Rotten Tomatoes Is Destroying the Film Industry

[Doctor Jones]

People... it's possible for Scorsese and great artists to be wrong. Doesn't mean we love them any less.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart infamously had a real struggle with critics back in the second half of the 1780s after his return to opera.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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

Nobody has even mentioned the MCU other than you.

 

[TheVileOne]

People... it's possible for Scorsese and great artists to be wrong. Doesn't mean we love them any less.

Yes. We can also respect their opinions and see where they are coming from without totally agreeing with them either. It doesn't have to be absolute. I didn't see anyone attack Scorsese for those particular views either.

I can see why from a filmmaker standpoint going to an era where that information used to just go around only in the industry and is now widely and publicly known can make things more difficult.

 

[jmc]

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.

I think the bigger issue is the emphasis on properties with built in audiences. It's almost like no studio wants to actually slow build anything anymore and create a franchise organically. John Wick is the lone example in recent times of a series that started life as small action flick that grew into something much bigger. This is what use to happen, release a movie, wait to see what the audience reaction was and then possibly do a sequel.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think the bigger issue is the emphasis on properties with built in audiences. It's almost like no studio wants to actually slow build anything anymore and create a franchise organically. John Wick is the lone example in recent times of a series that started life as small action flick that grew into something much bigger. This is what use to happen, release a movie, wait to see what the audience reaction was and then possibly do a sequel.

I think that is a big problem. Like making a reboot/sequel of Flatliners, or whatever it was. Like that's supposed to mean something to audiences.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Martin Scorsese's recent film Silence had a 50 million budget and made only 23 million worlwide.

And I can easily see a scenario where the studios started to give him a hard time about it.

And you can imagine his frustration when movies like Spider-man Homecoming and Wonder Woman outshine Silence (84%) on RottenTomatoes and dominate the nox office.

As a legendary director, it has to be frustrating but you can't expect the studio to keep handing you 50 million dollars without worrying about making back their money. The Hollywood industry isn't philanthropy and if it was it would be much smaller and millions wouldn't have jobs. It seems these artists want a multimillion dollar sandbox without acknowledging where the money comes from.

Is it unfair that a movie like Out of Africa might score lower than something pulpy like Star Wars if RT existed back in the 80's? Not really, sure Star Wars is low brow but honestly Star Wars was always going to gain more attention and support because the mythos is more enjoyable to the average person. That's the reality we live in. The average person doesn't have 170 IQ and obsess over high art. Sure, we could speculate that such a world would be paradise but that's not necessarily true and at this point, it's science fiction.

Also, Silence had an identical top critic score (84%) and much lower audience score (68%).

This is just how people felt about the film. RT's only crime is reflecting that.

 

[Dr.]

A thought experiment…

Perusing the reviews on RT, one notices that borderline scores (2.5 out of 4; 3 out of 5; C/C+ letter grades; etc.) are sometimes recorded as Fresh, sometimes as Rotten. A tad curious. But apparently - in these borderline cases - the critic is allowed to specify what binary rating will be attached to their review as it appears on RT.

So… imagine that we take this option away from the critic. Thus, if a critic scores a movie as 2.5 stars out of 4 (which is 62.5%) then RT will automatically record it as Fresh - consistent with their own internal grading standards. And if said critic is adamant that their review should have a Rotten designation on RT, the onus is on them to score the movie appropriately (i.e., below 60%) on their own site.

Now the question: would this hypothetical change* improve overall RT movie ratings? Or would it essentially be a wash - with newly “promoted” Fresh movies offset by the newly “demoted” Rotten ones?



(*Arguably, this change wouldn’t represent any lowering or softening of standards; it would just be a more accurate measure of the extant review scores.)

 

[MbJ]

A lot of more serious directors have made similar charges. Charlie Kauffman once complained that he can't get movies made anymore because the studios only invest in superhero garbage (his words) and other big blockbusters. Instead of Rotten Tomatoes though, he blamed the recession for making the studios antsy about doing anything that they don't view as a guaranteed hit.

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

And then what? They're gonna shut down Rotten Tomatoes?

