Paying Critics for Positive Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes is officially now True

[Valentis]

If Rotten Tomatoes has removed all reviews connected to the PR company paying those "critics" then I don't see how these bit of news reduces RT relevance to cinemagoers

It is tainted. Its been tainted for years. Rotten Tomatoes was a good indication for movies maybe about 20 years ago but I started to get suspicions when I saw studios using a movie's RT score for their own personal marketing.

[Jokerz79]

It is tainted. Its been tainted for years. Rotten Tomatoes was a good indication for movies maybe about 20 years ago but I started to get suspicions when I saw studios using a movie's RT score for their own personal marketing.

Not defending RT but the studios have been using reviews in their marketing since the 80's.

[Tofali]

It is tainted. Its been tainted for years. Rotten Tomatoes was a good indication for movies maybe about 20 years ago but I started to get suspicions when I saw studios using a movie's RT score for their own personal marketing.

I disagree and I still view it as a good aggregator of movies. I might be persuaded if someone showcased how RT owners have benefited from it thou.

[wjowski]

Critics got paid off all the time before RT became the standard.

[Anthony W]

And if I'm not paid you'll get a negative review.
Lot of saps out there who surrender their free will to Reviews....still. Can't trust themselves. Sad.

It's like people feel they should never have to see a bad movie. Folks, seeing a bad movie from time to time helps you grow into a more well rounded viewer. I do feel bad for Daisy Ridley, she is a great actress that unfortunate things seen to happen to.

[achilles]

It's like people feel they should never have to see a bad movie. Folks, seeing a bad movie from time to time helps you grow into a more well rounded viewer. I do feel bad for Daisy Ridley, she is a great actress that unfortunate things seen to happen to.

Interestingly, I've seen Ridley in a number of wildly different parts and movies, and I've always thought she was absolutely terrible. Oh well, different tastes, I guess.

[Agent Z]

It's like people feel they should never have to see a bad movie. Folks, seeing a bad movie from time to time helps you grow into a more well rounded viewer. I do feel bad for Daisy Ridley, she is a great actress that unfortunate things seen to happen to.

Seeing a bad movie doesn't do anything other give you a bad time. There is no benefit to seeing a bad movie.

[Jokerz79]

Seeing a bad movie doesn't do anything other give you a bad time. There is no benefit to seeing a bad movie.

Depends on how bad it is because there is a chance it could turn into a good time.

[Mister Mets]

It's like people feel they should never have to see a bad movie. Folks, seeing a bad movie from time to time helps you grow into a more well rounded viewer. I do feel bad for Daisy Ridley, she is a great actress that unfortunate things seen to happen to.

There is something to be said for watching bad movies to understand what okay movies accomplish.

It's also worth noting that many movies are controversial rather than obviously good or obviously bad. If a movie's 40% on Rotten Tomatoes, a good chunk of critics liked it.

[Mister Mets]

Critics got paid off all the time before RT became the standard.

This is true.

I disagree and I still view it as a good aggregator of movies. I might be persuaded if someone showcased how RT owners have benefited from it thou.

Rotten Tomatoes serves a purpose.

This is relevant to their credibility, but that's more about how they respond to it.

I wonder if there are customization options that they could consider, although I can see that leading down dark paths (IE- people gloating about the views of their 20 favorite critics, and things getting more and more insular.)

Here's the simple way I've always done it find a critic you usually agree with and stick with them.

I'll slightly disagree in that I don't know any critic I agree with one hundred percent of the time. Critics I disagree with will still have decent insights.

[Jokerz79]

I'll slightly disagree in that I don't know any critic I agree with one hundred percent of the time. Critics I disagree with will still have decent insights.

That's why I said usually.

Brad Jones does Midnight Screenings and the Cinema Snob I usually agree with his take on most films outside of the occasional Sci-Fi or the Superhero film. Now the good thing is I usually see those 2 genres regardless of critic's opinions. But if unsure and short on money there are 2 or 3 people, I check who I usually agree with in those genres to see if I want to wait until streaming or see in theaters.

My point is in my local area I know the best pizza joints to get the best stuff. One place has the best pizza another has the best hoagies, one has great salads, another has some good pasta dishes. My point is depending on what I want I know where to go I'm not dependent on Yelp or something to find a good joint. Like takeout I've done my shopping around and I got my main critic and a few backups for specialty genres I don't need Rotten Tomatoes. Also, les be honest while critics someone disagrees with can give insight, we're not talking about reading an opposing view we're talking about Rotten Tomatoes which most people don't even read the reviews they just look at the number.

[godisawesome]

Critics get employed/paid more for their communication skills than their taste - what matters more for careers is their ability to use some kind of erudite explanation, humorous analysis, etc. when discussing the films they’ve reviewed.

The fact that skill set aligns very well with the skills of a marketer is why the two professions have always had an intermixing and crossover.

Oddly enough, I tend to think that the real difference between professional critics and professional marketers is more that critics naturally become more jaded as time goes on because they are required to watch movies made for everyone and slowly develop more niche tastes, while marketeers rely on manufacturing enthusiasm.

(“Geek” critics are different because they *start* with a niche.)

[achilles]

There is something to be said for watching bad movies to understand what okay movies accomplish.

It's also worth noting that many movies are controversial rather than obviously good or obviously bad. If a movie's 40% on Rotten Tomatoes, a good chunk of critics liked it.

I agree, and I sometimes do intentionally watch stuff I know is supposed to be bad, mostly to see where it went wrong, and what to avoid in storytelling. That said, watching bad movies is or course a chore, and I don't do it often.

[Gaastra]

Seeing a bad movie doesn't do anything other give you a bad time. There is no benefit to seeing a bad movie.

Unless it's at home with friends than it can be fun poking fun of it. Mst3k showed us that!

[Username taken]

This is true.

Rotten Tomatoes serves a purpose.

This is relevant to their credibility, but that's more about how they respond to it.

I wonder if there are customization options that they could consider, although I can see that leading down dark paths (IE- people gloating about the views of their 20 favorite critics, and things getting more and more insular.)


I'll slightly disagree in that I don't know any critic I agree with one hundred percent of the time. Critics I disagree with will still have decent insights.

Good point especially about customization.

The binary nature of RT can sometimes leave out nuance in the reviews being aggregated.

A majority of critics can give a movie 6/10 and because of how RT aggregates, it'll look like it reviewed excellently (a lot of superhero movies fall into this) when in reality said movie was average.

These are things RT needs to consider if they're going to remain relevant.