Rotten Tomatoes encourages mediocrity

[Fox12]

This is probably the third or so thread about Rotten Tomatoes, so I understand if you're rolling your eyes while reading this. However, I want to ask this question from a different perspective. I'm not complaining about Suicide Squad, or BvS, or Ghost Busters getting uneven review scores. I'm not even complaining about the disconnect between critics and audiances. Instead I want to ask about something that is a unique failure of aggregate review sites like Rotten Tomatoes. I believe it encourages mediocrity. Let me explain.

The human mind is biased towards something that is familiar. A film that follows the formula, or has a familiar plot structure, is more likely to garner a positive reaction from the viewer. Some stories, however, are more experimental. It takes time for a viewer to let it sink in. Once they understand it, they find that they love it. This is true for both critics and viewers. Unfortunately, sites like Rotten Tomatoes don't take that into account. They only consider the short term popularity of a film. This can create a negative stigma against a film that isn't bad, but that is divisive or experimental. Unfortunately, because of the poor score, people will avoid the film altogether. For instance, here is a list of movies by well made film makers:

Perfect Blue by Satoshi Kon- 68%
Dogville by Lars von Trier- 70%
Nymphomaniac Vol. 2 by Lars von Trier- 60%
Interstellar by Christopher Nolan- 71%

Now, none of those films are perfect, but anything that gives Perfect Blue, the film that Aranofsky has been ripping of for decades now, a score of 68% is not being intellectually honest. The problem is that a film as different as Perfect Blue, an animated R-rated psychological thriller drenched in symbolism, is going to get some strange reactions, even though Black Swan basically delivered the same story in live action many years later. While I don't think we need to destroy Rotten Tomatoes, or throw a fit, I think it's important to remember that a film isn't necessarily bad just because it got a lower score. It may just be different.

The problem is that film companies don't care about this. They know that mediocre films will get better reviews because they are safe and familiar. This will encourage them to make safe movies that retread old ground. In this way I believe that site like this encourage mediocrity in the medium.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Rotten Tomatoes is pretty unique in this respect because the ranking system is binary. You're either "fresh" or "rotten", and to what DEGREE one is fresh or rotten on an individual level is never really established unless someone reads the fucking reviews (God forbid, right?). So a genial crowd pleaser with little ambition will score in the high 90's, but an ambitious/divisive film might fall as far as 60% (in your example, a "Perfect Blue"). This presents a point of confusion for people who want to look at a score and get a sense from that score alone whether a film is "good" or "bad".

So you can certainly argue that Rotten Tomatoes encourages mediocrity in the way that aggregate websites everywhere encourage mediocrity...not in the products they review, but in the consumers who employ the data they are sharing uncritically. If you pop onto a review aggregate site, look at the aggregate score, and consider your research as a consumer complete, then any shenanigans that later ensue are entirely at your feet. A numerical score is never going to tell you everything you need to know about a book, a film, a game, a song, a show, etc. The problem is not and has never been aggregate sites. It's audience laziness, plain and simple.

 

[Chanticoblues]

I agree, which is why I don't use Rottentomatoes at all when deciding what to see. And yeah, a 60 for Nymphomaniac and a 71 for Interstellar doesn't do them credit. I mean, I hate both of those movies, but the percentages hardly give the image of how divisive or ambitious either of those films are. A percentage doesn't give any insight, really---and the cherry-picked poster quotes courtesy of critics don't really paint a picture either.

Bah, I don't like the site.

 

[RaikuFA]

Never used RT for anything. Never been a fan of those type of sites.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I might becoming insane (too much time in R&P) but didn't I make a similar thread?

I was actually about to ask 'didn't we already have a thread titled this?'

 

[Fox12]

I might becoming insane (too much time in R&P) but didn't I make a smiliar thread?

There have been about five. There's another one by Samtendo on Off Topic right now. All the ones I've seen have been about Suicide Squad, though, which isn't what I wanted to focus on.

I agree, which is why I don't use Rottentomatoes at all when deciding what to see. And yeah, a 60 for Nymphomaniac and a 71 for Interstellar doesn't do them credit. I mean, I hate both of those movies, but the percentages hardly give the image of how divisive or ambitious either of those films are. A percentage doesn't give any insight, really---and the cherry-picked poster quotes courtesy of critics don't really paint a picture either.

Bah, I don't like the site.

I'm actually not a big fan of Lars "I'm a nazi" von Trier. I liked Melancholia and hated Antichrist. However, his films were well made, and they did make me think. They also challenged the status quo in film making. The reasons why people like him or hate him are very nuanced, however, and I think it's sad that most of his films get a bad rap just because they're controversial. It's criminal that these films can be lambasted for being ambitious while the typical action movie can sit in the 90's.

 

[Strazdas]

Rotten tomatoes are rotten and so is the results of that site. I however disagree with your reasoning on why it is a bad measure.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I don't think they encourage mediocrity. That's just because the studios are trying to play it safe, and failing. They host reviews submitted by other people. They say either "fresh" or "rotten", but they still do list percentages. You would be better served reading the reviews themselves. Or find a movie reviewer who's interests parallel your own, and listen to what they have to say.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Rotten Tomatoes is an overly-simplistic binary aggregation of diverse critical opinions with a lot of leeway for human error and/or personal bias. BloatedGuppy covered it nicely.

