Rotten Tomatoes' critics score is paid for by PR firms

[Al-O-Meter]

For some time it has been apparent how different the critics score is from the audience score in rating movies. Rotten Tomatoes, since Captain Marvel, has been taking steps to bring the audience score more inline with the critics score by using tricks to hide some of the audience ratings citing concerns over so-called "review bombing". It turns out that it has been the critics score that has been the one manipulated all along. Before the scandal broke, it was believed the critics score was kept artificially high by using the stick and carrot of "access". That is to say if a critic gave a bad review then they wouldn't be invited to prescreening events for future movies from the studio. That is likely part of the inflation of the critics score but it has now come out that PR firms are straight up paying for reviews and have been for at least 5 years.

The story is now in many outlets but it was Vulture who first got the scoop.

The Decomposition of Rotten Tomatoes

The most overrated metric in entertainment is erratic, reductive, and easily hacked — and yet has Hollywood in its grip.

www.vulture.com

 

[One Brow]

Rotten Tomatoes, since Captain Marvel, has been taking steps to bring the audience score more inline with the critics score by using tricks to hide some of the audience ratings citing concerns over so-called "review bombing".

Review bombing is real, frequent, and occurs in many places.

It turns out that it has been the critics score that has been the one manipulated all along.

Why not both?

 

[Mongoose]

It's amazing the amount of capture and corruption in so many areas of modern society.

 

[LogGrad98]

Review bombing is real, frequent, and occurs in many places.


Why not both?

Sure it's both but the issues coming to light regarding the critic side, along with RT taking steps to manipulate the audience score, is more egregious imo. But everyone should always know to take anything they read online with several pounds of salt.

 

[infection]

But everyone should always know to take anything they read online with several pounds of salt.

That's good in theory, but does it translate to reality? It may be hard to find any subject of contemporary discussion where ones opinion isn't almost exclusively derived from what they've read online. It's a huge blind spot where we dismiss opinions conflicting with our own as being unreliable, attributing it to people forming their opinions online, without recognizing that's precisely the same process by which we've formed our own. Typically there's a loophole as we find our sources "reliable" and therefore bypasses conscious awareness of being able to acknowledge that said opinion originated largely online, where we tend to "trust" our own sources and "distrust" others'.

A good example is general discussion. Any topic comes up, and yet so many speak so authoritatively on any and all given issues. To what degree are any of these opinions not something that have arisen almost exclusively online? I know that's a hard proposition for anyone to accept because of how much we overvalue our own opinions, but Michael Crichton hit this one on the head when he described "Gell-Mann Amnesia":

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

I often sit on the sidelines in numerous GD discussions. But if my experience engaging in subjects that are within my expertise (medicine and the application of biomedical research and interpretation) is any representation of how reliable those vociferously arguing in those domains are in other areas, then I'd say that nearly everyone's opinion is derived nearly exclusively online and and the irony is missed.

 

[MT Steve]

That's good in theory, but does it translate to reality? It may be hard to find any subject of contemporary discussion where ones opinion isn't almost exclusively derived from what they've read online. It's a huge blind spot where we dismiss opinions conflicting with our own as being unreliable, attributing it to people forming their opinions online, without recognizing that's precisely the same process by which we've formed our own. Typically there's a loophole as we find our sources "reliable" and therefore bypasses conscious awareness of being able to acknowledge that said opinion originated largely online, where we tend to "trust" our own sources and "distrust" others'.

A good example is general discussion. Any topic comes up, and yet so many speak so authoritatively on any and all given issues. To what degree are any of these opinions not something that have arisen almost exclusively online? I know that's a hard proposition for anyone to accept because of how much we overvalue our own opinions, but Michael Crichton hit this one on the head when he described "Gell-Mann Amnesia":



I often sit on the sidelines in numerous GD discussions. But if my experience engaging in subjects that are within my expertise (medicine and the application of biomedical research and interpretation) is any representation of how reliable those vociferously arguing in those domains are in other areas, then I'd say that nearly everyone's opinion is derived nearly exclusively online and and the irony is missed.

Anecdotally, reading any article that tries to lay out the tax consequences of a new proposed piece of legislation gives me an eternal headache.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yeah, no ****. If there is anything that has an aggregate you can bet it's manipulated in some way. A vast majority of Amazon reviews are just bots.

