Is it fair that Rotten Tomatoes constantly updates critical reaction scores?

[johnnygobbs]

If I really want to see a particular film, I will go irrespective of the RT consensus, and thus make up my own mind.  Also, I think it makes far more sense to consider the actual substance of a review, particularly a critic one likes and trusts, than to focus too much on a consensus derived via an arbitrary system.

That said, RT and similar sites do provide rough guides as to the quality of a given film, and most of us don't have the cash to see every movie on our radar.  Thus, it is important to have some sort of guide as to what we should spend our hard-earned cash on.

As for Batman Returns, it has a superb 80% score at RT.    So why should anyone suppose it would receive a critical bashing were it released for the first time today?

And as for The Empire Strikes Back, I have seen various contemporaneous reviews, including one from Pauline Kael in her brilliant film essays compilation, 'Taking It All In', and from what I gather, the critical reception in 1980 was as rapturously positive as it is today. 

[riddler]

There's two schools of thoughts on it;

As we all know audiences perception has changed quite a bit on films and in Batman Forevers case I'm pretty sure we're well aware that the public perception was strong but soured later for various reasons (hating Schumacher and Batman and Robin, Nolanites hating on all the other batman films)

The flip side though is that people use rotten tomatoes to decide how they may enjoy a film and so they may be more interested in how a film is perceived now vs when it was released.

Taking it further; the adam west film was immensely popular in the 60's but it would not be considered good cinema by today's standards.

[johnnygobbs]

Taking it further; the adam west film was immensely popular in the 60's but it would not be considered good cinema by today's standards.

Well, even good films date.  That doesn't mean they're not still good films (although I must admit, I've always preferred the 60s TV show to the 1967 film, even though Lee Meriwether is definitely one of my favourite Catwoman actresses, and it was good to see The Joker, Catwoman, Penguin and Riddler aligned together).

Judged by contemporary standards in special effects, cinematography and general production values, even TDK trilogy will eventually seem 'dated'.

[Catwoman]

It would be refreshing to see more people taking a stance against such sites, and judge films for themselves without being swayed by popular consensus. Want to watch something? I say do it on your own terms and crush the goddamn tomato!

This. I didn't even realize a site that calls itself "Rotten Tomatoes" was supposed to be taken seriously, let alone that people consider it the definitive word on a movie's quality, until the BvS sh*t started. The definitive word is the viewer's own individual opinion, and I guess it is okay for a tool (I admit using IMDb ratings to see what perception was of certain movies before I watched them but even if it had a low score and bad reviews I still watched it to see for myself) but it seems like a lot of people are using it not as a tool but to define their own opinion without watching something. Newsflash: these critics don't know you. They don't know your individual tastes and quirks, and they probably don't share them. Unless it's word of mouth from people who know me or who I know are pretty similar to me in taste (which is why I've still yet to watch Gotham) I take opinions with as much salt as is in the Dead Sea. The only way *I'LL* know is if *I* watch.

[johnnygobbs]

I wish I had unlimited money to go see every film that is released in the cinema (although some I'd actively avoid on premise alone), but I don't.  Thus reviews and word-of-mouth are absolutely essential when it comes to the average cinema-goer. 

[Silver Nemesis]

Also, I think it makes far more sense to consider the actual substance of a review, particularly a critic one likes and trusts, than to focus too much on a consensus derived via an arbitrary system.

But it's not arbitrary. It's standard practice with critics who are members of the Online Film Critics Society (OFCS) to choose whether their reviews are rotten or fresh when they submit them to the site. I believe most critics do this nowadays. That's why there's sometimes a disparity between the fresh/rotten status and the score given by the critic. In the case of older reviews, the RT editors will themselves attribute fresh/rotten status after weighing the tone of the review. They might take into consideration the score when they do this, but usually it's the written content that influences their decision. Numeric factors relating to the score generally have little impact on the fresh/rotten status of a review. But if anyone thinks they've spotted a review that's been incorrectly evaluated, you can contact the editors about it here: http://flixster.desk.com/customer/portal/emails/new

Personally I've never understood why people get so upset about Rotten Tomatoes. Like it or not, there are certain metrics we use to objectively evaluate a film's level of success. One of those metrics is critical consensus. And the best way of objectively gauging that is through aggregators like RT and Metacritic. Any other technique is subject to selectivity bias, where we pick and choose reviews that support our own opinions.

