A whole lot of rottenness at Rotten Tomatoes.

[CB2001]

So, it’s finally come to light that Rotten Tomatoes critics reviews are bought (not really surprising).

 

[Psab keel]

The game has been rigged for decades.

 

[Cephus]

What makes you think this is new? ALL professional reviewers are doing that, if not for money, then for access. If they give enough bad reviews, they risk losing all of the freebies and early film access. The whole thing is rigged and always has been.

 

[pengbuzz]

It's never been fair, don't kid yourself.

 

[joberg]

 

[Ron]

"I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find gambling is going on in here!"

 

[Psab keel]

 

[robstyle]

Reviewers have been paid since before all of us were even born. Now if we could get the same focus on the off kilter IMDB star ratings...

 

[HeartBlade]

Is Rotten Tomatoes any more different than other sites though? And given personally motivated responses for voting for films people havent seen in the audience section despite having never seen the film (which can be seem with scores for movies that havent been released yet pr stuff like that), honestly I feel the best policy is to assume these rankings are innately flawed and to always take them with a grain of salt.

Probably also why youtuber/independent critics are more popular and seem more stable. They are also biased top but you know their biases. Find a critic with similar tastes and you basicslly get a good review of movies you might like.

 

[dascoyne]

Is Rotten Tomatoes any more different than other sites though? And given personally motivated responses for voting for films people havent seen in the audience section despite having never seen the film (which can be seem with scores for movies that havent been released yet pr stuff like that), honestly I feel the best policy is to assume these rankings are innately flawed and to always take them with a grain of salt.

Probably also why youtuber/independent critics are more popular and seem more stable. They are also biased top but you know their biases. Find a critic with similar tastes and you basicslly get a good review of movies you might like.

The difference is that Rotten Tomatoes is marketed as an impartial meta-analysis of a large sample of critics reviews to conjure a score that has actual objective value.
That's like saying Wikipedia is biased ... oh wait.

 

[Cephus]

The difference is that Rotten Tomatoes is marketed as an impartial meta-analysis of a large sample of critics reviews to conjure a score that has actual objective value.
That's like saying Wikipedia is biased ... oh wait.

We've known that's a lie forever. Rotten Tomatoes is in the pocket of the studios and always has been.

 

[jkno]

I never cared about Rotten Tomatoes. I usually go on IMDB and look at some user reviews. But not even that makes my mind about how good or bad a movie is.

 

[Strikerkc]

I guess I'm out of the loop. I thought that rotten tomatoes was really only good for it's user reviews; because the "critic" reviews were always comically in line with whatever hollywood narrative was being pushed at the time.

 

[Cephus]

I guess I'm out of the loop. I thought that rotten tomatoes was really only good for it's user reviews; because the "critic" reviews were always comically in line with whatever hollywood narrative was being pushed at the time.

That was right up to the point that they started demonstrably "editing" user reviews if they got too out of line and studios complained. You can't trust them at all.

 

[HeartBlade]

The difference is that Rotten Tomatoes is marketed as an impartial meta-analysis of a large sample of critics reviews to conjure a score that has actual objective value.
That's like saying Wikipedia is biased ... oh wait.

Makes sense although many review sites like to tout being “objective.”

That was right up to the point that they started demonstrably "editing" user reviews if they got too out of line and studios complained. You can't trust them at all.

Yeah, this definitely seems to be a thing that has hurt Rotten the most imo. I used to think Rotten was ok (not my go to but I dont really go for movie reviews tbh, mostly rely on word of mouth and what peeks my basic interest lol) but the fact that they seem to specifically only remove bad reviews made them suspect. Sure you could argue that they are only removing “troll” reviews but it does seem to be the case where Rotten removes legitimate reviews that cause the overall score to go down.

Then again, I do think the review system is a necessary evil that must always be taken with a grain of salt. Being overly critical removes “access” so reviewers are always going to be beholden to producers, especially big producers and will be unwilling to bite the hand that feeds them. They should only be seen as one point of view that is biased toward supporting the movie and be taken as such.

 

[janglesworthy]

Original Gangsters of the review world

 

[Cephus]

Back when you could be reasonably certain they weren't taking bribes. The movie industry needed them more than they needed the movie industry.

 

[dascoyne]

Original Gangsters of the review world
View attachment 1739728

Great guys.


But I remember being blown away by Blade Runner then coming home to watch them both pan it as "boring". Everyone hated Blade Runner.

 

[publiusr]

I seem to remember Ebert dishing on THE THING.

 

[darthwhitey]

I'm no expert, on RT or review websites, but I do feel like that years ago RT (regardless of bribes) was fairly impartial.

NOW, they seem to have just sold out to the man and mainstream ideologues.

I haven't trusted them for years. I'm just glad they've been exposed now...