Based on the children’s book series created by Michael Bond in 1958, it is about a talking bear cub who makes his way from the jungle of Peru to London and is taken in by the Brown family.
#PADDINGTON 2 2018 MOVIE#
I'm also quite certain the MCU is loving the meters more than the scores.In 2014, the movie Paddington was released. I never plotted the % vs the scores on a plot graph, but I'm quite certain the correlation between them on those is pretty much zilch. In short, it's a purely marketing metric but a pointless critical one.Īnd it's also a rubbish one for comparing movies from very different periods, but that's not really the issue here.Īnd indeed, a good playground for this are the whole MCU DCEU movies, which make for a large enough pool of movies to see how the meter is biasing perceptions one way or another, simply because it decorrelates just enough the score with the meter for that. That's how you get dissimilar critical consensus ending up with similar %, but also similar consensuses yielding different %. Looking at the average scores makes it clear there's still a noticeable critical gap between Paddington 2 and Citizen Kane, a gap the % transformation erases. This is made to increase the gap between scores, both in terms of Fresh AND Rotten ones (we tend to forget it also artificially generate impressions for some movies looking very bad), and indeed because it generates artificial instant buzz about it, exactly like now with this one.
You can be a very mediocre movie but if you're not getting any negative review, you can hit a very high Fresh score. The issue isn't so much RT's model that the confusion pushing their % has generated. If you're using it to gauge the likelihood that any viewer watching will enjoy a given film, it has some value, though likely not for any of us here who already have a good idea of our own film tastes and which critics or friends or posters here have opinions that mostly match our own. In fifty years, it's likely the Lego Movie wouldn't fare as well, but RT isn't about legacy, it's about immediacy. And if RT extensively utilized period reviews like they do contemporary ones, Citizen Kane would be scored much lower on the scale, so be glad for the rose colored glasses of seeing the film's lasting impact.
Anyone who thinks that isn't looking at it right and that's on them. All 98% means is that 98% of critics pulled in gave the film a positive review, not that it's 98/100 on a quality scale. I also don't see the issue with RottenTomatoes. A **1/2 and below review is not a thumbs up based on his own scale that never changed for the entirety of his tenure, so I don't see the issue. They both constantly qualified their thumbs up/thumbs down distinctions with "Marginal thumbs (up/down)" and gave their reasons why on their show. Now, I happen to really like the film (along with the Paddington duo, it was one of the more pleasant surprises I've had with compulsory parental cinema visits), but the vast majority of those reviews offered a very fair assessment - in which case surely the score should have been nearer 75-80%? Which is still very very good, but not "unimpeachable perfection". I realised that Rotten Tomatoes was useless as a yardstick when The Lego Movie managed 100% for several weeks on the back of what were overwhelmingly reviews that stopped one short of the maximum star rating. Same goes for the extremely low RT%, many movies with those have mediocre averages (though usually negative ones, say 4 or 4.5 out of 10). If RT was to do so, much less of those movies would be Fresh, or they'd have to decrease from 75% (IIRC) to 6.5 or maybe even 6 out of 10 their Fresh threshold to keep that amount of certified movies. MC isn't using a transformed metric to consider the overall consensus but directly the average aggregated score. And indeed : Paddington 2 has an excellent 8.8 out of 10 average, but Citizen Kane has an insane 9.7 one. That's why RT% isn't enough as such to assess this kind of things but the average score aggregated by RT also needs to be used as a 2nd metric. Mediocre but consensually good movies can hit 100% while more demanding much better movies are likely to get a few rotten critics. The issue is that RT's metric is rubbish.
0 kommentar(er)