People shouldn't use the RT score as a metric for the quality of a film. They do anyway, partly because they don't understand what the RT score actually is, and partly because it's a very prominent and easily digested number that circulates easily. The reason this is getting so much attention recently is because this past few years, coverage of film releases has focussed very heavily on the Tomatometer score. This artificially inflates the Tomatometer's prestige and over-emphasises its credibility.

Find a trustworthy reviewer who shares your interests and tastes, consider their opinion, and then decide whether or not to see a film for yourself.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Rotten Tomatoes is an overly-simplistic binary aggregation of diverse critical opinions with a lot of leeway for human error and/or personal bias. BloatedGuppy covered it nicely.

People shouldn't use the RT score as a metric for the quality of a film. They do anyway, partly because they don't understand what the RT score actually is, and partly because it's a very prominent and easily digested number that circulates easily. The reason this is getting so much attention recently is because this past few years, coverage of film releases has focussed very heavily on the Tomatometer score. This artificially inflates the Tomatometer's prestige and over-emphasises its credibility.

Find a trustworthy reviewer who shares your interests and tastes, consider their opinion, and then decide whether or not to see a film for yourself.

I'll echo this and BloatedGuppy as well. I don't use the site, but the scale still being only "fresh" or "rotten" is just fucking stupid. Just including a third option would make the scale vastly more flexible; "fresh" for films that are definitely worth seeing, "mouldy" for films you should take a closer look at before deciding if it's worth your time and "rotten" for pieces of crap.

 

[Fallow]

OP is accurate, though I think the use of the term "mediocre" is pretty loaded here and includes how mainstream or hyped the movie is, how well it aligns with the current trendy ideology (Ghostbuster reviews vs Ghostbuster actual ratings) and other stuff.


Perhaps a better way to do it is to emulate the new approach to scientific publishing. Instead of giving a score or "fresh/rotten" you give a "token" for aspects you felt the movie did well. If the movie has awesome action scenes then you give it an "action" token, if the movie has a rich dramatic vein you give it a "drama" token and so on. The tokens could be more or less specific, with anything from "side-character wore mismatching socks" to "stuff". You can also give as many different tokens as you like.

The result is hopefully that bland films will get few tokens while exciting films that include a bunch of stuff get many different tokens.

The approach is not without fault as there are some pretty strong cultural differences in what constitutes drama and so on, but it's better than the current model.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The problem with RT is that it aggregates a lot of reviews, and as Moviebob pointed out once (in one of his better moments) reviews serve many different purposes. Many reviews are little more than consumer advice, and those are inevitably going to be targetted to one of the various demographics of consumer which the film industry thinks the world is composed of (the "mainstream audience", "cult fanboys", "arthouse elitists" and so forth).

Of the movies you posted, Interstellar is the only one which had anything approaching a mainstream release, and coincidentally it has the highest aggregate score. The typical criticism of interstellar, however, is still "it's not fun to watch". These are reviews aimed at "typical" moviegoers who, it is assumed, watch films mostly for fun and relaxation, and that's not necessarily bad. Think about how many people you know who would actually enjoy a movie like Interstellar, let alone any Lars von Trier film. Considering one of the most common criticisms levelled at critics is that they're out of touch with ordinary moviegoers, is it right that critics should be heaping praise on a bunch of movies their typical readers will hate?

If you want decent opinions on cult, film circuit or arthouse movies, you need to read more specialized media or pick out specific reviews from rotten tomatoes. I always find Sight and Sound a good starting point (although they also didn't like Interstellar).

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The site only measures positive and negative reviews and does not take into account the individual reviews actual ratings. It's your own fault if you look at their review barometer and don't do further digging, you can't blame the site for reader's inability to read the actual reviews.

 

[CaitSeith]

This comes from the premise that film companies care a lot about the review scores in the first place. They do not. They care more about money than scores. They care more about the reviews letting know to the public that the movie exists than the reviews themselves. The only number they care about is the tickets sales; and negative review scores have a negligible impact in that number when compared to the effect from the rest of the advertisement and marketing.

No, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't encourage mediocrity.

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

I think the Critic Consensus on RT is often what I can get behind, rather than the aggregated score. I read the CC quite often befor watching something, especially when it comes to TV shows. I also watch Moviebob because I know how to take what he says and know if I still will like something he himself didn't.

The thing with all critics is to find someone who you can mostly relate to. Then she/he/* can help you find stuff you like. I literally can't watch every pilot of every TV show to find out what I want to see Likewise with movies.

Regarding the score alone I'm not sure if it is not quite often simply "read" wrong. I'd say it's obvious why Nympho 2 got less than 1. I'd rate them similarly apart from each other. And I absolutely loved the first one but I am totally aware that most people can't take away from it what I did due to personal experience or simply a complicated relationship with sex in general. And Interstellar I liked a lot as well. In spite of the weird ending which a friend described as "how an Atheist approaches his version of metaphysics". Would I give Interstellar something above 80? No. Do I think lots of movies got over 80 who don't deserve it? Yeah. ....

One score can hardly wrap itself around everything a show or a movie contains, but it can approach it. No one, not even RT itself, would claim they have "the" score. They just try to spell something out which eludes spelling out

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Catnip1024]

Rotten Tomatoes is just a symptom of the business like nature of the industry. If RT wasn't used as a barometer, then they would just go back to relying on critics or whatever, and a lot of the time critics are even worse judges (Die Another Day, people).

Then again, I largely only use RT to get a better gist of what the plots about than reading descriptions on Netflix, so I am never really affected by scores.

Also, if they really cared about RT scores, surely a lot of sequels to shit movies wouldn't have happened. And the world would be a better place.