Why’s this so hard to understand? We can argue semantics forever. We can also debate whether or not you agree on an overall consensus. But when you remove the finer details, reviews are opinions. You’re not obligated to agree, correct?
Such is the situation whenever Rotten Tomatoes’ credibility’s brought up. I don’t agree with much of how the site operates, and I’ve mentioned this before. However, their scoring system’s self-explanatory. Their job isn’t to be completely-objective, but rather give an outline that helps consumers know what to look for. This isn’t rocket science.
Whenever Rotten Tomatoes gets brought up, people trash it for petty reasons: they gave X a good score. They weren’t fair to Y. They were “bought off”. The last claim’s absurd, as reviewers aren’t normally bribed, but the conversation then turns to how IMDB’s better. And I couldn’t disagree more.
For those not in the know, IMDB’s a site that’s also an aggregator, but in a different way. Whereas Rotten Tomatoes measures what critics say, IMDB measures what moviegoers say. There’s also a section for user reviews, as well as a now-defunct forum section. Sounds good, right?
Not entirely. While user reviews might be more democratic in theory, in practice they lead to many problems. IMDB isn’t regulated like Rotten Tomatoes, hence anyone can write a review. Additionally, it’s rife with clique-y behaviour, where people with chips on their shoulders review-bomb good movies. This leads to jealousy and resentment, which is also unmoderated. Because how could it?
I’ve become skeptical of IMDB’s authenticity over the past decade or so. It has some useful trivia and news, like any good database, but does that warrant the vitriol? It also democratizes user reviews, but at what cost? What good is a database that encourages toxicity? Is it worth the headaches?
Not entirely. While user reviews might be more democratic in theory, in practice they lead to many problems. IMDB isn’t regulated like Rotten Tomatoes, hence anyone can write a review. Additionally, it’s rife with clique-y behaviour, where people with chips on their shoulders review-bomb good movies. This leads to jealousy and resentment, which is also unmoderated. Because how could it?
I’ve become skeptical of IMDB’s authenticity over the past decade or so. It has some useful trivia and news, like any good database, but does that warrant the vitriol? It also democratizes user reviews, but at what cost? What good is a database that encourages toxicity? Is it worth the headaches?
This is why I prefer Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, it’s subjective. And yes, removing the forums and user comments was a good idea, considering the abuse that festered there. But it has a verification process too. At least it screens who reviews what, and why. IMDB doesn’t have that.
It’s also good because professional reviewers are trained to be critical and honest. They’re (mostly) not reviewing based on arbitrary checklists or vendettas, unlike IMDB. It’s that detachment that allows for more insightful and honest reviews, something we need more of with movies that aren’t immediately-approachable. Rotten Tomatoes allows for mid-sized projects with potential to shine. Everyone’s going to be interested in Wicked Part 1 or an MCU project based on word-of-mouth, but what about movies that are more obscure? I’d have never seen Thelma without Rotten Tomatoes, and it ended up as one of my favourite movies of 2024! That required gambling on a lesser-known movie, one I’d have missed without it featuring it on the front page with glowing praise. That’s something IMDB would never do!
One more gripe with IMDB is that it favours immediate press over long-term press. This is most-obvious through its IMDB Top 250 List, as that’s mostly newer and more-popular movies. It has obscure and older entries on it, but you’d be hard-pressed to find hidden gems. Especially not when it’s reliant on user reviews. Rotten Tomatoes, being reviewer-centric, doesn’t have this problem.
It’s also good because professional reviewers are trained to be critical and honest. They’re (mostly) not reviewing based on arbitrary checklists or vendettas, unlike IMDB. It’s that detachment that allows for more insightful and honest reviews, something we need more of with movies that aren’t immediately-approachable. Rotten Tomatoes allows for mid-sized projects with potential to shine. Everyone’s going to be interested in Wicked Part 1 or an MCU project based on word-of-mouth, but what about movies that are more obscure? I’d have never seen Thelma without Rotten Tomatoes, and it ended up as one of my favourite movies of 2024! That required gambling on a lesser-known movie, one I’d have missed without it featuring it on the front page with glowing praise. That’s something IMDB would never do!
One more gripe with IMDB is that it favours immediate press over long-term press. This is most-obvious through its IMDB Top 250 List, as that’s mostly newer and more-popular movies. It has obscure and older entries on it, but you’d be hard-pressed to find hidden gems. Especially not when it’s reliant on user reviews. Rotten Tomatoes, being reviewer-centric, doesn’t have this problem.
It's hard accepting when a movie you like is trashed, or vice versa. I know from personal experience, as I’m a Star Wars Prequels fan! I’m also not saying IMDB’s worthless, as it’s not. The site has useful information and obscure trivia I wouldn’t have considered otherwise, as it’s compiled into one, easily-accessible source. Databases are valuable resources, irrespective of quality. But there has to be scrutiny involved in how they operate. I’m not seeing that with IMDB.
Additionally, I don’t like how much of a popularity contest IMDB becomes during awards season. We saw that with The Boy and the Heron winning an Oscar over Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I liked the latter more too, but I have no qualms with the former winning the gold trophy. And yet the IMDB pages for both movies indicate a rivalry that those not in the know will form unfair opinions on. It’s not good practice.
In the end, there needs to be a line drawn. I don’t agree with everything Rotten Tomatoes aggregates, and I wish studios wouldn’t flaunt its credentials so objectively. I also think IMDB can be useful for information I would’ve skipped otherwise. But I still would rather a site designed for professionals to review movies, where you understand how and why they got where they did, than one designed for people who don’t always know what they’re talking about. Because the former has some level of critical reasoning. And isn’t that what matters?
Additionally, I don’t like how much of a popularity contest IMDB becomes during awards season. We saw that with The Boy and the Heron winning an Oscar over Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. I liked the latter more too, but I have no qualms with the former winning the gold trophy. And yet the IMDB pages for both movies indicate a rivalry that those not in the know will form unfair opinions on. It’s not good practice.
In the end, there needs to be a line drawn. I don’t agree with everything Rotten Tomatoes aggregates, and I wish studios wouldn’t flaunt its credentials so objectively. I also think IMDB can be useful for information I would’ve skipped otherwise. But I still would rather a site designed for professionals to review movies, where you understand how and why they got where they did, than one designed for people who don’t always know what they’re talking about. Because the former has some level of critical reasoning. And isn’t that what matters?
No comments:
Post a Comment