Rotten Tomatoes as critic aggregator, score influences, studio tampering 1 1

[kav]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

I hear ya. Many times I will go right for the audience score and if the film doesn't have some social outrage associated with it I go with the Audience Score.

I could list the type of films that get gushing reviews from critics, and the type of films that get panned, but I would get a strike.  Its pretty obvious tho.

[Gatsby77]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:24 AM, fantastic_four said:

Films can EASILY be bad yet still be lovable.  I love pretty much every Michael Bay movie, but that doesn't mean I think they're not full of cheese.  Plenty examples out there of bad movies I love--Ben Affleck Daredevil, Starship Troopers, etc.  Starship Troopers is an interesting one because it was below 50% for years, but in retrospect younger critics have come to like it and it's now up to 65%.

I'll admit I was wrong about this one. I saw Starship Troopers in the theater when I was in college and thought it was horrible. Even when my buddy explained to me why it was genius, I didn't get it.

Because I didn't understand it was a comedy.

Largely because Heinlein's book wasn't satire, and so I didn't expect this to be. If viewed as an adaption of Heinlein's book, it's an abomination. But Verhoeven basically flipped the novel on its head and made a mockery of its (legitimate, not tongue-in-cheek) fascist themes.

Much like Top Gun, once you start viewing it as a comedy, the whole thing shifts. Today, I view it as one of the best films of its era.

I suspect most critics were in the same boat at the time, so it makes sense that it's viewed much more positively today.

[fantastic_four]

30 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Because I didn't understand it was a comedy.

Largely because Heinlein's book wasn't satire, and so I didn't expect this to be. If viewed as an adaption of Heinlein's book, it's an abomination. But Verhoeven basically flipped the novel on its head and made a mockery of its (legitimate, not tongue-in-cheek) fascist themes.

Much like Top Gun, once you start viewing it as a comedy, the whole thing shifts.

It's explicit in the direction that Verhoeven was going for comedy.  Had I been a fan of Heinlein's story I might've hated it, but I just appreciated the EXCEPTIONAL CGI for its day and the explicit camp just carried it further.  Not as good as Jurassic Park in terms of CGI excellence (almost no films are), but it was close to its quality of work just a few years after JP's release.

[theCapraAegagrus]

I can't remember the last time that I agreed with a "Critic Score".

Audience scores seem to be pretty accurate 99% of the time, as far as enjoying movies goes for me.

[Bosco685]

Now it's clear who tipped off Rotten Tomatoes it had missed a decades-old review.

'Paddington 2' Director Paul King on Toppling 'Citizen Kane': "I Won’t Build My Xanadu"

Quote

After a negative review of Orson Welles' 1941 classic was unearthed, the much-loved CGI/live-action sequel about a Peruvian bear became the top-rated film of all time on the Rotten Tomatoes website.

All hail the marmalade-loving bear from deepest, darkest Peru!

 

Citizen Kane has been knocked from its throne at the top of Rotten Tomatoes’ list of best-rated films and replaced by Paddington 2.

 

After the unearthing of a negative 80-year-old Chicago Tribune review on Tuesday, the 1941 Orson Welles classic lost its perfect 100 percent rating and slipped to a meagre 99 percent on the website's Tomatometer, with the much-loved live-action/CGI-animated family film sequel — which still retains a 100 percent score — casually sauntering in to claim the crown. (To be clear, there are other films — such The Terminator, Modern Times and Singing in the Rain — that also have a 100 percent Rotten Tomatoes score among critics, but Paddington 2 has considerably more reviews)

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Angel of Death said:

I can't remember the last time that I agreed with a "Critic Score".

Audience scores seem to be pretty accurate 99% of the time, as far as enjoying movies goes for me.

And they tried so hard to knock this out of FRESH territory. 

[Bosco685]

Another case of a critic making a name for their self by being THE ONE that bucked a 100% rating.

