Rotten Tomatoes as critic aggregator, score influences, studio tampering 1 1

[Bosco685]

Interesting article from The New York Times on how Hollywood sees Rotten Tomatoes as both a friend and a foe. Depending on the results. And the methods being used by studios to combat what they see as a possible threat, when the results due to ugly.

Attacked by Rotten Tomatoes

Quote

Hollywood had a horrible summer.

 

Ready for the truly alarming part? Hollywood is blaming a website: Rotten Tomatoes.

 

“I think it’s the destruction of our business,” Brett Ratner, the director, producer and film financier, said at a film festival this year.

 

Some studio executives privately concede that a few recent movies — just a few — were simply bad. Flawed marketing may have played a role in a couple of other instances, they acknowledged, along with competition from Netflix and Amazon.

 

Studio executives’ complaints about Rotten Tomatoes include the way its Tomatometer hacks off critical nuance, the site’s seemingly loose definition of who qualifies as a critic and the spread of Tomatometer scores across the web. Last year, scores started appearing on Fandango, the online movie ticket-selling site, leading to grousing that a rotten score next to the purchase button was the same as posting this message: You are an insufficiently_thoughtful_person if you pay to see this movie.

 

‘Incredibly Layered’ Process

 

For the studios, the question of how individual reviews get classified as fresh or rotten is also a point of contention. Only about half of critics self-submit reviews and classifications to the site. Rotten Tomatoes staffers comb the web and pull the other half themselves. They then assign positive or negative grades.

 

“We have a well-defined process,” said Mr. Voris, the vice president of Rotten Tomatoes. “Our curators audit each other’s work. If there is any question about how a review should be classified, we have three curators separate and do independent reads. If there still isn’t agreement, we call the journalist.”

 

Staff members also fact-check what critics have self-submitted. In one recent instance, a review of “Alien: Covenant” that was submitted as fresh seemed rotten. The site reversed the categorization after contacting the critic for clarification.

 

Hollywood Fights Back

 

Most importantly, studios are panicking because movie-going is no longer a habit for most Americans. Because of climbing prices and competition from other forms of entertainment, a trip to the multiplex has become a special event. In particular, more movie fans are ignoring low- and mid-budget films when they are in theaters: Ehh, let’s wait until they show up on Netflix. Studios are trying to battle Rotten Tomatoes on multiple fronts.

 

Marketers have discovered that early positive reviews can produce a bandwagon effect later, as some critics, especially those at less prestigious outlets, seek to go with the flow instead of against it. Studios have also started screening films early for pockets of critics. In some cases, studios create spreadsheets of which critics to invite to early screenings — often at festivals — based on questions such as who liked what in the past and who gives positive reviews more often than not. It is notable that “Leatherface,” a horror movie scheduled for release in late October, already has a very positive Tomatometer score of 86 based on seven reviews. (Rotten Tomatoes requires a minimum of five reviews before calculating a score.) The seven reviews came after an August screening at a London festival called FrightFest that was attended by reviewers from sites like Dread Central and HeyUGuys, which bills itself as an outlet for “love letters to cinema.”

 

Another way to undercut Rotten Tomatoes involves restricting reviews until the last possible minute. Sony set a review embargo of opening day for “The Emoji Movie,” which left the Tomatometer blank until after many advance tickets had been sold and families had made weekend plans. “The Emoji Movie,” which ultimately received a Tomatometer score of 8, squeezed out decent opening-weekend ticket sales of $24.5 million.

 

If Rotten Tomatoes is a monster, the studios helped create it. As much as they fear and loathe low scores, they love high ones. Sony recently ended its trailer for “Baby Driver,” a heist thriller, by flashing the Rotten Tomatoes logo and “100 percent,” the film’s Tomatometer score at the time. (It later slipped to 94.) Annapurna did the same thing for “Detroit” in television ads. (Not that it helped; that drama flopped.)

 

And Rotten Tomatoes is getting stronger. The site is working to build its Tomatometer scores for TV shows into a more formidable force. Also in development are a half-dozen video series, including one built around a cheeky event created by Ms. Drake, the senior movie editor, called Your Opinion Sucks.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

“I think it’s the destruction of our business,” Brett Ratner, the director, producer and film financier, said at a film festival this year.

