zlacker

For me, it was after they invited a new batch of reviewers who ended up bumping Citizen Kane from RT's "best movie all time" down a bunch of slots to such an extent that it was outranked by Paddington 2

I still use the ratings (because they're built into Plex) but mostly as a novelty, and sometimes as a puzzlement. Increasingly, you see scores like 5% tomato, 95% audience (or vice versa!) that I'm sure mean _something_ but rarely anything to me.

>>bmelto+(OP)
Paddington 2 is legitimately great though.

>>bmelto+(OP)
I think this is mostly just a misunderstanding of what the RT score means. The scoring falls apart at the edges because its a measure of recommendability*, not a precision measure of quality.

Exceptionally good movies (which Paddington 2 is btw) will trend heavily toward 100% and any drop from 100% are from outlier reviewers. Citizen Kane has 1/131 negative reviews and Paddington 2 has 2/253 negative reviews.

If you want a rating of quality you can always just click on the score and see that paddington 2 has an 8.7 aggregate compared to Citizen Kane's 9.9.

* what percent of viewers will not regret watching the movie. That makes this a combination metric of quality and variance. A low variance 7/10 will beat a high variance 8/10 in RT score

>>bmelto+(OP)
"Paddington 2" is one of the best movies ever made, it is up there with the "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari".

>>bmelto+(OP)
Both those movies have excellent scores. Does their relative ranking really matter?