I’m not sure what you mean by “verify”. I can’t see any reason to doubt that, whatever their merits, all the critic reviews are legitimate. I don’t know if they are weighted in some manner, so that the New York Times gets more weight than the Toowoomba Herald. It’d be reasonable, but I don’t know.
As for the audience reviews, reasonably enough anybody can put in a vote. Of course with Melania, it’s pretty obvious what is going on with the audience. But why trust the critics with one film and not the other, ditto the audience?
The percentages seem to stabilise pretty quickly. Melania is down to 5%, but I don’t imagine it’ll move much now.
Rotten Tomatoes runs through the reviews to see that they are authentic and really from the newspaper/magazine/website concerned.
I thought it was a recent thing – so that films of the contemporaneity of MELANIA and/or which are to be shown in a cinema/theatre setting would go through the verification process for their reviews.
The verification process involves the person writing a review actually buying a ticket.
If someone was watching Netflix it would not be verified in the same way [or any other streaming service – unless Prime – which Rotten Tomatoes or rather Internet Movie Database seem to be connected to].
“Overlap”: the reviewers for Melania to some degree are the same audience for Nanette – or perhaps they are not.
For instance: someone might be recommended Melania because they liked Nanette to some degree.
Or the recommendation might go to the *dis*like of Nanette.
With the weighting: Metacritic tends to do a lot of weighting; and Internet Movie Database a little bit.
I do not know about Letterboxd.
A lot of “hated” movies get that way because they have been review-bombed.
This happened, for instance, with BARBIE some two years ago.
It’s not easy to trust critics with films and TV product which defy expectations as opposed to reinforcing or reifying the expectations of their genre and context.
Yes – anyone can put in a vote who has an account and who has logged in to Rotten Tomatoes.
[those often if not always screen people out though the effort bar might be relatively low].
And a “rotten” movie can be below sixty percent.
So we had 18 reviews for MELANIA at the time of your screenshot.
It’s all very interesting. Certainly, the gaming of reviews, and the attempt to protect reviewing from gaming, is a big thing now. I don’t pay much attention to reviews or reviewers (except Pauline Kael), but would not know how to approach it if I did. I posted this simply because the critic-audience disparity was so pronounced for these two, and in opposite directions.
I don’t know that the gaming is likely to have had much of a role for either Nanette or Melania. For Melania, I would have thought it safe to assume that reviewers regarded it as terrible because it is terrible. And, the audience voted the thing up as a straight political tactic. With Nanette, the reviewers genuinely thought the thing was good, even though it was terrible, because that’s the kind of person who becomes a reviewer. The audience, less “discerning” and thus, in this case, more discerning, hated it because it was shit comedy.
But maybe gaming is a significant part of the story here?
Melania is funnier than Nanette.
Did Rotten Tomatoes verify the NANETTE ratings?
Also I would like to see the velocity of the ratings and the reviews and also their weighting.
And I wonder about the overlaps between NANETTE and MELANIA.
Thanks, Adelaide.
I’m not sure what you mean by “verify”. I can’t see any reason to doubt that, whatever their merits, all the critic reviews are legitimate. I don’t know if they are weighted in some manner, so that the New York Times gets more weight than the Toowoomba Herald. It’d be reasonable, but I don’t know.
As for the audience reviews, reasonably enough anybody can put in a vote. Of course with Melania, it’s pretty obvious what is going on with the audience. But why trust the critics with one film and not the other, ditto the audience?
The percentages seem to stabilise pretty quickly. Melania is down to 5%, but I don’t imagine it’ll move much now.
Not sure what you mean by “overlap”.
Marty –
What I mean by “verify”:
Rotten Tomatoes runs through the reviews to see that they are authentic and really from the newspaper/magazine/website concerned.
I thought it was a recent thing – so that films of the contemporaneity of MELANIA and/or which are to be shown in a cinema/theatre setting would go through the verification process for their reviews.
The verification process involves the person writing a review actually buying a ticket.
If someone was watching Netflix it would not be verified in the same way [or any other streaming service – unless Prime – which Rotten Tomatoes or rather Internet Movie Database seem to be connected to].
“Overlap”: the reviewers for Melania to some degree are the same audience for Nanette – or perhaps they are not.
For instance: someone might be recommended Melania because they liked Nanette to some degree.
Or the recommendation might go to the *dis*like of Nanette.
With the weighting: Metacritic tends to do a lot of weighting; and Internet Movie Database a little bit.
I do not know about Letterboxd.
A lot of “hated” movies get that way because they have been review-bombed.
This happened, for instance, with BARBIE some two years ago.
It’s not easy to trust critics with films and TV product which defy expectations as opposed to reinforcing or reifying the expectations of their genre and context.
Yes – anyone can put in a vote who has an account and who has logged in to Rotten Tomatoes.
[those often if not always screen people out though the effort bar might be relatively low].
And a “rotten” movie can be below sixty percent.
So we had 18 reviews for MELANIA at the time of your screenshot.
Thanks again, Adelaide.
It’s all very interesting. Certainly, the gaming of reviews, and the attempt to protect reviewing from gaming, is a big thing now. I don’t pay much attention to reviews or reviewers (except Pauline Kael), but would not know how to approach it if I did. I posted this simply because the critic-audience disparity was so pronounced for these two, and in opposite directions.
I don’t know that the gaming is likely to have had much of a role for either Nanette or Melania. For Melania, I would have thought it safe to assume that reviewers regarded it as terrible because it is terrible. And, the audience voted the thing up as a straight political tactic. With Nanette, the reviewers genuinely thought the thing was good, even though it was terrible, because that’s the kind of person who becomes a reviewer. The audience, less “discerning” and thus, in this case, more discerning, hated it because it was shit comedy.
But maybe gaming is a significant part of the story here?