Translation:  "I can't just squeeze out a turd on-screen anymore without getting called out for it, and that's just not good for my turds."  

Not that all of his films are bad, but a good number of them certainly are.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

Translation:  "I can't just squeeze out a turd on-screen anymore without getting called out for it, and that's just not good for my turds."  

Not that all of his films are bad, but a good number of them certainly are.

I did laugh when I read that quote. So easy to blame a critic aggregation site in situations where it comes down to poorly delivered films.

[fantastic_four]

Oh my GOD, here's the more complete version of what Ratner had to say about Rotten Tomatoes.

https://ew.com/movies/2017/03/23/ratner-tomatoes-scores/

Quote

"that’s sad, because the Rotten Tomatoes score was so low on Batman v Superman I think it put a cloud over a movie that was incredibly successful."

"People don’t realize what goes into making a movie like that,” Ratner continued. “It’s mind-blowing. It’s just insane, it’s hurting the business, it’s getting people to not see a movie. In Middle America it’s, ‘Oh, it’s a low Rotten Tomatoes score so I’m not going to go see it because it must suck.’ But that number is an aggregate and one that nobody can figure out exactly what it means, and it’s not always correct. I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores. What’s sad is film criticism has disappeared. It’s really sad.”

Nobody can figure out exactly what it means?  Does he mean the average person, or himself?  Because I know HE knows what it means, so I assume he means most people--but what he said was "nobody" can figure it out, so he's clearly attempting to exaggerate and/or mislead.  He's probably half-right about that, but it's fine.  No, it's not an indicator of the relative quality of a film--that's what their "average rating" score is--but it is a broader general indication as to whether the average person is likely to enjoy a film.

What films could he be alluding to that are great but had really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores, I wonder?  I can't say I've EVER seen that.  The Tomatometer is absolutely generally reflective of overall critical score, so I can't tell at all what he's trying to say, so I'm assuming he's just attempting to disinform.

[Bosco685]

 

[media_junkie]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Not surprising at all.

[theCapraAegagrus]

It's why I put 0 stock into their "Critic Score".

Some people take these site scores as absolute, too. That's just crazy. More of a 'guide' - if anything.

[Bosco685]

No matter how disappointed any of us were with Wonder Woman 1984, a critic celebrating his peers were able to drive the film down to a 'rotten' rating is quite the ugly example of how Rotten Tomatoes is manipulated. He was offended other critics noted early on the film had a positive message.

New York Post and other outlets critic

[D84]

I can't believe anyone uses Rotten Tomatoes anymore.🤦‍♂️

[Bosco685]

9 minutes ago, D84 said:

I can't believe anyone uses Rotten Tomatoes anymore.🤦‍♂️

It just goes to show how much the studios still care as they go out of their way to wine and dine these folks before a film comes out. Along with studios learning how to manipulate Audience Scores to counter low Critics Scores.

[▫️]

On 2/3/2020 at 7:03 PM, fantastic_four said:

What films could he be alluding to that are great but had really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores, I wonder?  I can't say I've EVER seen that. 

There are dozens of films that I love in the fifty percent bracket like The Life Aquatic. Some even lower like The Boondock Saints at 28%. More often than not I will side with RT on whether it’s a good or bad film but I hardly ever agree on the percentages. I never use that site to decide whether or not I should go see a movie I have an interest in. If it turns out to be bad then my family and I can have fun trashing or debating it after. I sometimes check the RT scores after I’ve seen a film to see if I align with the precious critics with their BA in Journalism or Film Studies. 

[fantastic_four]

8 hours ago, Oddball said:

There are dozens of films that I love in the fifty percent bracket like The Life Aquatic. Some even lower like The Boondock Saints at 28%. More often than not I will side with RT on whether it’s a good or bad film but I hardly ever agree on the percentages. I never use that site to decide whether or not I should go see a movie I have an interest in. If it turns out to be bad then my family and I can have fun trashing or debating it after. I sometimes check the RT scores after I’ve seen a film to see if I align with the precious critics with their BA in Journalism or Film Studies. 

