Rotten Tomatoes Is Destroying the Film Industry

[TheFlamingCoco]

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.

Exactly. Someone could conceivably give a movie a 3/5 and decide it's "rotten", but that's his/her CHOICE.

Sure, there may be some double standards here and there, but they would occur ANYWAY.

 

[Dr.]

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.

To be sure, a given critic is entitled to use a different (perhaps better) grading system than RT. Thus, they might adopt, for example, a 1-10 “analog” scale because they fundamentally disagree that movies (especially the borderline cases) fall into easy binary choices. Likewise, this critic might have “higher standards” than RT and decide that their personal fail/pass threshold (equivalent of Rotten or Fresh) is something like 65 or even 70%. Entirely their prerogative.

But if/when a critic does agree to supply a binary verdict to RT (because their borderline review is equivocal), they are - it seems to me - agreeing to RT’s rulebook. And this includes the (arguably arbitrary but clearly advertised and understood) 60% Rotten/Fresh threshold. So if a movie’s original critic score is 2.5/5 or 3/5 (i.e., 60% or above), I’m suggesting that the review be automatically classified as Fresh by RT - with no editorial option/second-bite-at-the-apple by the critic. Because at that point, the game is being played in RT’s sandbox and according to RT’s internal rules. And I don’t see how applying a more uniform consistency with respect to those pre-existing standards misrepresents the critic or misinforms the RT user.

 

[Flint Marko]

And...Marvel was following Fast & Furious's model

How many times do you have to be told this is complete nonsense before you stop saying it?

 

[2kt09]

How many times do you have to be told this is complete nonsense before you stop saying it?

Only when it's relevant, which it apparently was briefly.
Also, only one I'm aware of that went far as it did from the early-mid 2000s with that similar of a template.
The other two, Tarantino's Universe and View Askewniverse started up back in the 90s.

 

[Lorus]

To be sure, a given critic is entitled to use a different (perhaps better) grading system than RT. Thus, they might adopt, for example, a 1-10 “analog” scale because they fundamentally disagree that movies (especially the borderline cases) fall into easy binary choices. Likewise, this critic might have “higher standards” than RT and decide that their personal fail/pass threshold (equivalent of Rotten or Fresh) is something like 65 or even 70%. Entirely their prerogative.

But if/when a critic does agree to supply a binary verdict to RT (because their borderline review is equivocal), they are - it seems to me - agreeing to RT’s rulebook. And this includes the (arguably arbitrary but clearly advertised and understood) 60% Rotten/Fresh threshold. So if a movie’s original critic score is 2.5/5 or 3/5 (i.e., 60% or above), I’m suggesting that the review be automatically classified as Fresh by RT - with no editorial option/second-bite-at-the-apple by the critic. Because at that point, the game is being played in RT’s sandbox and according to RT’s internal rules. And I don’t see how applying a more uniform consistency with respect to those pre-existing standards misrepresents the critic or misinforms the RT user.

This only makes sense if you consider the Rotten Tomatoes score to be the equivalent of a grade/score given by a critic at the end of their review, but that is not the case. The Tomatoes score is not, nor is it intended to be an alternative grade for a film. It's just the percentage of positive reviews that the film has received. 60% is fresh because at that point, you have more positive than negative reviews while still being a round, friendly figure, not because Rotten Tomatoes have decided that 6/10 is the magic threshold that turns a film into a good one.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

To be sure, a given critic is entitled to use a different (perhaps better) grading system than RT. Thus, they might adopt, for example, a 1-10 “analog” scale because they fundamentally disagree that movies (especially the borderline cases) fall into easy binary choices. Likewise, this critic might have “higher standards” than RT and decide that their personal fail/pass threshold (equivalent of Rotten or Fresh) is something like 65 or even 70%. Entirely their prerogative.