Quote

A new review has knocked Paddington down a branch — to a 99 percent score. The review was from Film Authority and critic Eddie Harrison, who seemed to know precisely what he was doing, somewhat defensively noting, “I reviewed Paddington 2 negatively for BBC radio on release in 2017, and on multiple occasions after that, and I stand by every word of my criticism.”

 

The new Paddington 2 review slammed the warm-hearted adventure film for having deviated from the spirit of Michael Bond’s children’s books, being “contrived and ridiculous,” with Paddington being “over-confident, snide and sullen,” claimed “considerations of race and identity, key to the Paddington character, are not addressed,” and added that voice actor Ben Whishaw sounded “like a member of some indie-pop band coming down from an agonizing ketamine high.”

 

[Bosco685]

The PR Chief that masterminded blocking The Los Angeles Times from movie reviews because it wrote a scathing article about its park community practices is retiring. Fortunately, this blew up on Disney and other critics and newspapers joined in and threatened Disney's movie review coverage if they did not lift the ban. Within days, Disney backed down.

Quote

No point was too minute to contest. In one email, sent to our editor, she wrote: “Not sure why you quote Bob saying ‘gonna’ instead of ‘going to.’ He doesn’t speak that way. Please correct it. Thanks.”

 

It’s fair to say Mucha — or was it Iger, or a combo platter? — could be vindictive in ways that did not seem to serve her — or him, or them. (Not for nothing was she dubbed the “director of revenge” in her earlier life in New York politics.) The most memorable example came in 2017, when Disney banned The Los Angeles Times from screenings for writing a worthy but wonky series on the company’s business dealings with the city of Anaheim. With that, a local story went wide as other outlets, including The New York Times, vowed to boycott screenings in solidarity. Disney backed down.

 

For obvious reasons, I’m not a fan of this scorched-earth approach to public relations, but in the end, Mucha was effective. She couldn’t have done it, of course, if Iger were so not thoroughly presentable and if he had not made some brilliant business moves.

 

But as he moves toward retirement, he is not only one of the world’s most highly regarded executives, the New York Times even dubbed him “Hollywood’s nicest CEO.” For all of that, Mucha deserves credit, though you can be sure she will never publicly claim it.

Another example how studios can use a carrot and stick strategy to influence review sites and critics by cutting off their pre-screening access.

[Bosco685]

Any new news about Rotten Tomatoes?

[▫️]

On 10/28/2021 at 12:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

Any new news about Rotten Tomatoes?

My tomato is the only one that counts. 

[Bosco685]

Reminder how that tomatometer rating works prior to release and afterwards to remain FRESH.

 

[Bosco685]

An interesting article how Rotten Tomatoes scores kept trending higher on movies compared to historic ratings.

Movies are scoring higher and higher on Rotten Tomatoes — but why?

Quote

Moviegoers were left scratching their heads this spring when Paddington 2, a children’s film about an anthropomorphic bear, overtook Citizen Kane on Rotten Tomatoes, cementing the sequel’s status as one of the best-reviewed films on the site. How is it that a movie featuring a CGI bear — albeit a great movie — overtook one of the greatest films of all time? It seems to be a trend on Rotten Tomatoes; movie review scores on the site have been creeping upward for a decade, according to data compiled by Global News.

 

“It’s puzzling. I don’t know what to make of it. I really don’t,” says David A. Gross, who runs Franchise Entertainment Research, a movie consultancy.

Quote

In 2009, the average Tomatometer score for all wide releases was 46 per cent, and it was roughly at that level for much of the 2000s. By 2019, that average score had climbed to a high of 62 per cent — an important milestone, since 60 per cent is the dividing line between a “fresh” film and a “rotten” one. Effectively, the average movie has gone from rotten to fresh in just 10 years.

Quote

The rising scores can be confusing for viewers who use the site to decide what to watch. This spring’s Godzilla vs Kong, a movie about a giant CGI ape brought out of retirement to battle a giant CGI lizard, had a score of 79 per cent in the lead-up to its opening weekend (it has since dropped to 76 per cent). That’s a higher score than 14 best picture winners, including Forrest Gump (1994): 71 per cent; Gladiator (2000): 77 per cent; and Braveheart (1995); 78 per cent.

