Rotten Tomatoes Is Destroying the Film Industry

[jmc]

Question: has this anti-RT/film critic sentiment always existed, or has it just recently developed in these circles? I've been going to this website regularly for the past decade and it feels like this all just started back when MoS got a mixed reception.

I think it's more a case of studios trying to blame something to justify why they aren't getting the returns they use to get. The reality is there's a generation of people who are growing up with the internet being their primary source of entertainment. Cinemas would have been first a good 15-20 years ago, now that there's so many options available online peoples habits are changing. RT is an easy target, but it's not the correct one.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

RT tells them, you silly

Sarcasm? Why?

 

[The Shape]

Scorcese drops a truth bomb:

 

[Erzengel]

It's ironic that Scorcese says that when he hasn't had a rotten movie he's directed since the 70s?

 

[Consona]

What's ironic about it?

 

[Flint Marko]

Scorcese drops a truth bomb:

"Truth bomb"

Really, film criticism has evolved and that was always inevitable in the age of information where we can now aggregate and score hundreds of reviews at once. It's the natural progression of things and plenty of these reviews and reviewers have merit, but let's continue to demonize a website that merely aggregates the reviews of hundreds of different unrelated film critics simply because it doesn't affirm our own opinions.

I think it's more a case of studios trying to blame something to justify why they aren't getting the returns they use to get. The reality is there's a generation of people who are growing up with the internet being their primary source of entertainment. Cinemas would have been first a good 15-20 years ago, now that there's so many options available online peoples habits are changing. RT is an easy target, but it's not the correct one.

I missed this post but yeah, sounds accurate. Seems people want to blame something for an ever-changing media landscape that is making things tougher and tougher for film studios, and RT is the scapegoat at the moment. Interesting how certain disgruntled fans have taken this crusade up as well, as if they dislike RT for any of the same reasons that an old school director like Scorsese would.

 

[I Am The Knight]

This reminds of Nolan being panicky about directors embracing digital over film.

 

[The Shape]

It's ironic that Scorcese says that when he hasn't had a rotten movie he's directed since the 70s?

Not really. It just means he truly believes what he's saying for the right reasons, and not simply because his movies have been trashed or box office receipts hurt by RT.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Marty speaks the truth. And when a legendary director as him say's it more of people will listen.

Martin Scorsese has NOTHING TO PROVE to anyone.

 

[The Shape]

"Truth bomb"

Really, film criticism has evolved and that was always inevitable in the age of information where we can now aggregate and score hundreds of reviews at once. It's the natural progression of things and plenty of these reviews and reviewers have merit, but let's continue to demonize a website that merely aggregates the reviews of hundreds of different unrelated film critics simply because it doesn't affirm our own opinions.

Sure, because that's exactly what Scorcese was talking about...

You do know it's possible for people to share the same perspective as Scorcese's above statement for reasons other than being ******** that a film they like received a bad RT percentage, right? Maybe because they agree with some of what he's saying and the overall point he's trying to make? Not everything is about Marvel or DC or fan bias.

 

[Flint Marko]

Sure, because that's exactly what Scorcese was talking about...

That's what this entire thread is about.

You do know it's possible for people to share the same perspective as Scorcese's above statement for reasons other than being ******** that a film they like received a bad RT percentage, right? Maybe because they agree with some of what he's saying and the overall point he's trying to make? Not everything is about Marvel or DC or fan bias.

I agree with some of what he's saying. Film criticism has changed and, in a lot of ways, grown increasingly more about salacious headlines and "hot takes" as opposed to nuanced, informative reviews. But to blame that on rotten tomatoes? No, blame the internet and the ever-changing media landscape of the past few decades. Rotten Tomatoes is, again, one website that does nothing save for aggregate various reviews from hundreds of unrelated critics, the majority of whom write thoughtful reviews. Demonizing Rotten Tomatoes is the tactic of someone who either hasn't thought their argument all the way through or someone with a chip on their shoulder for the reasons I mentioned previously. Scorsese strikes me as the former, while people on this website are the latter.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The filmmaker is reduced to a content manufacturer and the viewer to an unadventurous consumer.

