I could rant at some length on this topic but I'll keep it brief.
Fundamentally art is subjective and criticism is nuanced, not binary.
To simply deem a review as positive or negative and then generate a percentage score is deeply flawed, inaccurate and misleading.
I believe it has done damage to the cinema industry.
I have an example of how this aggregate score can artificially inflate the perceived quality of films that are “OK” so it cheapens the percentages earned by positively reviewed films.
So about four months ago if you were a casual movie fan who lets rotten tomatoes tell you what is good or bad you may have wanted to watch a movie.
You could go to the cinema or stay in and watch something on streaming.
This is what “Rotten Tomatoes" would have told you
TMNT: Mutant mayhem 97% fresh
You Are So Not Invited to My Bat Mitzvah (Adam Sandler Netflix movie) 95% fresh
Bottoms 95% fresh
Oppenheimer 93% fresh
Barbie 88% fresh
Blue Beetle 78% fresh
Grand Turismo 61% fresh
But looking at the actual review data on the Rotten Tomatoes site by critics giving the more nuanced “score out of 10”
The same films at the same time look like this.
Oppenheimer 8.6/10
Bottoms 8/10
Barbie 7.9/10
TMNT: Mutant mayhem 7.6/10
You Are So Not Invited to My Bat Mitzvah (Adam Sandler Netflix movie) 6.9/10
Blue Beetle 6.4/10
Grand Turismo 5.9/10
So that day a casual film fan would be told by "Rotten Tomatoes" that
A Netflix movie that scored 6.9 out of 10 was “BETTER” than
Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer with a critic score of 8.6/10
That is misleading!
TMNT: Mutant Mayhem is 97% fresh but that is based on 7.6/10 somehow when
Barbie’s 88% fresh based on a critic score of 7.9/10
Bonkers!
The most telling is Grand Turismo is certified fresh at 61% but the critic's score is 5.9/10
is actually a Rotten score
It's flawed and should be ignored not pandered to.
I will not be referencing it on this blog.
I'd just like to credit a YouTube film critic Dan Murrell who did the maths for this on his channel.
