There are no shortage of the Web articles writing To inform me what movie critic ruined the perfect score that Get out once held on Rotten Tomatoes. It is opponent Armond White, who described Jordan Peele’s directorial debut as “a toned-down comedy sketch in which serious concerns are degraded.” Given White’s reputation for critical dissent, it is not particularly noteworthy that he Get out– which now holds a “fresh” rating of 99% – or that White’s bashing could inspire some headlines. What is remarkable is White’s obsession with the influence of White on the score of the film Rotten Tomatoes, a simple but powerful reduction in a film’s esteem among critics from all corners of the web, from The New Yorker To Cairo 360.
Since the release of Get out A year ago, the general dispute over Rotten Tomatoes scores became deceptively common. In December, several websites reported the disappearance of Lady Birdthe “perfect” score of, ruined by blogger Cole Smithey, who, it must be admitted to throw its B-minus review to the heap in order to challenge “a perfect score that people used to deceive ‘Lady Bird’ as the highest rated RT movie of all time.” News websites have covered the demise of the film’s perfect “fresh” rating, which Smithey “ruined,” as a minor disaster for good taste. Write for Quartz, journalist Ashley Rodriguez describe Rotten Tomatoes as a system that flattens out all nuances and encourages trolling. The site’s “percentage score” simply shows the overall share of reviewers who submitted positive reviews, Rodriguez observed. “So when Smithey scored his rather neutral criticism like Rotten, that was the end of Lady BirdIt’s a perfect race.
Let’s put aside the minor question of whether the Rotten Tomatoes system falters compared to Metacritic’s. The biggest concern is that these scores have gained such credibility in the news, and that these scores – especially perfect “fresh” scores – have assumed quasi-political significance. Among reactionary trolls, like opposing hordes ghost hunters and Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Rotten Tomatoes has become a tool against the progressive and unconventional influence in popular cinema. And among progressives themselves, who now find themselves on the defensive against reactionary trolls, Rotten Tomatoes is a tool to protect acclaimed films, like Lady Bird, even marginal dissent. “The film is still 100% based on reviews from the top critics on the site,” Rodriguez noted. Among Rotten Tomatoes obsessives, the margins for dissent are so low that even the smallest backlash from a popular comic book movie or critically acclaimed independent causes some irritation.
Ironically, the critics – the stars of Rotten Tomatoes – are the biggest losers from the website’s outsized influence. The ringEditor-in-chief of, Sean Fennessey, has written about the influence of Rotten Tomatoes scores among film audiences, which necessarily makes the website a crucial consideration for studio marketing teams as well. But Rotten Tomatoes is a burden and a disservice to critics, who don’t really write reviews like binary and flat ratings, even when they are rating movies on a traditional star system. The reviewer’s focus coincides with the design of Rotten Tomatoes in that they both focus on whether consumers should bother to see a particular movie.
But where the reviewer additionally intends to bring up all kinds of ideas about the film, its cast, director, studio, and more, Rotten Tomatoes simply moves on to the aggregation process, removing the spare parts review. In many cases, the website decides which clips are representative of a film’s overall reviewer’s rating, and the website determines whether readers should view the review as positive (“fresh”) or negative (“rotten”. “). (Critics also have the option of making the designation themselves, as Smithey himself did.) The critic’s tastes, ideas, reservations, and intentions are lost in the quantified consensus. Without these contextual clues, the reader of Rotten Tomatoes must view film criticism as a zero-sum business. Hence the urge to cite Rotten Tomatoes scores as proof that critics are for or against a particular film.
Despite relentless dismay over the perfect ‘fresh’ scores and discrepancy between critics and the public, Rotten Tomatoes have maintained the basic scoring structure that encourages such a jockey. At the exit of Black Panther just a few weeks ago, the headlines hit the headlines single at Ed Power three star review– “a heavy tale of infighting” —for ruining the otherwise perfect score of the film; despite the overall friendliness of the review and Power’s receptiveness to the film’s importance to black audiences. If you read Power’s review you’ll know that he mostly complains about the second half of the movie and hardly advises against seeing Black Panther. But if you only read the “rotten” clip in the Top Critics section of Rotten Tomatoes, you’d think Power was hardcore panning the movie: as he writes (of the movie), “It’s a shame.”
Rotten Tomatoes isn’t the only review aggregator in town. Letterboxd users, including prominent critics, upload movie reviews and give ratings on a five-star scale. IMDb tracks user review scores for movies. Alternatively, Cinemascore prioritizes public praise and questions moviegoers directly. More generally, Metacritic tracks user reviews and reviews of movies as well as TV shows, albums, and video games. But among review aggregation sites, Rotten Tomatoes is the number one critical battleground, and it’s the only such website that regularly inspires confrontations on the fringes of critical consensus. And no medium other than cinema seems to hinge so critically on the calculation of a single website.
Rotten Tomatoes was launched in 1998, but it’s only been a hotbed of settling accounts since the July 2012 release of The dark knight rises. Four years earlier, the website had promoted Christopher Nolan’s previous Batman movie, The black Knight, as a potential “masterpiece” based on early pre-release reviews, and so the website cemented its status as a terminal checkpoint for critical review of a film. “It is probably safe to say that The dark knight rises is the most anticipated film of the year, ”said Matt Atchity, editor-in-chief of Rotten Tomatoes. wrote. “And my staff and I knew full well that when the first negative review was done, the reviewer would be stuck in the comments. This dubious honor goes to Marshall Fine. Writing for his personal website, Fine criticized Nolan’s ‘weaker’ Batman film as a “crass and tedious film,” thus scuttling the perfect score that other critics had briefly given the film before its release. On Rotten Tomatoes, Nolan fans flooded the comments section with hate speech as Fine’s website crumbled. “Rumors of the death of my website have been greatly exaggerated,” Fine later Recount IndieWire. But as writer Matt Singer noted, reactions to “Fine’s other negative reviews have had serious and potentially permanent implications for Rotten Tomatoes.” Six years later, it appears the critical implications are permanent and provocative by design.
The dark knight rises predates Gamergate by two years. But the urge to defend Nolan’s film overwhelmingly against criticism foreshadowed much of the online troll movement’s obsession with upholding a critical consensus on commercial works of art through the sheet music police and harassment. Six years after the release of The dark knight rises, websites adopted the fandom’s Rotten Tomatoes obsession as the overriding concern, calling on various factions to fight for perfect scores of the year’s most gripping films.
Headlines and stories can seem harmless in many cases – the real fight for Get out takes place among Oscar voters, not on Rotten Tomatoes – but the urge to control those scores, and subject the perfect scores to martial law, suggests a form of rigidity and polarization that eschews true critical work and serves no purpose. than the worst excesses of fandom. The Tomatometer can vaguely measure consensus, but it can hardly relay the nuances contained in fandom, criticism, and the films themselves. If Rotten Tomatoes trains moviegoers, and then even editors, to go beyond all of these nuances for instant judgments, then a depressed interest in, say, The dark tower is not the worst outcome. The real shame is the abbreviated conversation.