Rotten Tomatoes' SEE IT/SKIP IT - no longer just an aggregator? 0

[Bosco685]

As much as some folks feel Rotten Tomatoes is just some innocent averaging of critic opinions, and may or may not have an impact on movie results, this morning RT posted a message when officially they would be listing the Justice League score. Like it was a special event. It would be associated with it's recently introduced SeeItSkipIt Facebook show.

Rotten Tomatoes Causes Controversy By Announcing Score Reveal For JUSTICE LEAGUE This Thursday

Quote

A lot of fans place a great deal of importance on Rotten Tomatoes scores and while many argue that they don't really mean anything, the fact is that moviegoers are influenced by it and often choose whether or not to see a film as a result. Well, the company is clearly aware of how controversial their scores can be when it comes to DC Comics adaptations and they've now upset an awful lot of people! 

As you can see below, Rotten Tomatoes is heading down an unprecedented route by revealing the score for Justice League on one of their Facebook videos. Whether or not this means a score won't be generated on the site until then isn't clear but it's a strange move bound to generate controversy.

It's starting to look like RT is working towards making itself a final accessor on attending a film or not, versus 'just an aggregator of critic scores'.

Rotten Tomatoes will delay the release of its Justice League score, raising eyebrows

Quote

A couple weeks ago, on October 31, Rotten Tomatoes announced the launch of a weekly show called Rotten Tomatoes See It / Skip It, broadcast on Facebook via the social media site’s Watch platform. One of the show’s regular features is a “Tomatometer Score Reveal” — and this week’s reveal is Justice League, the hotly anticipated DC Extended Universe movie that unites Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg, Aquaman, The Flash, and Superman. The episode containing the reveal is scheduled to air at 12:01 am on Thursday, November 16.

 

The choice to hold the film’s Tomatometer score is a savvy one, from Rotten Tomatoes’ perspective — especially as advertising for See It / Skip It. The site has long billed itself as merely a review aggregator, a kind of landing spot that gathers the critical opinions of thousands of “Tomatometer-approved critics” around the world, then assigns a score that correlates to the percentage of positive reviews.

 

But the site also publishes news, interviews, and columns, and by moving into original programming with See It / Skip It, hosted by entertainment journalists Jacqueline Coley and Segun Oduolowu, Rotten Tomatoes seems to be edging toward not just pointing towards others’ opinions but serving up some of its own.

So the days of Rotten Tomatoes just being an innocent 'movie critic score aggregator' could be changing rapidly if it uses such data to form an opinion, which then gets announced on the SeeItSkipIt show.

[Gatsby77]

They do that already.

The entire premise of the site is a binary see it (aka "Fresh" rating of 60% positive or better) or don't ("Rotten" score of <60% positive).

I don't see this move as controversial.

What was controversial?

Netflix purportedly removing its five star user rating systems primarily because viewers tanked Amy Schumer's last stand-up special there.

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

They do that already.

The entire premise of the site is a binary see it (aka "Fresh" rating of 60% positive or better) or don't ("Rotten" score of <60% positive).

I don't see this move as controversial.

What was controversial?

Netflix purportedly removing its five star user rating systems primarily because viewers tanked Amy Schumer's last stand-up special there.

A few on here have stood behind the assumption they are just an aggregator and reporting site. The report ends up being a special results indicator - but all based on the review of critics compiled to make it easier to interpret the average opinion. Just read its 'About' section.

Rotten Tomatoes® and the Tomatometer® rating is the most trusted measurement of quality entertainment. As the leading online aggregator of movie and TV show reviews from professional critics, Rotten Tomatoes offers the most comprehensive guide to what's fresh. The world famous Tomatometer rating represents the percentage of positive professional reviews for films and TV shows and is used by millions every day, to help with their entertainment viewing decisions.

Now what RT will do is not only report the results, but also announce a determination should you SEE IT - or should you SKIP IT. Not just a tomato or a splat image resulting from the averages. What will add to this change in service is if during the show they are providing commentary on their personal experiences and opinions of a movie. And that isn't such a far reach to assume since viewers are looking to make a decision.

[1Cool]

I know I've passed on quite a few movies because the RT scores have been less then 20.  I'm not too concerned if the score is in the 40-70 range since I've seen some good movies in that range but 30 and below usually are serious stinkers. 

[kimik]

Who owns RT? I don't know which is why I am asking. If you follow the money you can likely predict where the skip it/see it call will fall on blockbusters going forward...................

[media_junkie]

36 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Netflix purportedly removing its five star user rating systems primarily because viewers tanked Amy Schumer's last stand-up special there.

I wish Netflix had never done that (have an Amy Schumer special, or remove the 5 star rating).

[Gatsby77]

My  two minute scan of Wikipedia determined that Rotten Tomatoes is currently owned 30% by Warner Bros. and 70% by NBC Universal/Comcast.

Metacritic, meanwhile, is owned by CBS.

Disney owns no part of either.

 

[Bosco685]

16 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Disney owns no part of either.

