Fans vs. Critics discrepancies in ratings (Doctor Who s11, Ghostbusters, Punisher season 1, etc.)

[Eusung]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/doctor_who/s11/

Holy crap! I don't watch Doctor Who but 22% user rating vs 94% critics score with only 1 negative review? Something fishy there.

Then there's Ghostbusters 2016. I didn't watch that just because it looked so lame. But it has an awful user score and a decent critics score.

Then there's Punisher season 1 which is universally loved by viewers (93% user rating) but has a mediocre 66% rating by the critics.

Critics used to have higher standards. Before I could see anything with over 90% and think "Wow, that must be really good!"....now I see an over 90% and go "Hmmm...might be good"

 

[Ikuza]

Critics view the media thru a different lens than the public. Sometimes it's more objective, sometimes it is not.

We've had people on here give a movie a 9 after writing paragraphs and paragraphs about why they hated the movie.

Or critics give a movie a 4 because of one little scene that rubbed them the wrong way or they believe was poorly lifted from another film.

Besides, I thought everyone decided to stop looking at reviews after The Last Jedi.

 

[Starck]

Two other good examples are Venom and The Last Jedi. Venom is like 88% for viewers and 28% for critics. TLJ is nearly the opposite.

 

[moreorless87]

You've got two different things going on here I'd say, firstly politics were its possible a film with a certain message will get positive reviews from a more liberial media but a lot of negative reaction from a more conservative public. Secondly(and perhaps more importantly) though I do think the potential for studio influence is significant with Disney especially I think having developed significant pull, I don't think that's direct corruption most of the time but rather a situation akin to the MMA media and the UFC were they need to keep on Disney's good side for access, advertising spending, etc. I mean we've had strong reports in the UK for example that negative stories about HSBC were kept out of the telegraph due to the amount of money they brought in advertising, film criticism by comparison would likely be much easier.

Its a good situation for the critics as well I'd say, in the past critics who raved about every major release tended to be looked down on as shills but if you rave about Disney and throw anything else under a bus then you can look rather more credible. The politics as well whilst an issue can also become a shield, when critics started to be called on The Last Jedi for example politics were instantly used as an excuse, the negative reaction was soley down to them.

 

[mb23100]

Two other good examples are Venom and The Last Jedi. Venom is like 88% for viewers and 28% for critics. TLJ is nearly the opposite.

Anyone who gave TLJ a positive review needs to be drawn and quartered

 

[Starck]

Anyone who gave TLJ a positive review needs to be drawn and quartered

I didn't get past the opening scene where they had one fighter pilot distract the entire enemy fleet while those retarded slow bombers ambled in. What an insult to viewers. Can't suspend that much disbelief.

 

[Eusung]

I didn't get past the opening scene where they had one fighter pilot distract the entire enemy fleet while those retarded slow bombers ambled in. What an insult to viewers. Can't suspend that much disbelief.

You must be the one who said: "True story, once I saw that those bombers I turned the movie off because I've never seen something so dumb". LOL.

Here's another true story: There was a news article in China where they talk about how the movie had like a 90% drop on its 2nd weekend and was pulled from theaters: Many Chinese viewers saw the film as "insulting to the audience" in that they couldn't buy how such incompetent people could be in charge of military forces.

You made the right call. The only good thing about TLJ is watching people on youtube rip it to shreds.

Anyone who gave TLJ a positive review needs to be drawn and quartered

Yes!!!

You've got two different things going on here I'd say, firstly politics were its possible a film with a certain message will get positive reviews from a more liberial media but a lot of negative reaction from a more conservative public. Secondly(and perhaps more importantly) though I do think the potential for studio influence is significant with Disney especially I think having developed significant pull, I don't think that's direct corruption most of the time but rather a situation akin to the MMA media and the UFC were they need to keep on Disney's good side for access, advertising spending, etc. I mean we've had strong reports in the UK for example that negative stories about HSBC were kept out of the telegraph due to the amount of money they brought in advertising, film criticism by comparison would likely be much easier.

Its a good situation for the critics as well I'd say, in the past critics who raved about every major release tended to be looked down on as shills but if you rave about Disney and throw anything else under a bus then you can look rather more credible. The politics as well whilst an issue can also become a shield, when critics started to be called on The Last Jedi for example politics were instantly used as an excuse, the negative reaction was soley down to them.

A filmmaker, forget his name, recently said in some podcast that he personally knows so many journalists or critics who gave TLJ a positive review despite not liking it to "maintain their access". He also said almost everyone in Hollywood (directors, writers, actors, etc) secretly hate the film.

Besides, I thought everyone decided to stop looking at reviews after The Last Jedi.

I certainly lost faith in professional critics.

 

[Fluffernutter]

"you are on a list"

 

[Ares Black]

The Dr. Who shitty user rating is the result of angry Incel nerds raging about a female doctor.

 

[Rygu]

Critics tend to have a political agenda these days with certain movies/TV shows.

The new Ghostbusters was a pile of garbage but no critic dared to go against the feminist agenda so they generally gave it good ratings. Those who were allowed to rate it freely without jeopardizing their employment gave it the 2 that it deserved.

