-
[QUOTE=Comic-Reader Lad;4222509]People here are asking why the "Want to See" feature existed in the first place because who cares how other people feel about a movie.
The reason the feature existed is to make Rotten Tomatoes more of a destination site and a larger part of the pop culture conversation.
Audience participation means clicks and becoming part of the social media experience is a great way to get clicks and increase traffic.
If CBR removed its messageboard, would you still come here as much or stay as long in each visit? I definitely just briefly scan newsarama since they removed their messageboard. Don't spend more than a couple of minutes there each visit.
So, "Want to See" and "Audience Reviews" aren't done to benefit the film industry; they're done to benefit Rotten Tomatoes and to ensure that RT keeps getting talked about.
Like [I]this [/I]thread, for instance.
Only when things get so toxic that it could adversely affect RT do they decide to take the feature down. I'm sure "Want to See" will be back after Captain Marvel opens.[/QUOTE]
This is all a very good point. Back when the Richard Dawkins site had a real message board, I was there a lot. They took it down because half the arguments were redundant and toxic yet the board lost at least half it's regulars by doing that. It's sort of like the audience participation part in some stage plays.
I think that, after The Last Jedi and other stuff, the Captain Marvel situation was just the last straw. It was getting too toxic. Yet, other sites that don't allow as much "audience participation" probably are not as popular as RT.
-
[QUOTE=Bat-Meal;4222539]I didn't know there [B]was[/B] a "want to see" section on RT until now. I tend to see films I want to see because I want to see them, not because other ppl do/dont.
All this 'controversy' just keeps reminding me that this film is coming out. :p[/QUOTE]
I never noticed it either. Probably because, like most people, I don't look up a movie until I've already seen it or, if I'm waffling, I might check the reviews. But I generally don't look up a movie when I know there won't be any reviews yet.
-
The audience feature has just become too toxic. So many people now don't even care if a movie is good or bad they are just looking for something to be offended at, and use places like that to push whatever agenda is pissing them off that week Hopefully this takes some of the traffic away from RT which has just become to important for some reason when there who system is pretty worn out anyway.
-
The internet has given everyone a voice and, well, everyone thinks that their voice is important.
;)
Some people take this to an extreme (spam posting, botting, multiple accounts, avoiding account bans *cough**cough*, etc.), and it's not censorship for a company to say "fuckit" and not allow it anymore.
People should stop being assholes and it's all good.
-
[QUOTE=Zero Hunter;4222751]The audience feature has just become too toxic. So many people now don't even care if a movie is good or bad they are just looking for something to be offended at, and use places like that to push whatever agenda is pissing them off that week Hopefully this takes some of the traffic away from RT which has just become to important for some reason when there who system is pretty worn out anyway.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. It remembers me how the IMDB message boards closed. It's not toxic fandom, these people aren't fans. That's online trolling.
-
[QUOTE=Star_Jammer;4222757]The internet has given everyone a voice and, well, everyone thinks that their voice is important.
;)
Some people take this to an extreme (spam posting, botting, multiple accounts, avoiding account bans *cough**cough*, etc.), and it's not censorship for a company to say "fuckit" and not allow it anymore.
People should stop being assholes and it's all good.[/QUOTE]
I always think of "What great about the Internet? It gave everyone a voice. What's bad about the internet? It gave everyone a voice." :D
-
[QUOTE=Powerboy;4222499]I don't see why anyone wants to read a review before seeing a movie. All it does is give stuff away. I can see reading them after just to see what people are saying. A vote of who says they will or will not see a movie seems meaningless but I guess it does have an influence just as word of mouth causes people to make assumptions but at least that's from people who have allegedly seen a movie.
Regardless of why they took it down, the bottom line is that it's becoming more and more obvious that RT audience scores of any kind are worthless. The deck stacking and stuffing the ballot box seem to happen mostly with the big movies but people could as easily do it to any movie just for laughs.[/QUOTE]
Before the internet even existed Reviews have a legit made and broken theatrical runs. Halloween for instance was floundering until two prominent critics, Ebert and Sarris gave it glowing reviews
-
[QUOTE=KNIGHT OF THE LAKE;4222791]Before the internet even existed Reviews have a legit made and broken theatrical runs. Halloween for instance was floundering until two prominent critics, Ebert and Sarris gave it glowing reviews[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But fan reviews too often amount to, "It tweaked my fetishes so it was great" or "I didn't like it personally so it sucked."
That isn't so bad in itself but a lot of people just look at the average percentage score. They don't know why someone thought it was good or bad. I mean, it scored 20% with audiences (in reality, three people who wrote fan reviews) so it must be bad.
