• TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And another site is enveloped by shitifacation.

    Edit: ENshittifacation. Apparently, shitifacation is where an airline loses all of your luggage, lol

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Remember IMDB in the early 00s? It was all you needed from what it set out to be. I recently went back to grab some lists for automation and holy shit it’s a wasteland of bullshit. I can’t imagine getting lost in it for hours learning about movies and deciding what I wanted to watch next if it was what it has become

      • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really loved IMDb back in the day. While the user ratings weren’t perfect, there used to be a formula you could use to figure out the worthiness of a movie to watch. Now (10 years or so), IMDb user ratings are inundated with conservatives and older generations who tend to rate based on their fragile feelings rather than on how watchable a movie is.

        • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.rip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          conservatives and older generations who tend to rate based on their fragile feelings

          “Woke” doesn’t mean what you think it means, JesusLittleKidLover88, and it certainly doesn’t apply to Crank 2.

        • AZERTY@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget the anime weirdos voting against incredibly popular shows so their anime can be the best one. Once Breaking Bad was knocked out of the top spots by Attack on Titan and Fullmetal Alchemist weebs I stopped caring about the ratings.

          • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Tell me you haven’t seen either Attack on Titan or Fullmetal Alchemist without telling me you haven’t seen either fucking masterpiece.

            • AZERTY@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure AoT is good and FMA might be good (but bored me tbh), but actively voting against other shows makes the fandoms look ass. Ozymandias was the best episode from any show and it shows you’ve never watched Breaking Bad.

              • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Personal opinion re: “best episode from any show”. Very bold assumptions re: my familiarity with Breaking Bad

      • Someonedifferent@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        I miss the IMDb message boards so much. It was so neat to be able to ask a question about a movie or read a post someone made three years before explaining the ending.

    • nevernevermore@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      shitifacation

      The term is enshittification, penned by Cory Doctorow

      Shitifacation was my last international holiday where the airline lost my luggage

      • downpunxx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        not from the start, it wasn’t no. after they sold out, it became a corrupted willing tool of the studios. i made the move to metacritic 10 years ago.

        • smort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Aren’t they based on the same reviews?

          What’s to stop a PR firm from paying reviewers on Metacritic for good reviews?

          • downpunxx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            oh they’re there too, it’s just the formatting, where “professional critics” are on the left side of the page, and users reviews are on the right as opposed to be hidden on an entire different page, it gives a more accurate view, in my personal opinion, or what users think. now, it gets brigades by the incels just like everywhere else, and there’s plenty of one review accounts which are seeded by the pr companies, but the site itself, I’ve never felt is actively accepting and designing their critic roster, review, splash pages, and recommendation processes like Rotten Tomatoes has since it sold out

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    IGN making this article is wild. I’m not accusing them of accepting literal money but come on lmao.

  • HellAwaits@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    The MCU having as many good scores as it does is the biggest giveaway that RT is influenced by money or connections. Like there’s no way in hell the MCU has THAT many good movies when most of them are boring AF.

    • Hiccup@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. Up until recently, most of the MCU was good to great. I’m not exactly sure where the shift happened, but a lot of the more recent ones have been trash. I’m talking about the secret invasions and black widows, where they’ve completely lost the script.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        After End Game was that shift. It felt like they told all there was to tell, and the stakes were gone. It peaked.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It already started slightly before Endgame - both Ant-Man and the Wasp, as well as Captain Marvel, weren’t great. After Endgame though it definitely fell off completely.

          Kinda like season 7 and 8 of Game of Thrones. During season 7 we still had some hope left…

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The peak is at whatever point you realized you had seen the same movie before.

      • ArghZombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is why RT scores were usually good. Because a RT percentage is just the percentage of critics that thought the film was good or better.

        Too many people treat RT scores as a single “this is a film that has a quality rating of 90%” whereas it’s “90% of critics think it’s not shit”.

        Really, this is RTs fault for picking a metric so often used in a different way.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        However entertaining and fun the MCU has been at times, I’d say they’ve clearly gotten away with a lot when it comes to movie making. Like there are plenty of films in that franchise/cinematic-universe that just wouldn’t have cut it and would have died on the scrap heap as stand alone films. But the MCU glow kept them alive and folded them into the giant stream of MCU content.