Newsflash, Marty. That has been true for the entire history of Hollywood going back to the Silent Era. Hollywood has always, always, ALWAYS been about business first and art second.

 

[Kane52630]

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment, especially that last part.

 

[Lighthouse]

Scorcese is, as expected, looking at this very high mindedly. He's offended how films are looked at basically as supermarket products instead of pieces of art. And while yes, RT is just an aggregate site, it does further that perception that movies are to be rated like a product, a percentage, like a piece of fruit.

However, and I don't know Martin would want to acknowledge this, this way of looking at films was really popularized by film critics themselves, chiefly his good friends Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel. Now, these guys were serious critics who absolutely treated film as art and critiqued it as such, but the "thumbs up thumbs down" model became very much a kind of product judgement of a film.

 

[Lord]

He's a bit reductive IMAO. There have always been critics happy to simply trash on films. That shouldn't take away from the critics that are actualy very insightful. If you see some of the reviews made for a lot of the very old blockbusters, like Cecil B. DeMille's films, you'll start to realise that film criticism has actualy gone a long way.

I love Scorsese, but this seems like the typical case of an old filmmaker complaining about how things have changed for the worse. If he was this old in the 60s, he would be complaining back then too.

Rottentomatoes can be useful to see if a film is worth spending your money on (this works for generic blockbusters like the Marvel films but not as much for art films), and it can also be used by some people as a reductive way to try scoring art. To me, it's all about realising what that site actualy is.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ The hive mentality will always be there though.

If you don't think (insert film) is the best thing ever-you're a hater and lack intelligence.

Judgemental critics have existed since critics. Sure, there's a recklessness of some of the online critics, but this would happen regardless of Rottentomatoes.

Mother! got nearly 70 fresh. That's not bad at all.

It seems that the only times critics matter-is when they agree with you or support a film you're hyped about

Moviemakers should find it's irresponsible to churn out mediocrity or intentionally limit one's audience..that being said, the new Spider-Man, while good, is graded higher than Batman Begins-which is arguably a more three-dimensional narrative.

Yes..I know RT works by a percentage base rather than the HIGHNESS of the grades. A movie that has a 5.8 median rating can get a 90 percent fresh, whereas a movie that has an 8 median rating and less people giving it "fresh" reviews can probably dip into the 70s (or lower)

I think Marty is just displaying an anti-critic sentiment in the digital age. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just think RT is a tool for gauging where one chooses to spend money. If I could watch a 90s film or a 30s film on the tomatometer, unless the premise of the latter looks REALLY interesting, I'd stick with the 90s.

 

[TheVileOne]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/

Ahem. Great early reviews. Glowing reviews actually with many calling it a "masterpiece." Good audience score, but the movie still opened below expectations. Way below actually. A movie with $170 million production budget. Tack on another $130 million for P&A.

Sorry. You can't hang Rotten Tomatoes ruining the industry on Blade Runner, when Blade Runner had great reviews and still under-performed.

IMHO, there isn't a perfect formula for what creates a successful movie. I think the problem is that Hollywood is desperate to crack that formula and repeat it every time. But sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle, and it's hard to repeat.

And sometimes movies don't do well, but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. And sometimes movies do well and that doesn't mean they are good either.

If you are all looking at the news lately. Rotten Tomatoes is the least of the industry's problems right now.

 

[jfurioso]

For a larger picture historically on the subject, I recommend reading the two books on the subject of making movies by William Goldman ADVENTURES IN THE SCREEN TRADE and the later WHAT LIE DID I TELL. From a screenwriter? perspective but covers in general the behind the scenes of how movies work and dont work with lots of real references to how some big movies were made.

And a lasting truism is that nobody knows how to really ensure success.

Goldman is a 2 time Academy Award winner, famous for ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, BUTCH CASSIDAY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, MARATHON MAN, etc.

He hates critics, on principle.

 

[DACrowe]

Eh, I love most Martin Scorsese movies and the man is a genius. Doesn't mean he can't be wrong. While I agree there are plenty of critics out there who don't know a lot about film history, many more do, and RT is an aggregate. I have discovered some great writers on there (and a few mediocre ones too). But it isn't harming film criticism. It is just gathering it in one place, which in our increasingly diversified and "niche" marketspace, makes it hard to find voices.