It's made worse when people can spam a site and that low score really is a result of three people voting over and over. Conversely, someone could jack up a movie's apparent score in the same way.
Hopefully, places like RT will turn out to be a short-lived phenomenon or will improve how they do things.
-
[QUOTE=KNIGHT OF THE LAKE;4222791]Before the internet even existed Reviews have a legit made and broken theatrical runs. Halloween for instance was floundering until two prominent critics, Ebert and Sarris gave it glowing reviews[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't think critics can sink a movie. (I mean, [i]maybe[/i] a prestige film.) But they can help a movie find an audience.
There's really only upside to filmmakers. Whinging about bad reviews (from professional reviewers, not internet randos) is just trying to blame someone else for your movie's performance.
-
[QUOTE=Tuck;4222910]I honestly don't think critics can sink a movie. (I mean, [i]maybe[/i] a prestige film.) But they can help a movie find an audience.
There's really only upside to filmmakers. Whinging about bad reviews (from professional reviewers, not internet randos) is just trying to blame someone else for your movie's performance.[/QUOTE]
I do believe RT has more sway than maybe any critic has ever had simply because if people are debating what to see in a theater they can quickly look up RT scores to help make a choice.
Speaking of Halloween ironically Ebert's review did help it and by default help give birth to the Slasher genre he hated and 80's Slasher fans use to say if they saw a film had a thumbs down they knew to check it out :D
-
[QUOTE=Jokerz79;4222919]I do believe RT has more sway than maybe any critic has ever had simply because if people are debating what to see in a theater they can quickly look up RT scores to help make a choice. [/QUOTE]
Than an individual critic, sure. And for a movie that is at least moderately heavily marketed, it provides a convenience to get a snapshot of critical "consensus".
But a viewer has to first know a movie exists to think to look it up. Running into an effusive review of a small movie they weren't even aware of is more likely if they're already following a reviewer or publication.
-
[QUOTE=Tuck;4222935]Than an individual critic, sure. And for a movie that is at least moderately heavily marketed, it provides a convenience to get a snapshot of critical "consensus".
But a viewer has to first know a movie exists to think to look it up. Running into an effusive review of a small movie they weren't even aware of is more likely if they're already following a reviewer or publication.[/QUOTE]
Yea I dont thinki RT reviews hurt bigger movies. I mean the DCEU was critic proof. Captain Marvel had all this drama on Rotten Tomatoes but its presales tickets are doing great. But yea I feel like when critics are praising some movie you might not have seen it could convince you. I only saw Monnlight because all of the attention it got. Without that I dont thinki I woulda saw it unless I stumbled across it on Netflix or something.
But honestly that was more the Oscar's then RT specifically
-
I think RT is doing the right thing here.
The whole "hate" campaign against Brie Larson and Captain Marvel and movies that some fans/trolls don't like has become too toxic. This isn't conservative vs liberal, it's about toxic behavior that's seemingly becoming pervasive. Worst part of it are the lies that people knowing are knowingly spreading (Brie Larson hates white men, Brie Larson said white men shouldn't see her movies, Brie Larson said white men shouldn't review her movies e.t.c). It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to twist what the person said, create a lie and run with said lie.
RT is doing well to distance themselves from these social media dumpster fires. It's not anyone any favors at all.
-
So I have been reading through this and it really seems that several people believe its the fanbases fault. That they deserve it.
So here is a question:[B] Do you feel it is ok for the Media to lie or tell half truths? [/B]
When the first article came out with the title "Sexist Trolls Bomb Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes" there was at least two confirmable lies/half truths in the title. The page was not for "reviews" it was a "Want to see rating" so that was the first lie. The second was that they bombed it as if it was mob mentality. It was on page 6 when the articles came out. The first 3 pages where from 2018. The final three pages where spread out over two days.(I know this because I checked all this out as it was happening.)
The media pretty much created the controversy around the film. There is no way they did not know that adding "Sexist Trolls" to headlines would not bring more people to the site to continue to vote. They were pretty much antagonizing the fanbase.
However, even if all that were not true,[B] do most people feel it is acceptable now to degrade consumers?[/B]
Again, not interested in debating. I just want to hear what people have to say on this, if nothing else but to further gage where we are at as a society/culture.
-
One last question just to see what people think on this
[quote]The media pretty much created the controversy around the film. There is no way they did not know that adding "Sexist Trolls" to headlines would not bring more people to the site to continue to vote. They were pretty much taunting the fanbase.[/quote]
Whether you are agree or disagree maybe it is worth asking what would a Media Oligopoly that own, run, and have a strong influence over many of the media outlets gain by effectively silencing the largest source of consumer input on movies?
How do they benefit?