Bad Reviews

I'm confused. There have been 4 negative reviews. The thing is, they aren't really negative reviews?? Two of them are 3/5, one is a C+ and the other still says its a good movie. Does RT just put them as negative cause they claim it's not as good as it's predecessor? Because not a single review has said its a bad movie.
Trey M.
05-4-2013 12:08 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

scifimark

scifi mark

i full expected this to happen to be honest. The first star trek was somewhat over rated even though i enjoyed it immensely. It was a shiny new toy so they jumped all over it. A lot of the problems the first movie had seemed to have been ignored. Also this whole "pioneering spirit" or exploration was never done in any of the succesful movies and definitely not done in the last movie.

May 6 - 05:09 AM

blair_283

Blair Rowbotham

Yeah I'm thinking this is quite biased towards the film. As 3/5 raiting must be certified fresh. I for one will send an email of inquiry to RT

May 5 - 10:58 AM

Tony Eddard Stark

Tony Eddard Stark

Bad review #1: The production gives the impression of a massive machine cranked up for two hours of full output; it efficiently delivers what it's built to do, but without style or personality. #2: It goes quickly, it goes loudly and it goes spectacularly. The only problem is that it never seems to live up to the franchise's original mission statement and go boldly. #3: Star Trek Into Darkness is a long, long way from a disaster, but it's hard not to feel that Abrams' mystery box turned out to be a bit empty this time out. #4: That pioneer spirit? It's gone.

Looks like only one (the last one) was really a BAD review. If you read some of the 'fresh' reviews, they sound similar to the first three bad reviews. They like it, but not as much as the first reboot or the previous films. In my opinion (which doesn't mean squat to Rotten Tomatoes) the first three rotten reviews should be changed to fresh reviews or the similar 'fresh' reviews should be changed to rotten review. At least be consistent about it. Anyways, that's my take on it.

May 5 - 03:48 AM

Trey M.

Trey Marksberry

Ironically though, the pioneer spirit review, is 3/5 and the guy compliments the film mostly. I really feel like RT is doing this on purpose.

May 5 - 06:50 AM

Ocram Immorto

Ocram Immorto

Never even cared about Star Trek anyway XD

May 4 - 09:09 PM

Tony Eddard Stark

Tony Eddard Stark

Then why (a) Are you on the STiD thread in RT? (b) Why did you even bother to post a response? and (c) Did you really think someone cares? Just saying. Oh, btw, a typed response is not a form of caring. Oh, dang, I fed the troll didn't I? Oops. I guess I shall delete my response. Nope.

May 5 - 03:51 AM

Darrell Beam

Darrell Beam

And the main theme of these "bad" reviews is that it's not "Trek" per se. In other words, they want the "old" trek where they believe that it has deep thoughts involved in it. I wonder how they would have rated The Motion Picture (which I liked too BTW)?

May 4 - 05:34 PM

Trey M.

Trey Marksberry

Good point. They aren't saying its a bad movie at all. It's like they're bitter it's not exactly like the 80's ST.

May 4 - 06:44 PM

pastehim

trent dorkmen

The amazing thing about the motion picture wax that a second one was ever made. It was so darn boring! You had the opening scene which was great and then it was snooze fest from there on. Thank god they did make another but just shocking that they did.

May 5 - 03:15 AM

Phillip P.

Phil Payton

Iron Man 3 is also full of this kind of thing as well. Someone told me it's down to the reviewer sometimes which is kind of stupid. Surely a universal rating would be better. 3/5, 2.5/4 and C+ may only just about be positive (6/10) but they're still positive.

May 4 - 03:37 PM

mrcuevasabsent

Luis Cuevas

Iron Man 3 was about the worst superhero movie ever. The only positives are the little kid and Tony Stark in a actual fucking suit, which was about 2% of the whole fucking film.

May 4 - 08:32 PM

Tallulah Robinson

Tallulah Robinson

Obs different = bad. Yeeep.

May 4 - 08:50 PM

Marcus Luzzi

Marcus Luzzi

Iron Man 3 was great, and infinitely superior to Green Lantern.

May 5 - 12:38 PM

Phillip P.

Phil Payton

It's amazing how fucking stupid people are. yeah because my point was ironman 3 great, it had nothing to do with the fact that i was pointing out similar problems with rating system. /end of sarcasm.

Whether you feel the film is bad or not is irrelevant when it's about what someone else gave the film 3/5 even on movie 43 would be a positive review. I was hoping natural selection would route out the morons but i guess not.

May 5 - 01:09 PM

hollis m.

hollis mills

dont worry its gonna be back up to 90 in no time

May 4 - 03:29 PM

pastehim

trent dorkmen

I agreed . It really makes no sense. If 60 percent is a tomato for the cumulative rating then how can a C+ be anything but a tomato?

May 4 - 02:49 PM

Robert Eisan

Robert Eisan

I don't understand that either.

May 4 - 02:18 PM

Augusta Mels

Augusta Mels

Why don't we alert Rotten Tomatoes? Maybe they'll change them to what they actually are.

May 4 - 12:49 PM

Daniel Foster

Daniel Foster

good idea

May 4 - 05:42 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile