By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
crissindahouse on 16 April 2016
Edit Thread
Lawlight said:
JWeinCom said:

Actually there is a pretty big disconnect...

Avengers had a rotten tomatoes score of 92%.  The user score was 91%.  Clearly one percent of the critics were bribed.

Winter Soldier had an 89% rotten tomatoes score.  User score is 92%.  The critics must have been paid to lower the score to avoid suspicion...

Age of Ultron had a 75% score on rotten tomatoes, and an 84% user score.

Iron man 3 is 75% to 75%.

Thor is another epic display of clear bribery.  77% score from critics but a mere 76% from users.

Guardians of the Galaxy:91%(critics)  to 92%.(audience)

Thor Dark World 67% to 79%. (a)

The First Avenger was 79% to 75%(a).  The bias is real!

Incredible Hulk 67% to 71%(a)

 

When we look at Metacritic, it's even worse.

Winter Soldier 70% Critics and 84% audience(a)

Avengers 69%  79% (a)

Ant Man 64% 8.0 (a)

Guardians of the Galaxy (76%) c 86% (a)

 

Clearly Disney is engaged in a massive conspiracy to inflate their ratings.

 

 

 

Some people will insist that the world is wrong to make themselves right.

Thank you for proving my point - several cases of reviewers' RT being higher than the audience who should be much more forgiving.

And the very fact that 75% of reviewers recommended Iron Man 3 says it. Critics should be much more critical and less forgiving than the general audience. But that's not the case here.

Which is the case for some movies of every movie studio?  Just look up at Warner, you will find "several cases of reviewers' RT being higher than the audience who should be much more forgiving"

And Iron Man 3 with 75% doesn't say anything, just that critics liked it more than you did on average. But since you can't believe it it has to be rigged, right? In no way could critics simply say "well, not a really great movie but still worth to watch it"