With that said, yes plenty just look at the number and base whether they see a movie on that. I agree with Scorsese that's a reductive way to approach films, but hey, the same could be said about thumbs up and thumbs down in the '70s and '80s. But Ebert was an early champion of Scorsese, so he was much more understanding of that.

I understand why RT is frustrating from a filmmaker's perspective. And the buzz around mother! did takeaway from a truly quality film. But as he pointed out, plenty of masterpieces (which I personally don't think mother! is, but that's neither here nor there) were not embraced so readily in their time. Vertigo and Citizen Kane notoriously had muted reactions. On the genre side, I'll throw the original Blade Runner into the mix. Rotten Tomatoes didn't create the phenomenon of critics "not getting" something great on first viewing.

Furthermore, most of the "angst" around mother! came from Cinemascore, which I agree is more harmful in that it seems to seek the lowest common denominator of "entertainment" for the public. Rotten Tomatoes was more mixed to positive, which shows a debate of opinion on mother! For people who look at it like a "grade" as Scorsese suggests, it is a shame. But filmmakers and critics will always have this kind of tension, I suspect.

 

[TheVileOne]

The way I see it, CinemaScore is pretty worthless at this point and it's not an accurate way to grade or judge movies or how beloved a film is.

 

[jfurioso]

But filmmakers and critics will always have this kind of tension, I suspect.

Not just filmmakers. Spanish playwright Enrique Jardiel Poncela, who is now historically regarded as an important and successful innovator in the field of humorous theater, had terrible rows with the critical establishment of his time. I read a collected editions of his plays, and each one was preceded by an intro with information on how the play was written and staged, and extensive references to how critics maliciously targeted each production.

 

[Drseuss]

lol @ ppl jumping at Martin Scorsese already feeling hes attacking mcu movies.

Just because criticism has 'changed' doesnt mean we have to take it for granted - and assuming RT is just an aggregate score so its fine for film criticism is just plain ignorant.

So we dont need to discuss the movies anymore. 21st century criticism is : waiting for the RT score to come out, then immediately swarming to internet to argue with ppl over the RT score but never the film itself

this phenomenon is totally fine according to some ppl above cause theyve been doing it

 

[Drseuss]

Oh and Scorsese is right to be concerned with 'quantifying' a film the way RT does.

With ppl arguing not just a movie is fresh or not, but also the numerical range of the RT score, studios are probably testing the hell out of every blockbuster movie - film criticism isnt changing itself but also has 'changed' film making process

And then ppl just told Scorsese to 'deal with it'

 

[Doctor Jones]

That's what this entire thread is about.



I agree with some of what he's saying. Film criticism has changed and, in a lot of ways, grown increasingly more about salacious headlines and "hot takes" as opposed to nuanced, informative reviews. But to blame that on rotten tomatoes? No, blame the internet and the ever-changing media landscape of the past few decades. Rotten Tomatoes is, again, one website that does nothing save for aggregate various reviews from hundreds of unrelated critics, the majority of whom write thoughtful reviews. Demonizing Rotten Tomatoes is the tactic of someone who either hasn't thought their argument all the way through or someone with a chip on their shoulder for the reasons I mentioned previously. Scorsese strikes me as the former, while people on this website are the latter.

Yuuuuuuuuup.

RT isn't the end all be all of this. It's not the culprit. More of a slight symptom that I repeat, there is no data to support there's a correlation with box office. RT isn't the cause of the current state of critics, it's what you said. Film criticism matches with what the news media has become in the past 30 years too. Constant and sensationalist. RIT is just something very easy to see and easy to put the blame on. Blaming RT is just as reductive as what you believes audiences see RT to be.

 

[TheVileOne]

Oh and Scorsese is right to be concerned with 'quantifying' a film the way RT does.

With ppl arguing not just a movie is fresh or not, but also the numerical range of the RT score, studios are probably testing the hell out of every blockbuster movie - film criticism isnt changing itself but also has 'changed' film making process

And then ppl just told Scorsese to 'deal with it'

I think that's more the fault of people arguing over the merit of a Rotten Tomatoes score rather than Rotten Tomatoes itself.