Some in Hollywood think Rotten Tomatoes is too influential (NY Times)

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by JozefK, Sep 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Larry Mc

    Larry Mc Forum Dude

    "Red Dragon"- We enjoyed this movie very much. :)

    Show [​IMG]

     
  2. eric777

    eric777 Astral Projectionist

    Here is an idea. Instead of whining about Rotten Tomatoes, Hollywood could start making better films.
     
    rod, Graham and audiomixer like this.
  3. Balthazar

    Balthazar Forum Resident

    I think Hollywood is too influential.
     
  4. SurrealCereal

    SurrealCereal Forum Resident

    Location:
    California
    There's nothing new about bad movies getting bad reviews, nor is there anything Rotten Tomatoes can do to affect a movie's score. It seems to me that the problem (if you can link it back to Rotten Tomatoes at all) is that people expect bad movies to get good scores, and choose not to see a movie they otherwise might have seen because the critics don't like it.
     
  5. tommy-thewho

    tommy-thewho Senior Member

    Location:
    detroit, mi
    I look at it but will still see a movie if I really want to see it even if it has bad review.
     
  6. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Hollywood got rid of IMDb message board now RT's on the list.
    Hollywood give the "public " some voice.
     
  7. Thievius

    Thievius Blue Oyster Cult-ist

    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    What a load of rubbish. How long has RT been around? And what's more, how long have people been aware of RT and using it to filter out the crap? And all of a sudden its the reason why box office numbers are down?

    How about a little introspection, Hollywood? The problem is you.
     
    SoCalWJS and audiomixer like this.
  8. mBen989

    mBen989 Senior Member

    Location:
    Scranton, PA
    The Raid: Redemption is easily one of the best action movies I've ever seen. The Raid: Berandal? A little too much of a good thing.
     
  9. My feelings as well. RT has been in existence for YEARS and suddenly it's the reason for a poor Attendance problem? I guess that means RT is also responsible for good attendance when the numbers are up?

    Hollywood: Take a good look in the mirror.
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  10. Avenging Robot

    Avenging Robot Senior Member

    I think that people have the right to make informed decisions and the reason why they're avoiding movies with low scores is that they see quite a few of them later on Netflix etc. and go,"Geez, dodged a bullet there." for the most part.
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  11. JozefK

    JozefK Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Dixie
    Hollywood’s box office failures go beyond Rotten Tomatoes ratings

    “Blade Runner 2049” was supposed to be a hit.

    The film, one of the most anticipated of the year, seemed to have all the necessary ingredients with two popular leading men and an original that has gained cult status since its release in 1982. But it has not been the box office hit the industry hoped for, despite being showered with rave reviews.

    Studios blamed the dismal box office performance of a number of big-budget blockbuster films this summer on negative reviews from critics and Rotten Tomatoes.

    The film review aggregator, owned by Comcast Corp.-owned CMCSA, +0.87% Fandango, has been in the spotlight ever since. Last week legendary director Martin Scorsese wrote a guest column in the Hollywood Reporter criticizing Rotten Tomatoes and its impact.

    But if well-reviewed films are also struggling commercially, can Rotten Tomatoes really be to blame?

    ComScore media analyst Paul Dergarabedian says a straight line can’t be drawn from bad reviews to poor box office results.

    “To have this myopic view is crazy,” he said. “If that were true; if a bad review killed the film, then conversely a good review should boost box office revenue. What I’ve learned is that there are a multitude of factors.”
    ===

    The website works like a pyramid, Voris said, with the most important, or easily digested information at the top. Rotten Tomatoes presents its fresh and rotten identifiers first, and from there users can dig into its Tomatometer rating, see blurbs from reviews, find the full reviews and even see what audiences thought of a film.​
     
  12. JozefK

    JozefK Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Dixie
    Martin Scorsese on Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Obsession and Why 'Mother!' Was Misjudged (Guest Column)

