|
Post by onebluestocking on May 9, 2018 5:55:30 GMT
I know Sgev is just dying to know the Metacritic score which is currently at 79. Not bad, but it would be 90 if not for that one silly NY Post reviewer! Also, a new bathtub photo, or at least I hadn't seen it before (ha, they've stretched it so that he looks about 10 feet tall): www.metacritic.com/tv/patrick-melrose
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 8:20:21 GMT
I really don’t understand those numbers! I would have thought THR was slightly more critical than Variety (when at the same time they are both very positive) but somehow THR has a bigger number than Variety.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 10:10:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on May 9, 2018 13:27:27 GMT
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 13:41:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 13:41:16 GMT
...And then they DON'T explain the process. "It's complicated!" LOL!
TBH This sounds to me like: "yes, we don't know what we are doing. We just assign a random number to the reviews!"
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 14:54:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 14:54:05 GMT
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 15:16:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 15:16:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on May 9, 2018 17:12:23 GMT
The chart assigning number scores to letter grades or numbers of stars is pretty straightforward, I just don't know how they decide in the case of a review that isn't ranked in any way. They probably can't really explain it, as it is guesswork on their part and probably varies widely by the personal taste of the person doing it. Anyway, I never just look at the overall number, but check each one individually. Not every reviewer or publication is equal!
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 17:28:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 17:28:34 GMT
|
|
|
Reviews
May 9, 2018 17:38:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 9, 2018 17:38:49 GMT
|
|