Films can EASILY be bad yet still be lovable.  I love pretty much every Michael Bay movie, but that doesn't mean I think they're not full of cheese.  Plenty examples out there of bad movies I love--Ben Affleck Daredevil, Starship Troopers, etc.  Starship Troopers is an interesting one because it was below 50% for years, but in retrospect younger critics have come to like it and it's now up to 65%.

Life Aquatic is one of Wes's lesser films.  I enjoyed it, but it's not great.  His humor is much sharper in most of his others.  56% isn't a bad score, it means mixed reviews, and that seems appropriate for something idiosyncratic like Life Aquatic.  The 60% "fresh" rating means almost nothing to me...anything above 40% to 50% is probably decent because it means half of professionals liked it.

[Bosco685]

Rotten Tomatoes editors even recognized there are many films with low RT scores that people love.

56 ROTTEN MOVIES WE ACTUALLY LOVE

Quote

JUDGE DREDD (1995)  20%

#51Two years after the Freshly scored Demolition Man — also starring Stallone — Judge Dredd fell victim to harsh comparisons to its comic book source material (and of course the Anthrax song “I Am the Law”). But in a time when comic adaptations were relatively subpar, Judge Dredd served its purpose with no-frills action and an over-the-top premise that — in hindsight — makes it arguably as memorable as Demolition Man and others of the ilk.

 

MAN ON FIRE (2004)  38%

#32Denzel Washington goes ham in Mexico City to get back the girl (a young Dakota Fanning) he was sworn to protect. That’s the entire story. There was no movie plot so basic that Tony Scott couldn’t jazz it up with crazy color grading, fast cuts, hard action, and swirling camera movements.

 

THE MUMMY (1999)  61%

#3The year is 1999. Ten years after The Last Crusade, and nine years before the next promised Indiana Jones installment. (Legend has it some people are still waiting for it…) In the meanwhile, enter this straight-shootin’ update of the Universal classic with enough fresh faces to keep the adventure new. There’s the put-upon sidekick (John Hannah), a comic adversary (Kevin J. O’Connor), and a brainy love interest (Rachel Weisz). Brendan Fraser doesn’t bring any particular depth to the hero role, but that’s forgivable, especially in light of the recent Mummy reboot.

 

THE SANDLOT (1993)  63%

#4Boomer nostalgia for the 1950s and 1960s apparently ran its course with adults by the time The Sandlot came out (“Bring on That ’70s Show!” they cried from their VW Westfalias), but there’s no shortage of ’90s kids who’ve adopted this as a movie mascot of their generation. It’s about the simple joys of a typical childhood: rowdy sports, poolside crushes, neighborhood tall tales, and treehouse s’mores. Detractors criticize Sandlot‘s slack pacing, but those into its rhythm find a movie that feels like a long, carefree dog day of summer.

 

SPACEBALLS (1987)  55%

#6It’s unfortunate that Spaceballs essentially marks the downward turn of Mel Brooks‘ directorial career, because while it may not reach the heights of The Producers or Young Frankenstein, there is no better Star Wars parody out there, and it’s endlessly quotable. Considering the horrid output of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer in the ensuing years (Date Movie, Epic Movie, etc.), we’ll take the adventures of Lone Starr, Barf, Princess Vespa (she’s Druish), Dot Matrix, and Yogurt any day. May the Schwartz be with you.

 

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY (2013)  51%

#14We can all relate to the desire to get away from our real-world problems and imagine a universe in which we’re heroes. And sometimes, it’s OK if a movie does that for us, even if it’s a little saccharine. Ben Stiller‘s adaptation of James Thurber’s fantastical adventure has such a sweet optimism at its core, and it’s so beautifully shot, that it’s hard not to come away from it feeling a little warmer and fuzzier inside.

