How do we explain the disconnect in rotten tomatoes scores for RoP?

[Ugluk]

So, 462 Rotten Tomatoes critics rate RoP at 85%, while 34742 members of the wider audience averaged 39%. What explains this disconnect? What criteria have critics used (or not used) that lead to such a disparate result? I did quickly scan the first 1000 audience comments and there were none of the supposed racist comments that have been complained about.

 

[Ent]

none of the supposed racist comments that have been complained about.

I believe the 'racist comments' complaints come from a very small, isolated group with loud voices.
And I believe that same small group goes everywhere they can get to, braying the same things.
Like anything 'sensational' it is 'touted and heralded' by supposed "talking heads" and becomes much bigger than it really is.
And frankly, it was to be expected, in these times in which we live.

Rotten Tomatoes critics rate RoP at 85%

I do not know the situation with the 'Rotten Tomatoes'. Are they a paid bunch? If so they may be beholden to 'the source of money'. Are they same repetitive group of folk hoping to keep their position as a 'rotten tomatoe' critic? then there's motivation and leverage from that.

Additionally, they may well be told what criteria they must use... have a specific routine set of (written) things they seek out to objectivize in a thing, or are just more skilled at isolating parts from a whole then bringing the parts together for evaluation. That is, a 'developed skillset' brought to bear on the situation.

34742 members of the wider audience averaged 39%

The 'wider audience' is going to use no set of criteria other than their own personal preferences and feelings.

The history of 'polls' and 'ratings' given in any situation clearly shows that the people who tend to comment are going to be largely those who are DISSATISFIED, rather than those who are satisfied.

The 2nd largest, trailing by far, are the Highly Satisfied.

Then there's the rest. The greatest bunch, always. They normally say nothing. And in this case, given that (for the most part) anyone 'in favor of' or 'neutral' about RoP tends to be pretty well ostracized, they will be even quieter than their normal dead silence.

Wrapping that into RoP, I can hardly imagine anyone being "Highly Satisfied". I can imagine the many middle-of-the-roaders, not showing up. But the naysayers and negative nellies will ALWAYS show up. It's their nature - and they attract one another like flies to rotten meat.

CONCLUSION:
I personally see in these numbers to be exactly what would be expected all the way around - though I do wish I knew more about the Rotten Tomatoes' criteria, methodology and makeup.

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

I think rotten tomatoes uses "professional" critics who work in the industry somehow, so it's not the general public.

About Critics

Movie & TV reviews in the Tomatometer come from publications or individual critics that have been selected by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. Find out more...

www.rottentomatoes.com

 

[Ent]

"professional" critics who work in the industry somehow

I have done some brief reading on them since my post, and indeed they have an interesting 'selection criterion' (to the extent that they make it known) for their acknowledged Critics.

That said, they have also been sold several times, and their current owners are very much 'in the industry' so to speak.

I cannot help but think there may be some 'guidance' given as a result, as the activities of Melkor and Sauron are not restricted to the pages of the books or displayed in screen time alone.

But I do confess this is mere speculation on my part.

 

[Ugluk]

I believe the 'racist comments' complaints come from a very small, isolated group with loud voices.
And I believe that same small group goes everywhere they can get to, braying the same things.
Like anything 'sensational' it is 'touted and heralded' by supposed "talking heads" and becomes much bigger than it really is.
And frankly, it was to be expected, in these times in which we live.

I do not know the situation with the 'Rotten Tomatoes'. Are they a paid bunch? If so they may be beholden to 'the source of money'. Are they same repetitive group of folk hoping to keep their position as a 'rotten tomatoe' critic? then there's motivation and leverage from that.

Additionally, they may well be told what criteria they must use... have a specific routine set of (written) things they seek out to objectivize in a thing, or are just more skilled at isolating parts from a whole then bringing the parts together for evaluation. That is, a 'developed skillset' brought to bear on the situation.


The 'wider audience' is going to use no set of criteria other than their own personal preferences and feelings.

The history of 'polls' and 'ratings' given in any situation clearly shows that the people who tend to comment are going to be largely those who are DISSATISFIED, rather than those who are satisfied.

The 2nd largest, trailing by far, are the Highly Satisfied.

Then there's the rest. The greatest bunch, always. They normally say nothing. And in this case, given that (for the most part) anyone 'in favor of' or 'neutral' about RoP tends to be pretty well ostracized, they will be even quieter than their normal dead silence.

Wrapping that into RoP, I can hardly imagine anyone being "Highly Satisfied". I can imagine the many middle-of-the-roaders, not showing up. But the naysayers and negative nellies will ALWAYS show up. It's their nature - and they attract one another like flies to rotten meat.

CONCLUSION:
I personally see in these numbers to be exactly what would be expected all the way around - though I do wish I knew more about the Rotten Tomatoes' criteria, methodology and makeup.

I think you missed my point completely. Nevermind

 

[Ugluk]

I think rotten tomatoes uses "professional" critics who work in the industry somehow, so it's not the general public.

