Tweet
I've noticed that Rotten Tomatoes routinely updates and revises reviews for films, even classics, in what appears to be an effort to reflect or manipulate modern day opinions. I can look at movies as old as Frankenstein (1931) or Halloween (1978) and the reviews are as recent as last year. So it got me to thinking. For those who like to see the ratings for older films on this site, have you ever been aware the reviews are revised or have you made assumptions these were reviews of the day? Now of course I'm sure some would think a much later consensuses might have been gathered on something like Frankenstein, but say something as late as a few years ago getting different reviews this year seems a bit odd. So to point, should we expect a movie like the 2015 Fantastic Four or 2012's Avengers to always maintain the original score they opened with or is Rotten Tomatoes going to, in effect, play revisionist history by constantly updating reviews which skews context to that original reception?
It's an interesting question because the industry routinely references this site as a reflection for universal critical reception and reputation of films. If you look at the qualifiers to be a critic it really raises some eye brows because the titles of "top critics" are assigned according to influence. The rest vary according to what they deem is relevant so it's quite subjective. And with the ever growing naiveté of today's younger generation to opinion in social media, one has to wonder if anyone applies the proper context when they read these reviews. Because there is no written policy stated online as to when or why reviews are allowed in after a movie is out of circulation. So something that was popular when it was originally released may or may not have aged as well over time. But if you are a person with influence that needs that movie to retain relevance for your name, who is to say you can't have people submitting new "reviews" to keep it propped up? Case in point, "ET" by Spielberg. A huge hit for it's day but something that was a noted flop when it was re-released in 2002, yet it retains a 98% rating. How is that? Even Wikipedia reports that current number while lumping it with reactions from Ronald Reagan which demonstrates a lack of context.
Now I realize we all have varying opinions on critics and the relevance, or lack thereof, regarding their input to films. Lord knows I have more than a few favorite movies that are universally shamed. But I think it's always worth taking note of the actual process which can offer more insight than just a general opinion about critics. Given what I see and how it can be so easily manipulated, I no longer deem Rotten Tomatoes a meaningful measure of a film's lasting appeal anymore than I can say it applies any context to what audiences and critics actually thought at the time of it's release (since it constantly changes). And while most everyone plays coy to the influence of critics, it's sad to see it's relevance since the Industry relies on those "results" to determine reputation.
It's an interesting question because the industry routinely references this site as a reflection for universal critical reception and reputation of films. If you look at the qualifiers to be a critic it really raises some eye brows because the titles of "top critics" are assigned according to influence. The rest vary according to what they deem is relevant so it's quite subjective. And with the ever growing naiveté of today's younger generation to opinion in social media, one has to wonder if anyone applies the proper context when they read these reviews. Because there is no written policy stated online as to when or why reviews are allowed in after a movie is out of circulation. So something that was popular when it was originally released may or may not have aged as well over time. But if you are a person with influence that needs that movie to retain relevance for your name, who is to say you can't have people submitting new "reviews" to keep it propped up? Case in point, "ET" by Spielberg. A huge hit for it's day but something that was a noted flop when it was re-released in 2002, yet it retains a 98% rating. How is that? Even Wikipedia reports that current number while lumping it with reactions from Ronald Reagan which demonstrates a lack of context.
Now I realize we all have varying opinions on critics and the relevance, or lack thereof, regarding their input to films. Lord knows I have more than a few favorite movies that are universally shamed. But I think it's always worth taking note of the actual process which can offer more insight than just a general opinion about critics. Given what I see and how it can be so easily manipulated, I no longer deem Rotten Tomatoes a meaningful measure of a film's lasting appeal anymore than I can say it applies any context to what audiences and critics actually thought at the time of it's release (since it constantly changes). And while most everyone plays coy to the influence of critics, it's sad to see it's relevance since the Industry relies on those "results" to determine reputation.
Comment