▲ 509 ▼ IGN | Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire After PR Firm's Scheme to Pay Critics for Positive Reviews Uncovered (www.ign.com) submitted 3 years ago by TheSparrowPrince@lemmy.world to c/moviesandtv@lemmy.film 74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Naatan@lemmy.one -2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Yeah I definitely assign more value to the audience reviews. Critics are mostly useless, unless you identify ones that align with your personal taste. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It can tell you if it's an artsy movie. The disparity between them is interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Naatan@lemmy.one 0 points 3 years ago I’ve also noticed the opposite effect. Where if a movie is leaning into being plain and easy to watch you’ll have critics rating it down cause they wanted it to do some artsy stuff. Definitely feels like critics are more on the artsy side of the scale, which is fine but doesn’t always align with what I’m looking for. permalink fedilink source parent [–] discodoubloon@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* Honestly if they are close enough to what you like it can be manageable. A critic that knows enough about themselves to understand why people like things they don’t they can be very worthwhile. Some critics notably just don’t like action movies. An action movie B for them is probably a solid A for most. Also for as much hate as it gets, places like Pitchfork where critics actually speak their mind are important. I’m thinking the world just needs more one-off prolific critics that really give you how they feel about things. It’s funny that IGN is talking here, as they are very well known for being paid off and using the 70-100 rating scale so they don’t piss anyone off. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) It can tell you if it's an artsy movie. The disparity between them is interesting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Naatan@lemmy.one 0 points 3 years ago I’ve also noticed the opposite effect. Where if a movie is leaning into being plain and easy to watch you’ll have critics rating it down cause they wanted it to do some artsy stuff. Definitely feels like critics are more on the artsy side of the scale, which is fine but doesn’t always align with what I’m looking for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Naatan@lemmy.one 0 points 3 years ago I’ve also noticed the opposite effect. Where if a movie is leaning into being plain and easy to watch you’ll have critics rating it down cause they wanted it to do some artsy stuff. Definitely feels like critics are more on the artsy side of the scale, which is fine but doesn’t always align with what I’m looking for. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] discodoubloon@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago* Honestly if they are close enough to what you like it can be manageable. A critic that knows enough about themselves to understand why people like things they don’t they can be very worthwhile. Some critics notably just don’t like action movies. An action movie B for them is probably a solid A for most. Also for as much hate as it gets, places like Pitchfork where critics actually speak their mind are important. I’m thinking the world just needs more one-off prolific critics that really give you how they feel about things. It’s funny that IGN is talking here, as they are very well known for being paid off and using the 70-100 rating scale so they don’t piss anyone off. permalink fedilink source parent