The Instigator
justice_plate
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,805 times Debate No: 15048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

justice_plate

Pro

Rotten Tomatoes includes online reviews from authors that are certified members of various writing guilds or film critic associations. Rotten Tomatoes provides a unique and rather wise approach to summing up the general consensus of opinion from a large database of reviewers. According to their "tomatometer" if a movie gets more than 60% approval on weighted average, it's fresh, or if it gets less, it's rotten.

this site is an exceptionally good tool for getting quick consensus on critical opinion of a movie, then linking you to the full detail of the reviews. Their overall score for a movie is given as a total percentage, and is based on a wighted average of all critics reviews, each of which is shown in brief and linked so you can click through to read any or every every one. Rotten Tomatoes is certainly the best movie review website to see if a film is good.
BlackVoid

Con

While Rotten Tomatoes is without a doubt a very good site for evaluating movies before you see them, I will argue that there are still better ways.

I will argue three alternatives that I feel are more effective than Rottentomatoes. Because the resolution says that RT is the "best", I only need to win one to disprove the resolution.

1. Metacritic (1)

Metacritic is very similar to Rotten Tomatoes. It offers access to reviews from virtully every movie and gives a general score as to how critics rate the film. There are two key differences it has from RT, however. First, in addition to movies, Metacritic also evaluates Television shows, video games, and albums. Because the word Film (2) is defined as "a series of moving pictures, usually shown in a cinema or on television and often telling a story", Metacritic has a key advantage here because it not only scores movies, but does TV shows as well. This surely makes it better than RT becaue it scores the entire spectrum of films.

Secondly, the two sites are different in that RottenTomatoes primarily gives the pecent of critics who gave the film a positive review. Metacritic's focus is giving a score of one out of 100. Metacritic has the advantage here because it is more specific. If a critic submits his review on Rottentomatoes, we know whether or not he likes the film, but we dont know how much, since RT focuses only on whether the review was positive or negative. Metacritic, however, gives a very specific score of 1-100, so we know exactly how good the film was in the person's opinion.

2. IMBD (3)

The Internet Movie Databse is also similar to RT, so I'll keep this short. Its basically RT, except it gives you instant access to the trailer of the film once you find the movie on its database. Trailers help one decide if the movie is worth watching or not, so giving instant access to these give IMBD a key advantage

3. Friends

Of course, critics aren't always right. A review by a complete stranger can easily not reflect your own opinion. For example, I thought Will Smith's movie, Seven Pounds, was simply amazing and almost made me cry, which is very unusual for me. But RT only gave it a 26% positive rating. Conversely, Slumdog Millionaire scored in the high 90's on most critic sites, but I thought it suffered from poor pronunciation and atrocious placement of captions, making it hard to follow.

But friends typically have similar likes and dislikes as you do. This means that if they have seen the movie before, they can likely give a much more accurate description of the movie relative to your tastes. This gives them an instant advantage over any other movie site, which encompasses Rotten Tomatoes.


Onto his arguments:

Pro: RT gives a quick critic concenus of the film, links to reviews, and averages the scores of all critics.

Response: Metacritic and IMBD do the exact same things. Except, I give unique advantages that each of these have over RT.


Against the pro advocacy in general:

While he has argued that RT is an effective way to indentify a good movie, he has not even attempted to prove that it is the best. I listed benefits that my chosen methods have as well, the difference being that I compared them to opposing sites. This means pro fails the burden of proof because he has not explained why any of RT's advantages are unique to just that site.

I urge a con vote.