About Critics

Movie & TV reviews in the Tomatometer come from publications or individual critics that have been selected by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. Find out more...

www.rottentomatoes.com

However the general public also rate in a separate category.

 

[Ent]

I think you missed my point completely. Nevermind

Well, I must have if you're remarking on it.
I've re-read it to try to see a different angle to it and I'm coming up short.
Is my response offensive or totally off-base given your objective? Was certainly not my intent, and I'll be happy to edit that part out if it is..! (and this post.)
Just let me know.

 

[Ugluk]

Well, I must have if you're remarking on it.
I've re-read it to try to see a different angle to it and I'm coming up short.
Is my response offensive or totally off-base given your objective? Was certainly not my intent, and I'll be happy to edit that part out if it is..! (and this post.)
Just let me know.

No offence, just missed my point. Which was "why are the critics assessments so different to the general public? Applies not only to ROP but also to a great many other film and programs on RT.' The tend to be consistently higher than the public? Not always, a few both are within % of each other, and even fewer the public likes them

It's not a big questions something I noted in passing. What criteria are the critics using? My own are biases as I only rate what I have seen and generally only what I see is what already looks like something I would like.

 

[Ent]

why are the critics assessments so different to the general public?

Oh, OK thanks.
I think I responded to this most important part in the rest of my answer at least... would have been better to have addressed the issues/points in the order they were presented to begin with though...

 

[Annatar]

For me, it's a fine example of the fact that a lot of things are going wrong in what is produced nowadays.
In my opinion, there are those who consider themselves to be a certain elite and want to push a certain ideology and get a lot of money for it.
Then there's the masses who don't care or are even annoyed by it, and who just want to see a good, coherent story.
Moreover, it's well known that journalists currently find everything super where, for example, strong women appear...
Anyway, I trust Rotten Tomatoes more. On Amazon and IMDB, there is evidence that a lot is censored and deleted - not because they are spam bots or racists, but because the opinion doesn't suit the owner, which could result in bad publicity.

 

[Ent]

I trust Rotten Tomatoes more.

Indeed, sir Annatar. The whole issue of not only 'trust' and 'who to trust', but 'should I trust', stands at the fore of a great deal in our world today.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

It would be interesting to note other examples of a large difference between the critics' and viewers' scores and see if there is a pattern. For instance, do cult books/movies (where the audience are pre-disposed to hold strong opinions) tend to show this more?

 

[Annatar]

It would be interesting to note other examples of a large difference between the critics' and viewers' scores and see if there is a pattern. For instance, do cult books/movies (where the audience are pre-disposed to hold strong opinions) tend to show this more?

A very good question. What struck me is the contrast with the direct competitor House of the Dragon (HotD). I haven't seen this series yet, but what I've heard is that similar to Rings of Power (RoP), some white characters have been replaced with black ones to better fit the zeitgeist. Also, the focus is supposedly on strong women in particular.
It is often suggested by mainstream media and showrunners, producers and actors that critics of RoP are racist, anti-feminist, etc. or even "patently evil". So if it were true that these factors alone were the deciding factor, then surely the ratio for HotD should be relatively similar to RoP.
Nevertheless, Rotten Tomatoes clearly shows that the reviews on both sides are very good for HotD: 85% critics vs. 84% audience score.
So, is it possible that HotD convinces most of the audience mainly through good writing, which is not the case with RoP?
Is it also possible that the factors mentioned above are indeed present and may well annoy one or the other, but simply make more sense within the story or are at least better explained and come across more coherently than in RoP, and therefore do not seem so immersion-destroying and imposed? If I compare with Game of Thrones, for example, there were also extremely many strong female characters and also a diverse cast, even explicit portrayal of (normal and homosexual) sex, but this made much more sense within this world and its story and the fates told. As mentioned more often, these "modern" themes could have been cleverly integrated into a film version of the Second Age of Arda. But the producers and showrunners unfortunately didn't have a feeling for this and didn't leave out any other flaw or weak point in logic. If a series is overall good and immersive, the one or other disturbing thing is forgiven.

For me, in any case, it's clear: when it comes to reviews from mainstream media, you have to pay attention now more than ever. Especially when it comes to book adaptations or new adaptations of older films or series, you can no longer rely on what the journalists say. Obviously, only "check boxes" are being worked through: Does it pass the Bechdel test? Plus point. Is there at least one strong, independent, and preferably angry young woman? Plus point. Is the cast as diverse as possible? Plus point. Are there homosexuals or at least androgynous characters? Plus point. Is the patriarchy criticized? Plus point. Are toxic white males being punished? Plus point. Etc. This seems to have become the main focus of many producers, writers, mainstream journalists and critics. Even though these points may have their justification, the problem is that for many they have apparently become almost the only important and central criterion (besides action scenes and CGI effects, but even there RoP is only partially convincing and sometimes very embarrassing).
The most important thing (at least for someone who is not completely brainwashed or jaded) is in my opinion - and obviously also in the opinion of the majority of viewers - still a good story: suspense, good dialogs, good dramaturgy, immersion, logical plot. And that all comes up short in RoP, unfortunately. Not to mention the loyalty to the books and the lore.

