There was an issue with Trolls that Rotten Tomatoes quickly sorted out by removing all the accounts. Now the real question lies on the reliability of Rotten Tomatoes.
Rotten Tomatoes has a policy where the audience score cannot be entered unless it's 3.5 or more. This is not true for critics, but that doesn't make things right. Critics can give low scores but that's not the case for the audience. How can a member of the audience give low scores?
Rotten Tomatoes has a binary or ternary rating scheme, and that is ridiculous. If a movie is greater than 60%, it is Fresh, so that's it. If there are more than 40 critics for a Fresh movie and it's greater than 75%, it is "Certified Fresh", which just boosts sales. Rotten Tomatoes has been taken over by the ticket sellers Fandango, a company which also bought Flixster.
Funny thing is, Fandango is also a rating site. It would have been trust worthy especially since it was based on audience scores, but the purchase of Rotten Tomatoes has made things worse.
Don't get me wrong, Fans still mostly look at RT critic ratings especially after the purchase by Fandango. But whenever fans look at Fandango ratings more they create automatically create more movie goers who will give higher audience ratings. So if there's a lower bar for audience ratings, why is there no higher bar. Usually most people who liked it will give it somewhere near the highest score, unlike the critics. Movies rated for best movie in the Oscars usually have a lower Audience score than others.
Even IMDB and Metacritic are not doing their part. None of the movie rating websites are. So in order to find if the movie is your type, you may as well see it and rate it by your own means. You can mention your ratings online, even score them, but you don't have to do it in rating websites.
As for me, I think that the name is Rotten, the site is Rotten, and I just don't know where the tomatoes fit in. So that's it for now, SkateLane Booting Out
No comments:
Post a Comment