It’s Time to End the Rotten Tomatoes
What once was Fresh has become Rotten.
One of the toughest lessons we learn as children (around the time we’ve come to grips with the notion of personal responsibility) is the notion that, sometimes, we can do nothing wrong and still suffer terrible consequences. As a child, I distinctly remember an incident where our class missed out on outside recess because of the bad behaviour of two goofballs.
20 innocent children were punished because two boys couldn’t follow the rules. It sucked… it was unfair… but it was a valuable life lesson.
Now it seems I’m back in elementary school facing that same lesson of shared responsibility and consequences. The actions of a relatively few outliers threaten to spoil a popular resource for rating and grading films. And while once again we can cry foul on the principles of fairness, the reality is that it is time for Rotten Tomatoes (RT) to end.
In the Beginning…
Like so many stories, the origin of Rotten Tomatoes has its roots with a small group of innovative minds looking to build something new. Three students from UC Berkeley: Senh Duong, Patrick Y. Lee and Stephen Wang started RT as a hub for the reviews of film critics from multiple cities. After launching in 2000, they expanded the website and it eventually grew to the become the aggregate critic and viewer review site it is today.
For a time, RT worked beautifully. It provided the broad expanse of critical reviews to viewers that the founding trio had originally envisioned. It also acted as a form of unintentional marketing that benefited the smaller independent films. Without the resources of the big-budget, big studio releases these smaller indies would too often go unnoticed by the vast majority of moviegoers. But with RT, low-budget films could enjoy the publicity of a great aggregate critical score (termed “Fresh”) as a way of piquing public interest.
Even the introduction of viewer reviews, which came later, provided several benefits to the average filmgoer. For starters, the addition of reviews from non-professional critics gave the site an additional cache of data on which to score a film. Now each movie could be rated not just on the critical response but also on audience response. And in several notable examples over the years, professional critics and general audiences have varied wildly on their assessment of specific films.
Bullies, Bots and the Dark Side
It would have seemed unfathomable to believe the current plight of Rotten Tomatoes just a few years ago. Some story elements read right out of a Terminator script with unchecked and evil machines looking to doom humanity — or at least sabotage some of our biggest films.
And yet that’s exactly what we’re witnessing right now. It looks to have started with Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017), a blockbuster that met with mixed reaction from so-called die-hard fans. Professional critics raved about the film, allowing it to earn an aggregate score of 93% Fresh on RT. However, audience scores were much lower (nearly half that) and leaned towards rating the Star Wars sequel “Rotten.” While such a disparity between the two sides is not in itself a flaw (in fact, as noted earlier, it could be seen as a strength) it’s highly unusual to see such differing results on such a big mainstream movie.
The history of other blockbusters films would’ve led us to believe the dynamic would be reversed (critics giving a lower rating to a big-budget film that audiences reviewed more favourably). Almost immediately suspensions about the validity of ratings for The Last Jedi on RT were called into question.
Although Rotten Tomatoes has denied it repeatedly, questions remain on how much of an influence automated “bots” had on the viewer reviews. We now know that the same technology was used against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential race, leveraging Facebook to create a similar dynamic. Even if the use of automated technology against The Last Jedi cannot be proved, other outlets have independently reviewed the user accounts of numerous negative viewer reviews and found many were suspect.
To their credit, RT took steps using advanced Captcha technology after The Last Jedi’s release to decrease chances of bot influence. But even if those safeguards were found to be 100% effective, it cannot prevent bullying.
Anyone living during the rise of social media in society understands how these platforms of connectivity have become avenues for bullying. It’s become an extension of the schoolyard and goes beyond the plight of children (adults are just as likely to be bullied online). The same perverse mentality that drives a bully to go after an individual drives one to go after a film. Even though they are more often referred to as “trolls” (as if the switch in terminology makes it more comical) these cyberbullies who attack films and those who make them are poisoning the platform for aggregate reviews in the same way they’ve pissed in the social media pool.
Kill the Trolls
As easy as it is to blame the faceless and soulless trolls out there who are spoiling the perks for all of us, the reality is the warning signs on Rotten Tomatoes have been there for a while. When it was its own entity, RT exercised a bit of independence from the industry. However, starting with its acquisition in 2004 by IGN Entertainment, ownership has changed hands through a series of bigger media mergers and purchases. The problem now is that RT is owned by Fandango, who in turn is owned partially by NBC Universal and Warner Bros.
It’s easy to see how recent accusations that RT has become just another marketing arm of the big studios carries weight.
The harder truth to face is that RT is a great concept and resource whose time has come to an end. The usefulness of aggregately score critical film reviews can be hotly debated, but the necessity to pool these reviews into one destination seems outdated. One only needs to use a simple Google search to find plenty of professional reviews they can use to vet any potential movie.
And while the notion of viewer reviews has its appeal (on lifting up the common voice if nothing else), the reality is that such reviews have limited value. What does it really mean if a thousand people love a film versus a thousand others hate the same film? What’s really gained from insights of an “average joe” especially when he can hide in anonymity (further increasing the risks for corruption)? Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have grown exponentially since RT launched nearly two decades ago. If I want a viewer review on a particular film, I can find out from the assortment of friends and family I am already connected.
The recent controversy surrounding so-called reviews of the forthcoming Captain Marvel (2019) film has again raised serious questions about the integrity of RT. Trolls who clearly haven’t even seen the film gone on the offensive to damage the film’s viewer score. To their credit, the company has responded in the wake of another troll attack on a film likely driven by sexism, bigotry, and hate.
Despite any efforts that RT may offer it’s difficult to move past the site’s lack of autonomous credibility and continued relevance. It’s just another marketing asset for the studios… plain and simple. And yes, maybe a few bad students have ruined recess for all of us.
But the bigger reality is that we’ve just outgrown the need for Rotten Tomatoes. What was once an innovative concept and resource for movie-lovers everywhere can no longer be certified “Fresh.”
