If other people with your subjective opinion agree with you and you earn yourself a lot of readers because of that, you can get your reviews featured right there on Rotten Tomatoes alongside people with 20 years experience and a degree in film studies. Still, you might be inclined to tell the world about it via the Internet. And you can apply to be a Rotten Tomatoes-approved reviewer right there on the site.Įveryone sees movies. You see a movie, you think, "I didn't like that." That's your subjective, probably uniformed (no offense, but it's true) opinion, not film criticism. Reviews from print publications across America make the cut, but how does the site deal with Internet scribbling? According to Rotten Tomatoes, "Online publications must achieve and maintain a minimum 500,000 unique monthly visitors according to comScore, Inc or Nielsen Net Ratings and reviews must have an average length of at least 300 words." Sure, 500,000 seems like a big number, but with sites pulling down tens of millions of unique visitors every month, it isn't, really. So who counts as a critic on Rotten Tomatoes? Are you reading a consensus based on reviews written by people who really know what they're talking about? Who work for top publications, have seen thousands of movies, studied film or film studies, know all the correct terminology and points of reference, and understand how the medium works and what makes a genuinely, objectively good movie? Or are you reading a bunch of drivel peddled by fans who used the Internet to weasel their way into critical discourse by espousing the opinions of fellow fans and thereby gaining readership, support, and, because of that, ad revenue, studio approval, and legitimacy? The plot thickens when a Google search reveals there are reviews in the wide world of the Internet for Teacher of the Year not included in the consensus, and not just random stupid blog posts Why? Well, that's really at the discretion of Rotten Tomatoes.
#Rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2 movie#
If seven people tell you a movie is good, and you only trust one of them, you might think, "Well, maybe." If 77 people tell you a movie is good (there are, apparently, at least two people in the world who don't like Apocalypse Now), and you trust 16 of them, you will see that movie. You get a lot more meaningful consensus from 79 reviews that you might from, say, seven. Kaplan) and one is from, a publication of dubious repute.Īpocalypse Now has 79 reviews, 16 of which are from top critics. Two of them are from the same site ( Kaplan vs. Only one of these is from a so-called Top Critic (more on that later). Teacher of the Year has seven reviews posted on Rotten Tomatoes.
![rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2 rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2](https://resizing.flixster.com/NOcpMzNyZb2bdS3uGzaK8RwE3SE=/300x300/v2/https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p13762579_n324989_cc_v9_aa.jpg)
You might see this and think, "Holy sh*t, Teacher of the Year is better than Apocalypse Now! I gotta see this movie!" Apocalypse Now, some movie from a guy called Francis Ford Coppola, has a 97%. However, the sample size used by Rotten Tomatoes varies wildly, and is therefore not always indicative of any meaningful cultural consensus.īy way of example, Teacher of the Year, a 2015 mockumentary staring Keegan-Michael Key as the titular teacher, has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes as of April 2017. With enough volume, a consensus usually tips one way or the other. Some of these reviews are negative, some positive.
![rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2 rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2](https://resizing.flixster.com/LburpXPNGkxg_IGDBYbboslukxc=/206x305/v2/https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p15479845_e_v8_aa.jpg)
Rotten Tomatoes ostensibly offers a consensus of film critic reviews. Because Rotten Tomatoes scores can make or break a movie, and are even used in advertising campaigns. Does anyone really care about Rotten Tomatoes and whether or not we understand what it means? Well, yeah, actually. Perhaps you think all of this is a bit moronic.
![rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2 rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2](https://flxt.tmsimg.com/v9/AllPhotos/217528/217528_v9_bb.jpg)
Is Rotten Tomatoes really ensuring these films are receiving fair and meaningful reviews?
![rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2 rotten tomatoes 13 reasons why 2](https://resizing.flixster.com/R0V_85SUHg4vLWH4d7J2OGqusJ8=/206x305/v2/https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p15479841_e_v8_aa.jpg)
owned Rotten Tomatoes at some point, and still holds a minority stake, and Fandango owns the majority stake. Right? Well, not so fast, because there are some deceptive things about Rotten Tomatoes.ĭo you really know how Rotten Tomatoes works? Or, for that matter, does anyone? Film criticism in the age of corporate sponsorship is a tricky thing. You quickly check Rotten Tomatoes to see what's "Fresh." Surely, if 87% of people enjoyed a film, you will as well. But whatever will you choose? With so many options, you've got to find a way to narrow down your choices. "Let's watch a movie tonight," you say to your significant other, your best friend, your cat, inadvertently setting yourself on a path to discovering how Rotten Tomatoes lies to you.