1. http://www.metacritic.com...
2. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
3. http://www.imbd.com...
Debate Round No. 1
justice_plate

Pro

Rotten Tomatoes vs Metacritic.
Both sites have their advantages. Rotten Tomatoes includes a larger sample of reviews, while Metacritic features a smaller more-selected grouping of film critics. Rotten Tomatoes calculates critic scores using a positive or negative score for each review. One movie could be 100% fresh with all the critics giving the movie a 7/10 grade. Metacritic attempts to gauge the score of each critic's review (not just a positive or negative, but a number 0 to 100) averaged together, giving you a better indication of what the response is to any given film, and not just a percentage of positive reviews.
For example, How To Train Youyr Dragon is ranked #2 for the year on Rotten Tomatoes with a 98% fresh rating based on 146 reviews. But on Metacritic, Dragon has a 74% average with 33 reviews. Honestly, I like how Metacritic calculates the numbers, but their refusal to incorporate a larger sample of film critics puts them behind Rotten Tomatoes in my mind.
References'
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rotten Tomatoes vs IMDB
IMDB is the ultimate in selection bias: who is going to seek out a movie to vote for it – someone who already liked the movie. If I watch slumdog millionaire and think it's mediocre, my first thought isn't going to be to jump onto imdb.com and give the movie 4 stars out of 10. But if some hyped up tea caddie film fan boy LOVES the film, the first thing he will do is create 5 imdb.com accounts and vote 10 stars to slumdog millionaire on each account.
In contrast, Rotten Tomatoes uses only real reviews to rate a movie, which avoids selection bias. Rotten Tomatoes does, however, include user ratings so people can compare.
References'
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rotten Tomatoes vs friends
Friends can be dumb and stupid... simple?
BlackVoid

Con

RT vs Metacritic:

He says RT has more reviewers than Metacritic

1. Turn this argument. That actually makes the quality of the reviews and overall score worse. While Rottentomatoes grabs as many reviews from a many sites as possible, Metacritic limits theirs to roughly 40 of the very best (1).

2. He also concedes that Metrcritic's rating system is better. Huge point here, as that was my reason that Metacritic is better.


RT vs IMBD:

He says IMDB is biased because it is only made up of user reviews.

1. This is false. IMDB also links to critic reviews, in addition to linkning to Metacritic's score, and user reviews. If you follow my source 2 link, you will see a hyperlink that specifically says "Critics: 42 reviews", followed by a collective score.

2. Furthermore, he did not address my argument saying that IMDB offers instant access to movie trailers, which was my reason that it is better than RT.


RT vs Friends

He says friends can be dumb and stupid.

1. He never explains what this has to do with being able to identify a good movie. This lacks a link to the resolution.

2. This only says that they can be dumb, not that they are. As such, this argument doesn't cover the entire scope of friends, as certainly not all of them are dumb.

Remember, I only have to win one of these three comparisons to disprove the resolution.


I thank my opponent for continuing. I await his response.




1.http://blogs.indiewire.com...

2. http://www.imdb.com...


Debate Round No. 2
justice_plate

Pro

"RT vs Metacritic:

He says RT has more reviewers than Metacritic

1. Turn this argument. That actually makes the quality of the reviews and overall score worse. While Rottentomatoes grabs as many reviews from a many sites as possible, Metacritic limits theirs to roughly 40 of the very best (1).

2. He also concedes that Metrcritic's rating system is better. Huge point here, as that was my reason that Metacritic is better."

1. the 40 critics chsen may be thought to be the best, but there can be alot of film genres they can hate making the ratings more likely to be bias

2. sorry i ment to say RT

"RT vs IMBD:

He says IMDB is biased because it is only made up of user reviews.

1. This is false. IMDB also links to critic reviews, in addition to linkning to Metacritic's score, and user reviews. If you follow my source 2 link, you will see a hyperlink that specifically says "Critics: 42 reviews", followed by a collective score.

2. Furthermore, he did not address my argument saying that IMDB offers instant access to movie trailers, which was my reason that it is better than RT."

1. once again there is a limited amount of critics in that area than RT. there can be alot of film genres they can hate making the ratings more likely to be bias.

2. people can just simplely go onto youtube to watch movie trailers. this debate is about which site is better to evaluate if a film is good or not

"RT vs Friends

He says friends can be dumb and stupid.