Does that mean people should sublimate their own opinions in order to agree with the critics? No, of course not. I don't always agree with the consensus myself. I love Takeshi Kitano's film Kikujiro (1999), but it's rated 59% 'rotten' on RT. Does that bother me on an emotional level? No. Why would it? RT isn't there to say whether or not I'll like a film; it's there to give an overview of what the critics thought of it. It's a resource, like boxofficemojo.com. And I happen to be interested in what the critics think. It doesn't mean their views will dictate my own opinion. But I like discussing film and I'm always interested in hearing other people's opinions. Whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant.

I've honestly never seen anyone say, "Such and such a film is great because it has a high score on Rotten Tomatoes." I have however seen people say, "Such and such a film was well received by critics," and then cite Rotten Tomatoes as proof of this. Which is a perfectly acceptable way to back up their statement with objective fact. It's like saying, "Such and such a film performed well at the box office," and citing boxofficemojo.com to support this. Again, it doesn't mean an individual's opinion is wrong because it runs counter to the popular consensus. When it comes to subjective opinion, there is no right or wrong.

That said, a lot of people find there are one or two critics whose viewing appetites are similar to their own. And as gobbs points out, since we don't always have the time and money to see every single film released, we're often dependent on the recommendations of others to guide our viewing patterns. Ideally we should all make up our own minds. And if there are people out there who do allow the consensus of the masses to shape their opinions, then obviously they're missing out on something. But for the rest of us, aggregators like RT and Metacritic are simply a resource for cross-referencing the opinions of others; not for tailoring our own opinions to the popular view. If you don't like them, or if you simply don't care about what the critics think, then just ignore them. Problem solved.

[Catwoman]

I do ignore them. Only reason I made that post is because the subject was broached and I have to put my two cents into everything because I'm a narcissistic bitch. 

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm not a huge fan of Brett Ratner, but I applaud him for slamming Rotten Tomatoes today, describing how toxic it is to film nowadays. He even suggests that aggregate review systems are underming the art of film criticism itself, which I find to be quite a fascinating claim.

"The worst thing that we have in today's movie culture is Rotten Tomatoes," said Ratner, whose company RatPac Entertainment co-financed Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (among dozens of other Warner Bros. titles). "I think it's the destruction of our business. I have such respect and admiration for film criticism. When I was growing up film criticism was a real art. And there was intellect that went into that. And you would read Pauline's Kael's reviews, or some others, and that doesn't exist anymore. Now it's about a number. A compounded number of how many positives vs. negatives. Now it's about, 'What's your Rotten Tomatoes score?' And that's sad, because the Rotten Tomatoes score was so low on Batman v Superman I think it put a cloud over a movie that was incredibly successful."

Directed by Zack Snyder, Batman v Superman cost about $250 million to make and grossed nearly $900 million worldwide — despite being considered a disappointment (with a 27 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes).

"People don't realize what goes into making a movie like that," Ratner continued. "It's mind-blowing. It's just insane, it's hurting the business, it's getting people to not see a movie. In Middle America it's, 'Oh, it's a low Rotten Tomatoes score so I'm not going to go see it because it must suck.' But that number is an aggregate and one that nobody can figure out exactly what it means, and it's not always correct. I've seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores. What's sad is film criticism has disappeared. It's really sad."

Some other popular titles with low Rotten Tomatoes scores include Home Alone (55 percent), Hook (30 percent), Wet Hot American Summer (32 percent) and The Mighty Ducks (15 percent). More recently on the TV side, Netflix's Iron Fist scored only 18 percent from critics but its audience score is 83 percent.

Source: http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/23/ratner-tomatoes-scores/

[The Dark Knight]

He's absolutely right. Rotten Tomatoes is weaponized propaganda.

[thecolorsblend]

I have philosophical problems with distilling my appreciation (or lack of the same) to a number. Apart from how reductive it is, it's a bit dishonest with the entire idea of art in that you can appreciate aspects of a movie while overall not enjoying the whole... or vice versa where you enjoy a movie but have serious problems with one or two elements of it.

It's not necessarily possible to assign a number to it.

BVS is actually a good example of what I mean. I enjoy it, especially the extended cut, and I think it has a lot of strengths. But that's judging it by its own merits. Having said that, I might have preferred Superman's first cinematic meeting with Batman to be something different in an ideal world. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with BVS. It simply means I'm willing to enjoy something even if it doesn't quite line up with what I've wanted my whole life.

I can't assign an easy and convenient number to summarize my thoughts on that. It takes time, effort and consideration for me to explain it and also for someone else to read it.

Not everything in life can or should be reduced down to a handful of metrics, guys.