 

[Rygu]

The Dr. Who shitty user rating is the result of angry Incel nerds raging about a female doctor.

Yes everyone who doesn't agree with you or the "replace men with woman in a bunch of movie remakes" is an incel. It's the lack of originality taking something that was already done and replacing the male with a female because muh gurl power that is the issue. I promise you if Dr. Who was new and had never been done before and they had a female doctor it would not have gotten such poor reviews.

Did Wonder Woman get poor user ratings because it starred a female? No, because it's an original character and was a good movie without some stupid liberal agenda.

 

[Fluffernutter]

I thought it was well known that if movie critics give a bad review from a top of the line studio, they no longer get invited to the cool kids parties.

Didn't Disney recently remove a critic from a newspaper from it's premiere showings because they wrote a critical article about the parking or construction at the Disneyland theme park?

Plus, as the Pitch Meeting video above hinted at, some reviewers are simply afraid of the reaction people will have if you write a bad review on a movie they deem important.

I remember there was an Irish (or was he Australian) guy that wrote a "negative review" about Black Panther. He (and his review) became newsworthy because of this. I also am not sure how 3/5 is really a "bad review".


Bring back the days of David Manning!

 

[mike_2613]

My opinion is critics are paid to review movies. Fans watch movies for entertainment. Does a reviewer have the ability to say. Nahh I don't want to review this. It's.not my thing, they probably sick it up and review it anyways.

 

[Ares Black]

Yes everyone who doesn't agree with you is an incel. It's the lack of originality taking something that was already done and replacing the male with a female because muh gurl power that is the issue. I promise you if Dr. Who was new and had never been done before and they had a female doctor it would not have gotten such poor reviews.

Did Wonder Woman get poor user ratings because it starred a female? No, because it's an original character and was a good movie without some stupid liberal agenda.

No what I am saying is that a relatively small group of disgruntled people who hate stuff like making a traditionally male character female actively campaigned to fuck with the ratings.

The female Doctor has been well received by the vast majority of fans and critics. Ratings are as good or better than ever. The "fan rating" on Rotten Tomatoes is one way for idiots to show their disapproval. I bet many of them don't even watch Dr. Who.

 

[Eusung]

I thought it was well known that if movie critics give a bad review from a top of the line studio, they no longer get invited to the cool kids parties.

Didn't Disney recently remove a critic from a newspaper from it's premiere showings because they wrote a critical article about the parking or construction at the Disneyland theme park?

Plus, as the Pitch Meeting video above hinted at, some reviewers are simply afraid of the reaction people will have if you write a bad review on a movie they deem important.

I remember there was an Irish (or was he Australian) guy that wrote a "negative review" about Black Panther. He (and his review) became newsworthy because of this. I also am not sure how 3/5 is really a "bad review".


Bring back the days of David Manning!

Yes, it was the LA Times that wrote a negative article about Disneyland.

And as much as I really like Black Panther, I must admit I kind of predicted very few critics would give it a negative review for fear of being accused of racism. And it ended up with 97% on RT.

Black Panther is in my top 6 MCU movies.

1. Cap: The Winter Soldier / Infinity war (tie)
3. Iron Man / Cap: Civil War (tie)
5. Guardians of the Galaxy
6. Black Panther

 

[Plissken]

Some critics have socio-political agendas that they love to see fulfilled, some are essentially paid or wooed by the studios/filmmakers, some just like things different than the general public. The last option unfortunately is a rarer sight these days in these discrepancies.

 

[TheLinguist]

The pro critics are all paid shills

Anyone who claims they enjoyed ghostbusters 2016 is a crook

 

[Kardashians]

No what I am saying is that a relatively small group of disgruntled people who hate stuff like making a traditionally male character female actively campaigned to fuck with the ratings.

The female Doctor has been well received by the vast majority of fans and critics. Ratings are as good or better than ever. The "fan rating" on Rotten Tomatoes is one way for idiots to show their disapproval. I bet many of them don't even watch Dr. Who.

With doctor who I think it’s fine. Yes a male has always played the character, but that’s kinda weird when it’s written that he can regenerate as any person. There’s gotta be a time where he comes back as something other than a white guy.

I’ll allow it.

Tho Matt Smith was my favourite. I miss him. He felt so quirky lol.

 

[Kardashians]

No what I am saying is that a relatively small group of disgruntled people who hate stuff like making a traditionally male character female actively campaigned to fuck with the ratings.

The female Doctor has been well received by the vast majority of fans and critics. Ratings are as good or better than ever. The "fan rating" on Rotten Tomatoes is one way for idiots to show their disapproval. I bet many of them don't even watch Dr. Who.

Sorry I quoted the wrong post LOL

 

[Starck]

Its hard for comic book movies nowadays to make less than 150 million so I would consider 200 million kind of low for Venom. It probably would have made more money if it was more critcally acclaimed.

I think it did pretty good overall after getting absolutely demolished by critics. Especially internationally, where American critics' reviews won't hold sway.