I see why these sites exist, so that people can go to one place and see the critical consensus in a single, relatively easy to understand number. But it turns film criticism into a much more black...
I see why these sites exist, so that people can go to one place and see the critical consensus in a single, relatively easy to understand number.
But it turns film criticism into a much more black and white process than it should be. There's a lot of nuanced discussion to be had and I think Rotten Tomatoes really works against that. Adding more critics doesn't really solve that issue.
But I never use them. There are 5-10 critics who I trust to have relatively similar tastes to me when it comes to movies. Generally, if they like it, I know there's at least a decent chance I'll enjoy it. I'd rather read their reviews and get a more nuanced viewpoint than just a number on a page with a 20 word blurb.
It's a hard problem, isn't it? Like, there absolutely should be something like these sites. If I'm in a movie theater and I have no idea what I want to go see, I should be able to look at the...
It's a hard problem, isn't it? Like, there absolutely should be something like these sites. If I'm in a movie theater and I have no idea what I want to go see, I should be able to look at the scores and filter out the trash, right? Being able to quickly get an overview of what people think is pretty great.
...but it loses out on everything else that criticism is about. Hell, good criticism usually has more to do with saying something thought-provoking about the work than it does assessment of quality. From more traditional sources, you kinda get both. You go for the quality assessment, and you come out with that plus something to think about. It's a weird consequence of the internet which we really haven't figured out how to manage yet: you can just get what you want when you want it with no bullshit attached. But that bullshit is sometimes really the meat of the whole thing. So now the only people engaging with "real" criticism are the people who actively want it...which sounds good, but is a bit of a shame.
Adding more critics can totally make that number better. It makes it better at its very simple function. But it doesn't turn the sites into what they're not, and I'm not sure there's a way to fix what they are. If you try to de-emphasize the number...well then people will go somewhere else that serves them up a flat number.
How do we escape all this? Fuck, I don't know, but if all that matters is the number then it damn well better be a good well-informed number.
Good join saying all the stuff I was thinking far more eloquently than I could. When you boil it down to pull quotes and a number you lose the whole purpose of film criticism.
Good join saying all the stuff I was thinking far more eloquently than I could.
When you boil it down to pull quotes and a number you lose the whole purpose of film criticism.
I don't think Rotten Tomatoes does a bad job of what it's meant to do, I think most users just don't understand what the site actually does. It's not a measure of how good a movie is, it's a...
I don't think Rotten Tomatoes does a bad job of what it's meant to do, I think most users just don't understand what the site actually does. It's not a measure of how good a movie is, it's a measure of how likely a viewer is to either enjoy or not enjoy a film. A movie can go on to earn a 99% fresh rating on mostly 7/10 review scores.
I know when I go see a movie that is "certified fresh", there is a good chance I will enjoy it. If you want to gain a sense of how good or bad a film is, well no aggregator will be able to replace just reading reviews and finding critics who align with your own personal tastes.
I see why these sites exist, so that people can go to one place and see the critical consensus in a single, relatively easy to understand number.
But it turns film criticism into a much more black and white process than it should be. There's a lot of nuanced discussion to be had and I think Rotten Tomatoes really works against that. Adding more critics doesn't really solve that issue.
But I never use them. There are 5-10 critics who I trust to have relatively similar tastes to me when it comes to movies. Generally, if they like it, I know there's at least a decent chance I'll enjoy it. I'd rather read their reviews and get a more nuanced viewpoint than just a number on a page with a 20 word blurb.
It's a hard problem, isn't it? Like, there absolutely should be something like these sites. If I'm in a movie theater and I have no idea what I want to go see, I should be able to look at the scores and filter out the trash, right? Being able to quickly get an overview of what people think is pretty great.
...but it loses out on everything else that criticism is about. Hell, good criticism usually has more to do with saying something thought-provoking about the work than it does assessment of quality. From more traditional sources, you kinda get both. You go for the quality assessment, and you come out with that plus something to think about. It's a weird consequence of the internet which we really haven't figured out how to manage yet: you can just get what you want when you want it with no bullshit attached. But that bullshit is sometimes really the meat of the whole thing. So now the only people engaging with "real" criticism are the people who actively want it...which sounds good, but is a bit of a shame.
Adding more critics can totally make that number better. It makes it better at its very simple function. But it doesn't turn the sites into what they're not, and I'm not sure there's a way to fix what they are. If you try to de-emphasize the number...well then people will go somewhere else that serves them up a flat number.
How do we escape all this? Fuck, I don't know, but if all that matters is the number then it damn well better be a good well-informed number.
Good join saying all the stuff I was thinking far more eloquently than I could.
When you boil it down to pull quotes and a number you lose the whole purpose of film criticism.
I don't think Rotten Tomatoes does a bad job of what it's meant to do, I think most users just don't understand what the site actually does. It's not a measure of how good a movie is, it's a measure of how likely a viewer is to either enjoy or not enjoy a film. A movie can go on to earn a 99% fresh rating on mostly 7/10 review scores.
I know when I go see a movie that is "certified fresh", there is a good chance I will enjoy it. If you want to gain a sense of how good or bad a film is, well no aggregator will be able to replace just reading reviews and finding critics who align with your own personal tastes.