        Beyond that, I’d bet that the post-endgame stuff has been done objectively badly … like you could break it down into a number of poor movie/franchise making choices (like you can’t simply build a story out of “a multiverse”, it isn’t a character or plot idea, you need more). Love and Thunder was an awful film. Can anyone tell which characters are part of the story and which are being written out any more? Etc etc.

        It’s all still popular though. Beyond that, your argument is a strawman … the MCU can be a give away (because, IMO, it has clearly made a number of missteps) without the question of popularity v quality being an issue.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The best part - Rotten Tomatoes can be manipulated by paying several people $50. Five Hamiltons.

    I know reviewing movies doesn’t pay well, but I didn’t know it was that bad.

    • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How many $50 reviewers did they have to buy though?

      Looking at Ophelia… huh, it’s not on Rotten Tomatoes anymore…

      Well, looking at ANOTHER crappy Daisy Ridley movie, Chaos Walking:

      https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chaos_walking

      21% rating on 154 reviews.

      So 32 positive reviews and 122 negative reviews.

      To hit 60% they would need to add 151 positive reviews. 183/305 total reviews.

      At $50 a pop, those 151 positive reviews would run $7,550. Chump change.

    • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you really want to get depressed research how much representatives and senators have been bought off with in the recent past.

  • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Rotten tomatoes had nothing to do with this. They don’t even employ critics. They aggregate them and the PR firm was directly contacting reviewers.

    • downpunxx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you think RT hasn’t been in active incentive based collusion with studios and critic for years, you’re the type of purposefully ignorant that advertisers make their bread and butter off of. RT was been corrupt since they sold out, and that was a very very very long time ago now.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Didn’t they actively and very publicly suppresse reviews on a few movies because they called it brigading? I think one was girl Ghostbusters?

        • Hiccup@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, the last jedi. Both are terrible movies. I had the same experience when watching both and thought I must be tripping balls and hallucinating at how bad both films were.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have been playing fast and loose with who qualifies as a professional reviewer allowing for increased manipulation.

  • Four_lights77@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The user reviews are where it’s at on rotten tomatoes. The critic reviews have been kinda suspect for a while.

    • neonspool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      the critic reviews have always been complete dogshit. too many movies get 100% or 0% on rotten tomatoes.

      if i’m not mistaken IMDB ratings are only user based, and in my opinion, i almost never disagree with IMDB ratings and i think it’s because it has a vastly larger voting group to get a more accurate viewer consensus even if a small number of critics give a 0/10 or 10/10

  • Endorkend@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who would’ve thought that this was happening on a site with often massive disparities between Critic and Public reviews, almost always related to content with big marketing budgets.

  • zcd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah no shit, RT end IMDb have been review shills for years, completely worthless

      • artsii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Check out Letterboxd. But the star rating system is used a bit differently than you might be used to, like an average move will get a 3/5 stars, and that’s not a “bad” score. Just took me a bit getting used to

      • trachemys@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Forget aggregators. Find a couple critics you usually agree with. People have different tastes.

      • dlpkl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that every site uses the same critics to aggregate scores from. That being said I like using metacritic since you can view it by audience rating, and excluding the anti-woke, incel brigades on some media it usually aligns pretty well with what score I’d personally give a movie.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always just assumed that the badly rated ones might be legit but that the higher ones may have had a few bought off critics (because capitalism) here and there, but now I know I’m right.

  • Naatan@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Movie / TV reviews are such a shit show. I rarely find myself agreeing with the averaged out rating.

    These days I’ll just make sure the rating is above say 30 and beyond that I’ll rely on trailers and reading actual reviews. But finding new movies and tv shows to watch is quite a chore as a result.

    I hope someday soon AI can be employed to give you real personalized recommendations that don’t suck. But realistically it’ll just be more shitty algorithms meant to serve the interests of the highest bidder.

    • someguy3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why I liked rotten tomatoes, it separates the critics scores from the audience scores.

      • Naatan@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I definitely assign more value to the audience reviews. Critics are mostly useless, unless you identify ones that align with your personal taste.

        • someguy3@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It can tell you if it’s an artsy movie. The disparity between them is interesting.

          • Naatan@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year 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.

        • discodoubloon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.