| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| MetaCritc http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3336 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Michael. [ Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MetaCritc |
Why don't people use MetaCritic more than Rottentomatoes? I find it to be more useful, its bad grades are generally not as bad as RT, and its good grades are generally not as good as RTs. I guess MetaCritics rating is just the same as Rotten's "Grading Average", but i think that using the average grade a critic has given a movie is more useful and helpful than seeing how many critics said yay and how many said nay. |
|
| Author: | xiayun [ Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Metacritics score is pretty subjective. They assign one review a score of 100 and another one 88 just by their general impression of the review, even though no where in the article the reviewer gave a grade out of 100. I use both rottentomatoes and Metacritics to get a sense how well a film is liked by critics. |
|
| Author: | Tyler [ Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I actually think MetaCritic is better. It doesn't have the huge swathe of reviews RT does, and like Xiayun said it is subjective, but the ratings aren't black-and-white, positive-negative like it is on RT. |
|
| Author: | A. G. [ Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like metacritic but in general I find they have a noticeably smaller set of reviews. On RT they might have 130 reviews for a big hit and only like 20-30 on metacritic, even though they are a good 20-30 but still. |
|
| Author: | Michael. [ Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the "selective" side is a good thing because Metacritic only generally accepts mainstream reviews more often than RT does, on RT you get a swathe of unread filmcritics who are there only because they just met the requirems. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|