It was revealed by Vulture that a PR firm was manipulating reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for the last 5 or so years. Ignoring how shady that is, it raises questions about the site’s integrity. Or it would…had the way the article was promoted not been misleading. To quote it directly:
“But just because the ‘Tomatometer’ says a title is ‘rotten’ — scoring below 60 percent — it doesn’t need to stay that way. Bunker 15 went to work. While most film-PR companies aim to get the attention of critics from top publications, Bunker 15 takes a more bottom-up approach, recruiting obscure, often self-published critics who are nevertheless part of the pool tracked by Rotten Tomatoes. In another break from standard practice, several critics say, Bunker 15 pays them $50 or more for each review. (These payments are not typically disclosed, and Rotten Tomatoes says it prohibits ‘reviewing based on a financial incentive.’)”
This sounds damning initially, but Vulture doesn’t single out all movies. Rather, it’s singling out Bunker 15 and their attempts to bribe reviewers for “more favourable reviews”. It’s not a statement against the reviewing process, though Vulture has plenty to say there too. Either way, this is bad optics really only for Bunker 15. Let’s be clear here.
I’d like to get some misconceptions about Rotten Tomatoes cleared up. Firstly, it’s not a review site. Like Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregate site. It grabs reviewers that are verified, surveys their reviews and compiles them. It’s the messenger. And remember, don’t shoot the messenger.
Secondly, its system, while incredibly-flawed, is really transparent. Unlike Metacritic, where you can’t access its grading formula all that easily without mathematics, Rotten Tomatoes’ mission statement’s available for everyone. This extends to how it aggregates movies and shows, as well as how to apply. If you’re ever skeptical about a score, you can always click on the aggregate for a breakdown and average score out of 10. If you want proof, read it for yourself.
Thirdly, Rotten Tomatoes has different standards for different movies. Big-budget releases need at least 80 reviews, including 40 “Top Critics”, to assign “Certified Fresh”, “Fresh” or “Rotten” aggregates, complete with a consensus. For independent releases, the reviews go down to 40, including 10 “Top Critics”. It seems “skewed”, and perhaps it is, but since smaller releases aren’t seen by as many people, I think this is somewhat equitable. If you don’t believe me, the site has User Reviews.
Secondly, its system, while incredibly-flawed, is really transparent. Unlike Metacritic, where you can’t access its grading formula all that easily without mathematics, Rotten Tomatoes’ mission statement’s available for everyone. This extends to how it aggregates movies and shows, as well as how to apply. If you’re ever skeptical about a score, you can always click on the aggregate for a breakdown and average score out of 10. If you want proof, read it for yourself.
Thirdly, Rotten Tomatoes has different standards for different movies. Big-budget releases need at least 80 reviews, including 40 “Top Critics”, to assign “Certified Fresh”, “Fresh” or “Rotten” aggregates, complete with a consensus. For independent releases, the reviews go down to 40, including 10 “Top Critics”. It seems “skewed”, and perhaps it is, but since smaller releases aren’t seen by as many people, I think this is somewhat equitable. If you don’t believe me, the site has User Reviews.
And fourthly, all of the reviews are available to read below the aggregates. This is where people tend to miss the boat. If you disagree with an aggregate, you can see its breakdown. And if you’re curious to learn more about a reviewer’s opinion, the link to their work’s right there. I’m not sure what else to tell you.
I use Rotten Tomatoes regularly. I’m on a minimum wage salary, and I can only consume so much art. The Tomatometer helps me see what could potentially be of interest. It doesn’t mean that I agree, I often don’t, but I at least try to understand where the aggregates come from. If something has a 92% versus a 93%, it doesn’t matter that much. But if it has a 56% versus a 92%, then that’s an indication something’s up. That’s where deductive reasoning comes in.
I used to think Rotten Tomatoes was garbage. I remember going there and guessing how “wrong” a Tomatometer was for something I liked. But that was over a decade ago. These days, whenever I see an aggregate I disagree with, I try to think about what the reviewers were going for. It’s healthier that way.