By the way, here's another relatively recent example: "The Wheel of Time", also filmed as a series by Amazon. 82% critics vs. 60% audience score. I'm even surprised that the audience score - although it's already pretty bad - is higher than for RoP, because this series is even much worse in all mentioned aspects. Who would have thought that was possible...

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

Now Rotten Tomatoes gives a critic score of 91% for The Fellowship of the Ring and an audience score of 95%. Tolkien purists will say that means not many of the audience have read the books properly (so that they agree with them).

But I think there are reasons other than PCness why PJ's LOTR trilogy scores higher with the audience and the chief reason is the quality of the actors and hence the acting (the script helps as well). Just as for me, Humphrey Bogart (and not for instance Elliott Gould) is Philip Marlowe, so Ian McKellen is Gandalf, and who better than Christopher Lee could be Saruman? Yes, we all know PJ distorted the story but that doesn't affect the acting quality of some key scenes e.g., when Gandalf talks to Bilbo in Bag End, Frodo in Moria or Pippin at Minas Tirith. And if you look on Youtube, it is those acting scenes that are popular.

I was sad when King Theoden died but I wouldn't be upset if Galadriel died, though I know (or do I?) that she doesn't.

 

[Annatar]

Now, as for the PJ film adaptation, I'm sorry to say that I don't really think it does justice to the books either. While much of it was done very well, some of it was fundamentally wrong, such as the fact that Elves fought and died at Helm's Deep. That's a serious problem, and on top of that there are incidentals like Legolas surfing around on a shield and so on. Such scenes unfortunately opened up a lot of room for further nonsense, as was then exorbitantly amplified in the Hobbit films.
At the same time I have to admit that PJ & co. mostly tried to stay close to the spirit of Tolkien and to satisfy the book fans to a large extent, which can't be said about the showrunners of RoP, who seem to want to deliberately offend the fans.
Still, it's a mystery to me why PJ, who had previously only made abstruse splatter horror films, was entrusted with such an important work. After all, I had expected much worse and was then rather positively surprised. One thing you have to grant him with all his childish and primitive mind, which he unfortunately always lets flow into his films:

"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. In a way, we were trying to make these films for him (Tolkien), not for ourselves."

Of course, he didn't realize that 100%, because he put in his own childish Middle-earth theme park, but at least the good will was there, and he managed above all to let out contemporary politics and ideology. And for that, in retrospect, he deserves great respect.

And he simply staged the story coherently, excitingly, and in terms of costumes, craftsmanship and technique, simply excellently.

But to come back to the current propaganda:
Don't let this framing affect you. Just because you defend Tolkien's works doesn't make you racists or misogynists. Don't let anyone tell you that. Even though you may read that in your mainstream news, it's wrong. 99% of us are just normal people. Or rather, normal fantasy/Tolkien nerds. 😄

 

[Ent]

99% of us are just normal people. Or rather, normal fantasy/Tolkien nerds.

Oh my. Now I'm in jeopardy of needing to agree with Annatar on something as well..!!

 

[arivista]

I don't know whether the proffesional ciritcs actually like the shows they are endorsing or not, but in any case, they can't (or think they can't) afford to ciritize anything with Strong Female Lead Characters or Diversity Cast (SFLC/DC). Because if they did, they would be attacked on Twitter for perceived misogyny and racism and might even loose their livelihood. (We are talking liberal-progressive mainstream reviewers, not those who are openly "right-wing" or opposed to mainstream.)

The reasons for disliking such shows/movies matter only a little, if not at all. Take Dan Murrell, for example (he was writer of Honest Trailers and now he reviews stuff on Youtube). I think he is generaly very fair reviewer - and not because he thinks what I think (acutally, his world-view and taste differ from mine in no small degree). But he often times feels the need to make a disclaimer, when he dislikes any show with SFLC/DC, that he has nothing against them as such, only as thery are poorly implemented in given show/movie. And he apparently knows why he is doing it, because many people when they hear him critize SFLC/DC show, they automatically assume he must be some kind of evil alt-right, which he definitely is not.

Murrell is and independent youtuber, so he can handle it, but reviewers who work for some mainstream media and can be fired probably cannot. Maybe they don't straightly lie about liking the show; they may for their own sake rather convince themselves they like it. Human mind is quite pliable in this respect.

 

[Annatar]

Oh my. Now I'm in jeopardy of needing to agree with Annatar on something as well..!!

This does not fit with the fact that you now seem to have become a staff member and administrator. 😜
And you are no longer an Enting, you have grown up. Congratulations! 🥳

PS: DeepL makes funny things out of "Enting".

 

[Ent]

you have grown up. Congratulations!

Do not be hasty with the congratulations. I'm relatively sure not all agree that I've grown up..! 🤪

 

[Annatar]

Do not be hasty with the congratulations. I'm relatively sure not all agree that I've grown up..! 🤪

That little fluff there under the branch.... is that a little beard you're growing now?