79
The Decomposition of Rotten Tomatoes: The most overrated metric in movies is erratic, reductive, and easily hacked — and yet has Hollywood in its grip. (www.vulture.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Emperor@feddit.uk to c/movies@lemm.ee
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/23769430

All of this would be one thing if Rotten Tomatoes were merely an innocent relic from Web 1.0 being preyed upon by Hollywood sharks. But the site has come a long way from its founding, in 1998, by UC Berkeley grads, one of whom wanted a place to catalogue reviews of Jackie Chan movies. Rotten Tomatoes outlasted the dot-com bubble and was passed from one buyer to another, most recently in 2016. That year, Warner Bros. sold most of it to Fandango, which shares a parent company with Universal Pictures. If it sounds like a conflict of interest for a movie-review aggregator to be owned by two companies that make movies and another that sells tickets to them, it probably is.

If you found this of interest, check out the related article: Online Reviews Are Being Bought and Paid For. Get Used to It

Archive link: https://archive.ph/lyddW

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

I've noticed this phenomenon in many systems. People glom onto the only entity bothering to do benchmarks/reviews/ratings/whatever, or at least the only popular one, even if the system is totally bogus. Because where else are you gonna go?

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

In this case I think rotten tomatoes has done a reasonable job of pleasing a lot of people. Separating out audience and critics allows producers to point to their well received movies, regular people can know if they will enjoy it, people who love controversial movies can accuse others of review bombing... everyone gets to have their own version of events and rotten tomatoes gets to be the source everyone points to.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Still, they should improve the ratings algorithm.

It would be a benefit to the audience and critics, just not a benefit to the company or movie studios I guess.

[-] JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

People glom onto the only entity bothering to do benchmarks/reviews/ratings/whatever, or at least the only popular one, even if the system is totally bogus.

I don't get any of this, really. MetaCritic and IMDB are also huge, and use alternate weighting systems, I believe. You can also just google the movie and underneath the 'big three reviewers,' there'll be a bunch more quality review sites, like NYT, The Guardian, Ebert's site and so forth.

So for anyone who wants to get a spectrum of opinions, it's really not that hard. Not unlike how one should get reliable news.

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
79 points (97.6% liked)

movies

1679 readers
272 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk
Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de
maegul@lemmy.ml
Blaze@lemm.ee
orangeNgreen@lemmy.world
neidu2@feddit.nl
Emperor@feddit.uk
TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
maegul@lemm.ee