I think the bigger issue is the emphasis on properties with built in audiences. It's almost like no studio wants to actually slow build anything anymore and create a franchise organically. John Wick is the lone example in recent times of a series that started life as small action flick that grew into something much bigger. This is what use to happen, release a movie, wait to see what the audience reaction was and then possibly do a sequel.

It definitely is, and I think a lot of it stems from people taking the wrong lessons from Iron Man. Yes, it started a huge franchise, but it also stands on its own as a solid movie. You could never watch any of the sequels or Avengers movies and still find it solid as a standalone superhero film. Stuff like the Mummy is conversely rushed out without much quality control, just so the studio can market it as the start of shared universe, and then are surprised when it doesn't work out.

 

[jmc]

I actually think the real problem started with the Harry Potter series. WB basically had a property with a massive built in fan base and enjoyed a decade of success on the back of it. That's kind of the dream for any studio - a walk up audience who will pay top dollar for whatever you serve. The last 15 years has seen a bunch of attempts from studios to find something similar, some property that can earn them easy money for a few years. What was forgotten though is the value of starting something from scratch.

 

[TheVileOne]

Everyone in Hollywood loves to come in second, but no one wants to take the risks and be the first to do something.

 

[2kt09]

Everyone in Hollywood loves to come in second, but no one wants to take the risks and be the first to do something.

That's insanely vague. The Hollywood that exists now just isn't the type to shower that "first" with nearly as much praise or recognition as the 2nd, 3rd, etc.
How old is the "indie" term anyways?

 

[TheVileOne]

That's insanely vague. The Hollywood that exists now just isn't the type to shower that "first" with nearly as much praise or recognition as the 2nd, 3rd, etc.
How old is the "indie" term anyways?

2kt09, an example here is that after Marvel scored well with Iron Man and Avengers, all these studios tried to follow their example and do the shared universe model. Paramount set up a writers room for a Hasbro toy universe. Universal set up a writers room for the Dark Universe/Universal Monsters.

Studios would rather fall back on the things they believe work rather than try something new or different. Look at how many times Terminator has been rebooted with little to no success. And they're about to do it again.

 

[2kt09]

2kt09, an example here is that after Marvel scored well with Iron Man and Avengers, all these studios tried to follow their example and do the shared universe model. Paramount set up a writers room for a Hasbro toy universe. Universal set up a writers room for the Dark Universe/Universal Monsters.

Studios would rather fall back on the things they believe work rather than try something new or different. Look at how many times Terminator has been rebooted with little to no success. And they're about to do it again.

And...Marvel was following Fast & Furious's model whilst learning from other movies adapting Marvel comics.

 

[DACrowe]

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

You sound like you're describing a fault with fanboy culture more than RT. Fanboys obsess over RT numbers. But there are many good critics, for both major and smaller publications on RT, you finds ones you like or at least have an interesting caption and read further... or you don't.

Blaming critics or Rotten Tomatoes for fanboys stopping to read at the number is aiming at the wrong target.

 

[DACrowe]

I actually think the real problem started with the Harry Potter series. WB basically had a property with a massive built in fan base and enjoyed a decade of success on the back of it. That's kind of the dream for any studio - a walk up audience who will pay top dollar for whatever you serve. The last 15 years has seen a bunch of attempts from studios to find something similar, some property that can earn them easy money for a few years. What was forgotten though is the value of starting something from scratch.

Marvel makes Harry Potter look like an arthouse passion project, because they always had an ending in mind (even though WB split it in half to double its money ). Marvel proves that you can, in theory, have three movies a year that all act as advertising for the next movie, and have no end in sight. No chance an author, or worse, a director who wants to close off his sandbox after only three movies, can say it's over.

Now, unfortunately for the studios, it turns out even though Marvel is a brilliant business model, it still needs a certain level of quality control. Something Sony, WB, and Universal are finding out the hard way. Presumably Paramount will also be in for a surprise when Bumblebee comes out.

 

[jmc]

Coming in 'first' wouldn't be such a big risk if there was better planning involved. Perhaps one idea is to trial things out online first, making short 10-15 movies with new ideas, seeing which ones get good feedback then proceed to doing full scale production.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Marvel makes Harry Potter look like an arthouse passion project, because they always had an ending in mind (even though WB split it in half to double its money ). Marvel proves that you can, in theory, have three movies a year that all act as advertising for the next movie, and have no end in sight. No chance an author, or worse, a director who wants to close off his sandbox after only three movies, can say it's over.