 

NATIONAL TREASURE (2004)  46%

#20Before the Indiana Jones franchise was revived in 2008, and after we had already gotten two underwhelming Tomb Raider movies, Nicolas Cage came along to fill the globe-trotting explorer--action star void. We know the story is preposterous, but it’s got Sean Bean in his best villain mode, Harvey Keitel and Jon Voight oozing gravitas, a conspiracy theory-fueled scavenger hunt, and for crying out loud, Cage’s character is named Benjamin Franklin Gates. It’s all ridiculous, but it’s just breezy and whimsical enough to be fun.

 

REIGN OF FIRE (2002)  42%

#29Before Game of Thrones lit up the small screen with its trio of badass dragons, Reign of Fire featured menacing fire-breathers in a dystopian modern London. The film stars Christian Bale, Matthew McConaughey, and Gerard Butler — that’s a lot of testosterone assembled to battle dragons. What could go wrong?

 

KUNG POW! ENTER THE FIST (2002)  13%

#55Remember when Woody Allen took an old Japanese spy movie, redubbed all of the original dialogue, and came up with a nonsensical new storyline? This is like Steve Oedekerk‘s version of that, but with an obscure kung fu flick, and with added scenes that he filmed himself. It’s absolutely inane, and you will not come away from this movie a smarter person — we can pretty much guarantee that — but you will laugh, and you will later criticize yourself for it. Perfect for those of you who like to indulge in a little self-loathing.

 

[Bosco685]

After 80 years of a 100% positive score Rotten Tomatoes wanted to ensure it accounted for that ONE CRITIC that just didn't care for this film. But the news outlet never got around to registering this legacy review until now.

[media_junkie]

33 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

After 80 years of a 100% positive score Rotten Tomatoes wanted to ensure it accounted for that ONE CRITIC that just didn't care for this film. But the news outlet never got around to registering this legacy review until now.

What am I missing here, how the hell can Rotten Tomatoes have been around for 80 years?  I mean Al Gore didn't invent the internet until the 80's.

Edited April 27, 2021 by media_junkie
Because I obviously cannot type for diddly.

[Bosco685]

12 minutes ago, media_junkie said:

What am I missing here, how the hell can Rotten Tomatoes have been around for 80 years?  I mean Al Gore didn't the internet until the 80's.

RT has done this for years where it pulls in legacy reviews on films that came out long before it existed.

Just in this case the review is ancient and now was realized to be unaccounted for.

[kav]

Rotten Potatoes reviewers are so biased and predictable.  Audience score much more accurate.  Low reviewer high audience is a great movie.

[Rip]

I feel like reviews are quite often somewhat correct but also need an adjustment.

For example if a movie is a horror movie, it tends to get rated a bit low. 

If the movie is socially political active, it gets bonus points. 

Now it seems if its a sequel that's even slightly controversial, then expect the review score to be brigated.

The most brigated score of all time on RT was Revenge of the Sith, and that's saying it lightly. More liked hacked.

It had 32 million votes in one month during 2010, dropping the score 20 points. I don't think there is anything close on the site to get that many ratings ever.

The site is a bit broken to say the least.

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-prequel-rotten-tomatoes-scores-changes/3/#:~:text=Revenge of the Sith currently,causing a 20 point drop.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Rip

[Bosco685]

10 minutes ago, kav said:

Rotten Potatoes reviewers are so biased and predictable.  Audience score much more accurate.  Low reviewer high audience is a great movie.

I think you and I had a chat about this topic before, but unfortunately studios have manipulated that score as well supposedly by using banks of users to flood the Audience Score.

I started watching for this with Rise of Skywalker, and noticed the lower the critic scores went and the more audience users voted every time the Audience Score remained at 86%. Even though other tracking sites (Metacritic, IMDb) told a much different story.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I think you and I had a chat about this topic before, but unfortunately studios have manipulated that score as well supposedly by using banks of users to flood the Audience Score.

I started watching for this with Rise of Skywalker, and noticed the lower the critic scores went and the more audience users voted every time the Audience Score remained at 86%. Even though other tracking sites (Metacritic, IMDb) told a much different story.

True.  Well i trust the audience reviews more than the reviewers reviews, just based on movies I liked and hated, and the scores they recieved. Both scores bogus but reviewer score more bogus IMO.