No. Disney handles film critics through other means, which has slowly been making its way out in the press. Especially the use of their most powerful employees - the lawyers.

Why Disney’s attempt to ban film critics mattered

Quote

Look, I get it. Nothing has lousier optics to most people than a bunch of fancypants film critics having a hissy fit.

 

Yet the Boston Globe’s stated decision — meaning my own and my editors’ — to denounce the Walt Disney Company’s misdirected punishment of Los Angeles Times journalists felt necessary on a deep and meaningful level. So did the threat to take Disney movies off the table for year-end awards consideration on the parts of four major critics’ groups, two of which (the Boston Society of Film Critics and the National Society of Film Critics) count me as a member.

 

By mid-afternoon Tuesday — six hours after the groups (Los Angeles and New York included) published their joint statement — Disney had reversed its ban of the LA Times. Solidarity won the day, at least on this day.

It turns out Disney has been using blacklists and legal warnings in certain cases with critics to direct results. Just in this case Disney pushed it too far, and critics came together to protest.

[Bosco685]

It all started with Disney banning the Los Angeles Times from future film screenings because its paper was investing certain business practices in Anaheim. So to control what was stated, Disney blocked them from participating in movie events.

Is Disney paying its share in Anaheim?

Quote

The cash pours in too: Each vehicle pays $20 to park at the Mickey & Friends facility, $35 for a preferred space close to the escalators and elevators.

 

Even if the parking garage fills just half its spaces, it would still generate more than $35 million in annual revenue and easily hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the structure.

 

That money all goes to Walt Disney Co. The city of Anaheim, which owns the garage and spent $108.2 million to build it, charges the company just $1 a year for the lease.

 

More than 20 years after Anaheim agreed to pay for the parking facility as part of Disneyland Resort’s expansion, it has become a symbol of the city’s complicated and increasingly tense relationship with its biggest and most powerful corporate citizen.

 

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

I don't give a  about a "reveal" show.  Makes zero impact if I see the score on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning because I still can't see the movie yet.

 

If it flops they'll get rid of it.  If it's successful then more power to them.  RT is trying to make money like every one else.  On that specifically I think it's a great idea...but I'll be skipping it.

[jsilverjanet]

14 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

No. Disney handles film critics through other means, which has slowly been making its way out in the press. Especially the use of their most powerful employees - the lawyers.

Why Disney’s attempt to ban film critics mattered

It turns out Disney has been using blacklists and legal warnings in certain cases with critics to direct results. Just in this case Disney pushed it too far, and critics came together to protest.

I knew it. I’ve always suspected that Disney used some of their power for influence.

[revat]

2 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

I knew it. I’ve always suspected that Disney used some of their power for influence.

Don't eff with the mouse.

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, 1Cool said:

I know I've passed on quite a few movies because the RT scores have been less then 20.  I'm not too concerned if the score is in the 40-70 range since I've seen some good movies in that range but 30 and below usually are serious stinkers. 

At first I ignored Rotten Tomatoes, but usually they get it right. The only two movies they got wrong in my opinion were Suicide Squad and BvS. Just about everything else has been spot on though. 

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

My  two minute scan of Wikipedia determined that Rotten Tomatoes is currently owned 30% by Warner Bros. and 70% by NBC Universal/Comcast.

Metacritic, meanwhile, is owned by CBS.

Disney owns no part of either.

 

Very interesting. Did not know that. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Bosco685]

59 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

At first I ignored Rotten Tomatoes, but usually they get it right. The only two movies they got wrong in my opinion were Suicide Squad and BvS. Just about everything else has been spot on though. 

Very interesting. Did not know that. 

Usually get it right? I'd say 50/50 they get it right. Like I posted in the JL thread...

Certainly not even close to the post-apocalyptic science fiction novel 'The Postman' by David Brin. But still, it followed the heart of the story about this one man helping rebuild a society.

[1Cool]

Was not a fan of the few I saw in that list.  Everyone’s taste are different but I’ve been pretty happy avoiding movies with a score then 25 or so.

[jsilverjanet]

I like the postman 

[paperheart]

3 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Was not a fan of the few I saw in that list.  Everyone’s taste are different but I’ve been pretty happy avoiding movies with a score then 25 or so.

who's got time to watch junk? i've seen 350+ movies on Netflix in the past 5 years, of those that have ratings, doubt any were much below 70

[NewEnglandGothic]

I think should be called "The Guilty Pleasure Thread."

Mine being "The 13th Warrior" currently at 30% me thinks.  

[drotto]

If the JL score leak is accurate, this new reveal thing is going to be bad for both RT and JL.  With  WB owning 30% it is going to look like they were intentionally hiding the score.  Regardless of what the initial intent was.

[comic_memories]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 1:30 PM, Gatsby77 said:

My  two minute scan of Wikipedia determined that Rotten Tomatoes is currently owned 30% by Warner Bros. and 70% by NBC Universal/Comcast.

Metacritic, meanwhile, is owned by CBS.

Disney owns no part of either.

 

exactly!... 30% Warner Bros ownership, hence the "try to beat word of mouth" JL scam