Excellent Reads

1539 readers

1 users here now

Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.

Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.

Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.

Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.

Rules:

Common Sense. Civility, etc.
Server rules.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Iliveonsaturdays

[email protected]

AwesomeLowlander

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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/longreads

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even if Rotten Tomatoes wasn't being manipulated by production companies, looking at a score aggregator is such a bad way for people to judge movies.

A movie where ten critics go "It was fine I guess." would score 100%. A movie where seven critics said "This is the best movie ever." but three said they didn't care for it would score a 70%.

Shallow crowd pleasers with no sharp edges are going to have such an easier time scoring highly than well made but niche movies.

It just seems like a situation of industrializing the concept of enjoying media to assign it scores in, essentially a void (because honestly most people just check the numbers instead of reading the reviews making them up.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Plus, there's always a chance that you'll like the movie, even if 10 "critics" didn't, if a movie sounds interesting enough for you to read reviews, perhaps give it a try no matter what other people think of it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

I miss when Roger Ebert was alive. I could just check his opinion, and it would 99% of the time tell me whether a movie was worth watching.

Trying to find a good barometer these days is really hard.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Whenever I check for a movie on RT, I go towards the capsule reviews of critics, never just the superficial score in big bold numbers.

[–] mindbleach 4 points 4 months ago

Any metric that becomes a goal.