Now, unfortunately for the studios, it turns out even though Marvel is a brilliant business model, it still needs a certain level of quality control. Something Sony, WB, and Universal are finding out the hard way. Presumably Paramount will also be in for a surprise when Bumblebee comes out.

James Bond did it first but nowhere near the level of symphonic complexity as Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Most studios can barely get two superheto trilogies.. In a few years Marvel will have around ten that are interconnected and mostly critical and fan favorites not to mention box office smashes.

They only make it LOOK easy but let's give credit where credit is due.

 

[TheVileOne]

And...Marvel was following Fast & Furious's model whilst learning from other movies adapting Marvel comics.

Sorry, Fast and Furious didn't set up that model.

 

[2kt09]

Coming in 'first' wouldn't be such a big risk if there was better planning involved. Perhaps one idea is to trial things out online first, making short 10-15 movies with new ideas, seeing which ones get good feedback then proceed to doing full scale production.

That's where they currently get their writers. The current strategy is a smaller specialty studio.

Sorry, Fast and Furious didn't set up that model.

Is View Askewniverse the other contemporary franchise that did some short films between a sequel, a spinoff, a prequel, and the get together team flick?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And...Marvel was following Fast & Furious's model whilst learning from other movies adapting Marvel comics.

Examples?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

A thought experiment…

Perusing the reviews on RT, one notices that borderline scores (2.5 out of 4; 3 out of 5; C/C+ letter grades; etc.) are sometimes recorded as Fresh, sometimes as Rotten. A tad curious. But apparently - in these borderline cases - the critic is allowed to specify what binary rating will be attached to their review as it appears on RT.

So… imagine that we take this option away from the critic. Thus, if a critic scores a movie as 2.5 stars out of 4 (which is 62.5%) then RT will automatically record it as Fresh - consistent with their own internal grading standards. And if said critic is adamant that their review should have a Rotten designation on RT, the onus is on them to score the movie appropriately (i.e., below 60%) on their own site.

Now the question: would this hypothetical change* improve overall RT movie ratings? Or would it essentially be a wash - with newly “promoted” Fresh movies offset by the newly “demoted” Rotten ones?



(*Arguably, this change wouldn’t represent any lowering or softening of standards; it would just be a more accurate measure of the extant review scores.)

If you do that will you end up misrepresenting what the critics actually think and ultimately end up with inaccurate Tomatometers, defeating the purpose of the entire site. Sure, critics could fight their reviewing being given a false positive, but we all know the majority wouldn't waste their time doing so.

The whole point of a binary system is to make it crystal clear whether a critic recommends or doesn't recommend a film. Taking that choice of out their direct hands is a terrible idea.

Furthermore, going by the Siskel and Ebert model, 2.5 out of 4 was always a Thumbs Down, meaning that if there were some universal standard star rating (which there isn't), it would make more sense for those ratings to be Rotten as opposed to Fresh.

Even moreso, many critics don't use the 4 star system at all. Some use a 5 star system. Some use letter grades. Some use numbers out of 10 or 100. Some don't have any grading system at all. There is no way what you are proposing could ever work and produce accurate results.

 

[TheVileOne]

That's where they currently get their writers. The current strategy is a smaller specialty studio.


Is View Askewniverse the other contemporary franchise that did some short films between a sequel, a spinoff, a prequel, and the get together team flick?

It definitely wasn't Fast and Furious. Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk came out before the 2009 movie which brought back Diesel and co.

 

[2kt09]

It definitely wasn't Fast and Furious. Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk came out before the 2009 movie which brought back Diesel and co.

That is both the prequel and the get-together team flick, whilst many consider the 5th to officially be the latter.

 

[TheVileOne]

That is both the prequel and the get-together team flick, whilst many consider the 5th to officially be the latter.

Even if you want to apply that model to Fast and Furious, Marvel wasn't following their example. Fast and Furious didn't become a huge worldwide franchise until the fifth film.