I have film/music critiques who I like their insights and I will listen to them, not an aggregate of a bunch of random people who I dont even know/respect their taste or even know if they are a real person.

 

[Fosto]

Not commenting on the corruption, but I don't think critics score matching audience scores is indicative of fair rating. The two groups don't always value the same things. A critic might be impressed by the cinematography or masterful editing of a movie, while a general movie viewer might not care about that at all.

 

[olden_undercover]

We've all become completely incapable of saying, "I don't have an opinion on that". And then, before embracing one trend or another, to risk going and experiencing that thing, seeing what comes of it, and (gasp) having a nuanced opinion that doesn't align with the handful of ways we're evidently supposed to think. I can't begin to count the number of movies/films I've liked quite a bit, only to find out they had lukewarm reviews on RT. Do I have bad taste? Do they? That's the great thing about movies and so many other aspects of life: There is no right answer. That people allow critical reviews to influence their decisions on things that really boil down to personal preference is the problem.

 

[Fosto]

We've all become completely incapable of saying, "I don't have an opinion on that". And then, before embracing one trend or another, to risk going and experiencing that thing, seeing what comes of it, and (gasp) having a nuanced opinion that doesn't align with the handful of ways we're evidently supposed to think. I can't begin to count the number of movies/films I've liked quite a bit, only to find out they had lukewarm reviews on RT. Do I have bad taste? Do they? That's the great thing about movies and so many other aspects of life: There is no right answer. That people allow critical reviews to influence their decisions on things that really boil down to personal preference is the problem.

On the other hand, there are movies that are both critically acclaimed and beloved by general movie watchers, that I couldn't even get through. Interstellar is one example.

I don't get the mentality that if someone disagrees with the general sentiment, they must be a fraud.

 

[JazzGal]

I can fall prey to that in movies and books. I might love something, but in discussing it with others and finding out why they didn't like it as much as I did can take the shine off my joy. Often I can see their point, and I can now not unsee it.

There are times I will not discuss something I really love with anyone, nor read reviews about it. I want to enjoy my adoration unsullied.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's good in theory, but does it translate to reality? It may be hard to find any subject of contemporary discussion where ones opinion isn't almost exclusively derived from what they've read online. It's a huge blind spot where we dismiss opinions conflicting with our own as being unreliable, attributing it to people forming their opinions online, without recognizing that's precisely the same process by which we've formed our own. Typically there's a loophole as we find our sources "reliable" and therefore bypasses conscious awareness of being able to acknowledge that said opinion originated largely online, where we tend to "trust" our own sources and "distrust" others'.

A good example is general discussion. Any topic comes up, and yet so many speak so authoritatively on any and all given issues. To what degree are any of these opinions not something that have arisen almost exclusively online? I know that's a hard proposition for anyone to accept because of how much we overvalue our own opinions, but Michael Crichton hit this one on the head when he described "Gell-Mann Amnesia":



I often sit on the sidelines in numerous GD discussions. But if my experience engaging in subjects that are within my expertise (medicine and the application of biomedical research and interpretation) is any representation of how reliable those vociferously arguing in those domains are in other areas, then I'd say that nearly everyone's opinion is derived nearly exclusively online and and the irony is missed.

The Internet greatly enhances the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And to be honest I left my comment at "take it with a grain of salt" because I had a multi-paragraph response in my head and just didn't have the energy to type it out. So thank you for covering it.

 

[gandalfe]

Interstellar is one example.

Honestly, I thought it was one of the best SF movies I had ever seen, although the initial premise was idiotic, but the space stuff was awesome and pretty realistic. And then the ending absolutely crapped on everything and turned it all into a Deepak Chopra advertisement.

 

[Fosto]

Honestly, I thought it was one of the best SF movies I had ever seen, although the initial premise was idiotic, but the space stuff was awesome and pretty realistic. And then the ending absolutely crapped on everything and turned it all into a Deepak Chopra advertisement.

I mean, to each his own. I personally found it boring, and I'm a huge scifi reader.

 

[fishonjazz]

Personally, i dont care about this at all.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

On the other hand, there are movies that are both critically acclaimed and beloved by general movie watchers, that I couldn't even get through. Interstellar is one example.

I don't get the mentality that if someone disagrees with the general sentiment, they must be a fraud.

Interstellar is indeed overrated mid

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Great Example: Meet the Fockers has a 38% on rotten tomatoes but I'm sorry, that movie is funny as ****