1. He never explains what this has to do with being able to identify a good movie. This lacks a link to the resolution.

2. This only says that they can be dumb, not that they are. As such, this argument doesn't cover the entire scope of friends, as certainly not all of them are dumb.

Remember, I only have to win one of these three comparisons to disprove the resolution."

1. friends like and hate different film genres. film critics are ment to sit through all film genres which makes them more relaible.

2. friends can lie but film critics have to be honest. so film critics should be heard more than freinds
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks for finishing the debate.


RT vs Metacritic

1. He says Metracritic's 40 reviewers may be biased against certain genres.

This is non-unique. Every critic is biased for and against certain genres. This incudes those on Rotten Tomatoes.

2. He says he was referring to RT. But here is his direct quote. "Metacritic attempts to gauge the score of each critic's review (not just a positive or negative, but a number 0 to 100) averaged together, giving you a better indication of what the response is to any given film"

This has to be referring to Metacritic. RT does not give a critic score of 1 to 100, but Metacritic does.


RT vs IMBD

1. He repeats his critic bias argument.

But again, critics in general have certain biases, not just those on IMBD.

2. He says we can look trailers up on Youtube. However, IMBD gives trailer access instantly. If you go there to look up a movie and see its ratings, you can also view the trailer from the exact same page. This is n contrast to Youtube, which requires you to go to a completely ne website, search for the trailer, then watch it. IMBD does this much more efficiently.


RT vs Friends


1. He says friends can be biased for and against certain genres, and that critics aremore reliable in this situation.

My opponent just defeated himself. Many of his attacks against my arguments were that critics on sites I gave are biased. But here he is now, saying they're reliable.

Furthermore, the friend bias is a good thing. Studies show that friends have similar interests and can influence each other's opinion (1). This means that if they like a certain genre, you likely do as well. What this means is that if a friend thought a movie was good, chances are you will as well, making them efficient at identifying a good film to you.

2. He says friends can lie.

I find it doubtful that a friend has any incentive to leitimately lie about what he thought about a movie.

Secondly, critics can be paid by movie staff to write a good review for them, so critics are actually less reliable than friends.

Still, when evaluating sites that use critics, youhould still look to Metacritic or IMBD.




Here's why I believe I should win this round.

1. My opponent took out his own critic bias argument by saying that they are reliable.

2. He conceded Metacritic's rating system is better than RT's, and its clear by his quote that Meta is indeed what he was referring to.

3. He did not capitalize on the majority of his sentences.


I urge a con vote.



1. http://www.evancarmichael.com...


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro missed out on the main argument for Rotten Tomatoes: Ease of use. When I go to metacritic, I find it very difficult to use and its system is too complicated to understand rather than a straight fresh or rotten rating. IMDB: The problem is traffic. How many people actually review movies on IMDB. With such few reviews by random users, it really isn't accurate.

This was never brought up by Con but personally I think the box office success of a movie is absolutely the best rating scheme because it shows how many people are interested in it because the only people who are interested in the movie will be people who like that genre.

RT, metacritic etc has critics watch movies that may be outside their genre and evaluate them, so for instance, I saw a review that a woman wrote for a "Fast and the Furious" movie critisizing its special effects and saying that she didn't like a certain action sequence. I however loved it and the reason is that I liked action movies.

@Blackvoid, by the way if you are wondering whether I am specifically reading your old debates, yes I am. I do that before debating others so I can get a general idea of their style.

If you wants to debate this topic with me after Nuclear weapons (or before), I am more than willing.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
justice_plateBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's refutations were...pathetic.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
justice_plateBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems confused as to which side he was arguing constantly giving Con more points. Con showed that Metacritic is better due to higher quality of reviews. Overall, Pro had the BOP to prove that RT was the best but really, it wasn't all that much. In my opinion RT beats every site that Con brought up (but of course, that doesn't affect the voting).
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
justice_plateBlackVoidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Balanced presentation, Con provided strong rebuttals which Pro could not fully refute and thus maintain the BoP (1/3) Con.