 

“I feel for the movies that are stuck with their scores,” Gross says. “I think it’s unfair to the old movies.”

RT appears to have realized as a division of Fandango it was directly impacting revenue on ticket sales for the parent company by turning off moviegoers.

[Gatsby77]

On 10/31/2021 at 9:21 AM, Bosco685 said:

An interesting article how Rotten Tomatoes scores kept trending higher on movies compared to historic ratings.

Movies are scoring higher and higher on Rotten Tomatoes — but why?

RT appears to have realized as a division of Fandango it was directly impacting revenue on ticket sales for the parent company by turning off moviegoers.

Counterpoint:

The nature of "film criticism" today isn't comparable to that of 40, let alone 70, years ago.

1) Thanks to internet, there are far more reviewers per movie; and

2) Ditto - film criticism was once the exclusive domain of newspapers - staffed by paid professional critics with academic backgrounds in literature, journalism, etc. Since 1995, the internet has enabled even consistent armchair bloggers to make a name for themselves and establish themselves as "critics," supposedly on par with the old school ones (which, to its credit, RT separates out as "Top Critics").

I largely blame Harry Knowles for this - as he was one of the first fan bloggers to cross over into semi-legitimate film criticism. Many of these glorified bloggers are not only biased towards recent films over older ones but also have every incentive to publish positive reviews to maintain/increase perceived studio access.

But in no way, shape or form should a review from AICN or the Saporta Report or Butler's Cinema Scene or ShowBiz Junkies! be counted with the same weight as a review from The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The LA Times, or Rolling Stone.

3) Re. recency bias: see also IMDB's Top 250. Yes - this is different because they're user reviews - thus simply a measure of pop culture, but no way do I believe that 7 of the top 10 films (or 13 of the top 20) in all of U.S. cinema have been released since 1993. Casablanca barely makes the top 50 (at literally # 50, so a few years from now the latest Villeneuve or Nolan film will bump Casablanca out of the top 50 entirely). 

Oh - and on the IMDB list? Citizen Kane clocks in at # 120.

[FoggyNelson]

On 4/27/2021 at 5:47 PM, kav said:

I could list the type of films that get gushing reviews from critics, and the type of films that get panned, but I would get a strike.  Its pretty obvious tho.

Agree, most reviews an reviewers have been heavily influenced

[Bosco685]

On 10/31/2021 at 9:42 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Counterpoint:

The nature of "film criticism" today isn't comparable to that of 40, let alone 70, years ago.

1) Thanks to internet, there are far more reviewers per movie; and

2) Ditto - film criticism was once the exclusive domain of newspapers - staffed by paid professional critics with academic backgrounds in literature, journalism, etc. Since 1995, the internet has enabled even consistent armchair bloggers to make a name for themselves and establish themselves as "critics," supposedly on par with the old school ones (which, to its credit, RT separates out as "Top Critics").

I largely blame Harry Knowles for this - as he was one of the first fan bloggers to cross over into semi-legitimate film criticism. Many of these glorified bloggers are not only biased towards recent films over older ones but also have every incentive to publish positive reviews to maintain/increase perceived studio access.

But in no way, shape or form should a review from AICN or the Saporta Report or Butler's Cinema Scene or ShowBiz Junkies! be counted with the same weight as a review from The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The LA Times, or Rolling Stone.

3) Re. recency bias: see also IMDB's Top 250. Yes - this is different because they're user reviews - thus simply a measure of pop culture, but no way do I believe that 7 of the top 10 films (or 13 of the top 20) in all of U.S. cinema have been released since 1993. Casablanca barely makes the top 50 (at literally # 50, so a few years from now the latest Villeneuve or Nolan film will bump Casablanca out of the top 50 entirely). 

Oh - and on the IMDB list? Citizen Kane clocks in at # 120.

You say 'counterpoint'. I say 'in addition to' as there is no way just adding more reviewers that are not professional critics is the problem in and of itself. And also remember the studios are actively using some of those influencers to deliver their messages.

EXAMPLE: Aquaman (Domestic Release: 12/21/2018) vs. Mary Poppins Returns (Domestic Release: 11/29/2018).

The rumor was that Disney wanted Aquaman moved out from cutting off Mary Poppins Returns having weeks of no competition. So the marketing campaign through these Youtube influencers (John Campea, Jodie's Corner, etc.) was how horrible a clobbering Aquaman was going to experience if it didn't move its date.

So to get WB Studios to shift from its release date, it started peppering the airwaves how Disney was going to dominate the box office for many weeks. Which if anything Aquaman shifted its date, but closer to Christmas to capture holidays traffic. How'd that go? 

Meanwhile, Fandango led by the former senior executive in charge of Disney.com and Disney Merchandising with strong ties to Disney has P&L accountability for ticket sales revenue (rumored to be 75% of its revenue) has gotten caught a few times manipulating movie rating systems (FiveThirtyEight analysis finds inflated, rounded-up reviews at Fandango). To the point it was fined and during its Rotten Tomatoes acquisition the market was concerned how it would influence the aggregator (Fandango Buys Rotten Tomatoes But Will Probably Ruin It).

So no, not just these newer reviewers causing the large uptick in movie ratings. It's a combination of them and other drastic influences.

[Bosco685]

Reddit summary of how a slight rating variance can land at FRESH or ROTTEN

[fantastic_four]

Why does that example assume for the second film that all of the scores around 50% are considered negative?  I'm curious as to how RT assigns positive or negative scores for reviewers who give films something like 2 out of 4 stars, but I've never found clarification for it--yet that example seems to assume anything between 50% and 60% is considered negative by RT.  How do they know that?  What they say is that a "positive" review gets counted as a positive by RT, and you would assume scoring between 51% and 60% would equate to positive, but I've never seen specific clarification on that from RT.  Nor have I heard what they do with the effectively neutral score of 50% which is common among reviewers who use the middle of an even range for their scoring such as 2 out of 4 or 5 out of 10.

The example also ignores the fact that Rotten Tomatoes DOES calculate average scores, it just doesn't highlight them as much as it does its own Tomatometer score.

Edited November 15, 2021 by fantastic_four

[Bosco685]

On 11/15/2021 at 10:23 AM, fantastic_four said:

Why does that example assume for the second film that all of the scores around 50% are considered negative?  I'm curious as to how RT assigns positive or negative scores for reviewers who give films something like 2 out of 4 stars, but I've never found clarification for it--yet that example seems to assume anything between 50% and 60% is considered negative by RT.  How do they know that?  What they say is that a "positive" review gets counted as a positive by RT, and you would assume scoring between 51% and 60% would equate to positive, but I've never seen specific clarification on that from RT.  Nor have I heard what they do with the effectively neutral score of 50% which is common among reviewers who use the middle of an even range for their scoring such as 2 out of 4 or 5 out of 10.

The example also ignores the fact that Rotten Tomatoes DOES calculate average scores, it just doesn't highlight them as much as it does its own Tomatometer score.

It comes down the RT standards on what helps determine FRESH versus ROTTEN. That's the difference.

On 10/31/2021 at 9:02 AM, Bosco685 said:

Reminder how that tomatometer rating works prior to release and afterwards to remain FRESH.

 

[fantastic_four]

I read that twice before I posted.  Where in there does it say that scores ranging from 50% to 60% get counted as negative?  As ever, I've always had to assume they count scores in that range as positive, but I've never been sure of it because I've never seen specific language from RT defining precisely what they count as a "positive" review.

Edited November 15, 2021 by fantastic_four

[Bosco685]

On 11/15/2021 at 11:05 AM, fantastic_four said:

I read that twice before I posted.  Where in there does it say what they do with scores ranging from 50% to 60%?