    There is another change that, I believe, has no upside whatsoever. It began back in the '80s when the "box office" started to mushroom into the obsession it is today. When I was young, box office reports were confined to industry journals like The Hollywood Reporter. Now, I'm afraid that they've become … everything. Box office is the undercurrent in almost all discussions of cinema, and frequently it's more than just an undercurrent. The brutal judgmentalism that has made opening-weekend grosses into a bloodthirsty spectator sport seems to have encouraged an even more brutal approach to film reviewing. I'm talking about market research firms like Cinemascore, which started in the late '70s, and online "aggregators" like Rotten Tomatoes, which have absolutely nothing to do with real film criticism. They rate a picture the way you'd rate a horse at the racetrack, a restaurant in a Zagat's guide, or a household appliance in Consumer Reports. They have everything to do with the movie business and absolutely nothing to do with either the creation or the intelligent viewing of film. The filmmaker is reduced to a content manufacturer and the viewer to an unadventurous consumer.

    These firms and aggregators have set a tone that is hostile to serious filmmakers — even the actual name Rotten Tomatoes is insulting. And as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene, it seems like there are more and more voices out there engaged in pure judgmentalism, people who seem to take pleasure in seeing films and filmmakers rejected, dismissed and in some cases ripped to shreds.​
     
  13. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    I am not a fan of Tomatoes or critics...I read the synopsis and check the cast...more than enough. I don't need a critics biased opinion to make a decision.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    I liked them both but, yes you are correct the first one was better...
     
  15. I never thought this was gonna be that big of a blockbuster. It's a sequel to a cult classic that originally tanked at the box office and is a slow rumination on how we define human. Not enough explosions, killings or giant robots to make it sellable. It's a terrific movie though.
     
    Colin M and Deesky like this.
  16. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I don't really like Rotten Tomatoes, but I will defend it here. For Scorsese to say that the RT is not based on "film criticism" is quite frankly wrong. The Rotten Tomato score is the averaged number of positive or negative reviews a film receives. That part is just numbers. But it's numbers based on reviews.

    Rotten Tomatoes also gives you the choice of an "All Critics" figure or a "Top Critics" figure. The "All Critics" figure includes critics who may be independent, but they have had to write a boatload of reviews to qualify, I mean hundreds. I checked. Then there is the "Top Critics" figure which is an accounting of positive or negative reviews from "published" critics attached to major news organizations like Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, et al.

    So Rotten Tomatoes is giving you two scores to compare (although, to be fair, you only see the "All Critics" number plastered around the Web. Though I seldom see a great gap in "All Critics" vs "Top Critics," scores, the numbers are generally close. So there is a very thoughtful, human element at work here. Lots opinions. I personally believe at the dedication it took to gain entrance as an "All Critic" earns you the privilege of being called a cineaste.

    So, I think Marty is doing a disservice to the dedicated cineastes who serve on RT as "All Critics." At one time I thought I didn't care what Joe Schmo critic said, but once I saw the requirements to get onboard their list, I realized these are pretty serious film buffs! I'm not one of them, too much work!

    MY GRIPE WITH ROTTEN TOMATOES: The imperfection of the borderline review system. I have read a few reviews which I though were lukewarm at best that received a thumbs up. Are reviewers themselves asked to give a "thumbs up" or "Thumbs down" when they submit a review (even "Top Critics"), or does an editor at RT make the subjective call? If an editor makes the thumbs up/thumbs down, then I call that an biased score.

    But otherwise, Marty, I don't Rotten Tomatoes really makes a big deal of opening day numbers. They're all about reviews. And "Mother" has a 69% rating (with "All Critics" and "Top Critics" matching). That ain't bad for one of Darren's weird movies.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
  17. Solaris

    Solaris a bullet in flight

    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    I can support half of what Scorcese is saying about the state of film criticism, which is not encouraging. The majority of "critics" on RT are not skilled at writing, film buffs though they may (or may not) be. Seeing a lot of movies and having an opinion simply isn't enough.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine