subscribe
notify of
8 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Bluejay
Bluejay
Tue, Mar 28, 2017 1:49am

“There are lots of terrific and/or highly interesting critics” — So does he consider you one of the terrific ones, or one of the highly interesting ones? :-)

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Bluejay
Wed, Mar 29, 2017 10:26am

Either or both is good!

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
Tue, Mar 28, 2017 5:18am

Both terrific AND interesting.

Except he put Armond White in there…

Not terrific nor interesting.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  LaSargenta
Tue, Mar 28, 2017 11:22am

From Serenity:

Mal: Define “interesting”?
Wash: [deadpan] “Oh, God, oh, God, we’re all gonna die”?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  LaSargenta
Wed, Mar 29, 2017 10:26am

People do *talk* about White, though. No such thing as bad publicity, right?

RogerBW
RogerBW
Tue, Mar 28, 2017 9:23am

Well, yes, Brett, it’s much harder to buy a high RT score than it was to buy favourable reviews in 20 national newspapers. Gee, what a pity.

I pay very little attention to an RT score, but I do appreciate their tagging the favourable vs unfavourable reviews, because I like to read some of each. But then, I’ve never really found a critic I always agreed with, still less the mass of critics averaged.

(Hint to newspaper web sites: if you don’t have an RSS feed for that one specific critic I’ve found through RT, I won’t bother to come back unless that critic is amazing. I don’t want to read all your reviews, and I’m certainly not going to load a page every day to see if there’s anything new. What is this, 1998?)

Dale Snow
Dale Snow
Tue, Mar 28, 2017 11:51am

Congratulations, Mary Ann. Rotten Tomatoes as useful or useless as the person who consults it allows it to be. Lots of links to reviews all in the same place? Yes, please. Ultimately meaningless numerical ‘score’? No, thanks.