This is related to the complaint from the article about RT starting to count small self-published critics. A lot of them are not really "critics" in the normal sense. They're extremely enthusiastic superfans that cover some subset of a particular genre and like virtually everything that gets made in that genre.

I have seen Rotten Tomatoes apparently just glitch out scores, too. Wheel of Time season one has 94 reviews with 64 positive, which is 68% positive, yet the tomatometer says 81%. Sometimes that is because of the episode-by-episode reviews, which are overwhelmingly from recap blogs that only cover what they like, but even in this case, that doesn't make up the difference.

◧◩
19. didntc+J31[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-07 20:55:13
>>aleksi+B7
And this is why I'm still salty about Youtube switching from star ratings to binary like/dislike (and everyone else then following the leader), over 10 years ago
20. steven+cK1[view] [source] 2023-09-08 01:18:42
>>justin+(OP)
They only let reviewers see the first two episodes. I'm not saying the first two episodes were great, just not enough. Some other shows let reviewers see half a season or more, one of the trade offs is that you as new viewer have to be very careful or only go to sites that respect the viewer and do not spoil stuff unnecessarily.
◧◩
21. namdna+992[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-09-08 05:11:48
>>goto11+cV
To be fair, Paddington 2 was pretty amazing :)
[go to top]