But if/when a critic does agree to supply a binary verdict to RT (because their borderline review is equivocal), they are - it seems to me - agreeing to RT’s rulebook. And this includes the (arguably arbitrary but clearly advertised and understood) 60% Rotten/Fresh threshold. So if a movie’s original critic score is 2.5/5 or 3/5 (i.e., 60% or above), I’m suggesting that the review be automatically classified as Fresh by RT - with no editorial option/second-bite-at-the-apple by the critic. Because at that point, the game is being played in RT’s sandbox and according to RT’s internal rules. And I don’t see how applying a more uniform consistency with respect to those pre-existing standards misrepresents the critic or misinforms the RT user.

Except the critics take priority here and Rotten Tomatoes exists primarily to compile and average their reviews in one easy place. The critics drive Rotten Tomatoes and Rotten Tomatoes reacts. Not the other way around. The critics have no incentive to adjust their reviews to Rotten Tomatoes scoring standards.

 

[jmc]

There's no system that RT or any other review aggregator can put in place that can generate a genuinely objective score unless all the critics have the exact same scoring method.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

There's no system that RT or any other review aggregator can put in place that can generate a genuinely objective score unless all the critics have the exact same scoring method.

Other than a binary (Pass/Fail) or a ternary (Good/Average/Bad) system, no.

 

[samsnee]

Ok so I don’t think RT is harmful to the industry as ostensibly they are just an aggregate site for reviews. But the way they are turning the reveal of Justice League’s score as an event is pathetic.

 

[Link]

Ok so I don’t think RT is harmful to the industry as ostensibly they are just an aggregate site for reviews. But the way they are turning the reveal of Justice League’s score as an event is pathetic.

People did send them death threats and wanted to close the site down for BvS, so it either has to do with that and the extra attention, or this is paid promotion by WB.

 

[honestbharani]

Would be funny as hell if it were to come out that after all the "Marvel pays the critics" drama by DC fanbois, it ends up being DC who pays RT to help them promote a movie.

 

[Kev4000]

would be funny as hell if it were to come out that after all the "marvel pays the critics" drama by dc fanbois, it ends up being dc who pays rt to help them promote a movie. :d

this!

 

[TheVileOne]

Rotten Tomatoes is partially owned by Warner Bros.

 

[2kt09]

lol at RT making its own show just to present a score.
Tune in next time for the teaser trailer to the teaser of this show.

 

[TheVileOne]

lol at RT making its own show just to present a score.
Tune in next time for the teaser trailer to the teaser of this show.

It's really dumb.

 

[2kt09]

It's really dumb.

I'm being dead serious when I say everyone who has cared more than they have to about RT are to blame. Congratulations for this nonsense.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Its 2017. Who exactly is faceless on the internet?

Everybody as far as Im concerned. Anyone can sit down in front of a desktop,laptop, smart phone and write an acid tongued review to slam anything they think their highly regarded opinion will harm. Again, I like to judge a film myself, and not have some faceless reviewer make up my mind for me.

 

[MadVillainy]

I'm being dead serious when I say everyone who has cared more than they have to about RT are to blame. Congratulations for this nonsense.

Agreed

 

[I Am The Knight]

They know everyone will be watching like a hawk. Bastards

 

[TheVileOne]

It's a good move for them in terms of traffic and ad revenue. But yeah, it's the people who get way too invested in RT scores who are to blame.

 

[Sithborg]

It frustrates me, because the ups and downs are what make the RT watch enjoyable.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm being dead serious when I say everyone who has cared more than they have to about RT are to blame. Congratulations for this nonsense.

You mean the people who made RT relevant and popular?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ok so I don’t think RT is harmful to the industry as ostensibly they are just an aggregate site for reviews. But the way they are turning the reveal of Justice League’s score as an event is pathetic.

I hate it too.

 

[Mysteryman]

They know everyone will be watching like a hawk. Bastards

Not me.
I care about the movie itself.
But, the RT score?
It makes no difference to me at all.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Not me.
I care about the movie itself.
But, the RT score?
It makes no difference to me at all.

It shouldn't make a difference to anyone. If something interests you enough to go see it...is all that should matter.