I use Rotten Tomatoes regularly. I’m on a minimum wage salary, and I can only consume so much art. The Tomatometer helps me see what could potentially be of interest. It doesn’t mean that I agree, I often don’t, but I at least try to understand where the aggregates come from. If something has a 92% versus a 93%, it doesn’t matter that much. But if it has a 56% versus a 92%, then that’s an indication something’s up. That’s where deductive reasoning comes in.
I used to think Rotten Tomatoes was garbage. I remember going there and guessing how “wrong” a Tomatometer was for something I liked. But that was over a decade ago. These days, whenever I see an aggregate I disagree with, I try to think about what the reviewers were going for. It’s healthier that way.
Does that mean Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t have problems? Of course not! Aside from its borderline Fresh/Rotten grading needing work, there are times when a review doesn’t match the site’s standards for “Fresh”. I also find that Rotten Tomatoes routinely falls prey to becoming its own cheerleader. That, and studios routinely exploit the site for PR, as evidenced by Bunker 15.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a purpose, as I stated earlier. Nor does it equate to a “reviewer conspiracy”, as that’s not possible given human nature. Rotten Tomatoes has hundreds of reviewers from all over the world, and many don’t even know one-another. Of those who do, they’re not monolithic. Some probably don’t even like each other, while others review in bad-faith. It’d be too hard to coordinate a review conspiracy.
I think several voices on the internet need to humble themselves here. Zack Snyder fans need to stop assuming that everyone who didn’t like his films are acting in bad-faith. People who despise Disney need to stop claiming that Disney “bribes reviewers” to praise their “woke trash”. And film snobs need to not believe that reviewers are “too kind” to populist entertainment. Bunker 15 did something wrong, and those reviewers who accepted bribes need reprimanding, but this scandal’s being overblown.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a purpose, as I stated earlier. Nor does it equate to a “reviewer conspiracy”, as that’s not possible given human nature. Rotten Tomatoes has hundreds of reviewers from all over the world, and many don’t even know one-another. Of those who do, they’re not monolithic. Some probably don’t even like each other, while others review in bad-faith. It’d be too hard to coordinate a review conspiracy.
I think several voices on the internet need to humble themselves here. Zack Snyder fans need to stop assuming that everyone who didn’t like his films are acting in bad-faith. People who despise Disney need to stop claiming that Disney “bribes reviewers” to praise their “woke trash”. And film snobs need to not believe that reviewers are “too kind” to populist entertainment. Bunker 15 did something wrong, and those reviewers who accepted bribes need reprimanding, but this scandal’s being overblown.
You don’t have to “like” Rotten Tomatoes, or even agree with their system. I don’t always agree with them myself! I thought reviewers were unfair to The Star Wars Prequels, and I didn’t think Mad Max: Fury Road was anything special. No one’s stopping you from agreeing/disagreeing with an aggregate, nor are they stopping you from expressing that disagreement. After all, that’s what makes film special!
What Bunker 15 did is wrong, and they need to be held accountable. I also think everyone should take Rotten Tomatoes with a grain of salt, not view them as something that can’t be challenged. The site does update every-so-often, and this includes adding reviews occasionally. Regarding it as the “Golden Standard”, especially when that dismisses the reviewers who comprise its makeup, is like attributing the success of a movie or show to a studio, instead of the thousands of individuals who make it run smoothly. Besides, isn’t that why there’s a strike?
What Bunker 15 did is wrong, and they need to be held accountable. I also think everyone should take Rotten Tomatoes with a grain of salt, not view them as something that can’t be challenged. The site does update every-so-often, and this includes adding reviews occasionally. Regarding it as the “Golden Standard”, especially when that dismisses the reviewers who comprise its makeup, is like attributing the success of a movie or show to a studio, instead of the thousands of individuals who make it run smoothly. Besides, isn’t that why there’s a strike?
No comments:
Post a Comment