So I, along with many other critics, think often of the upsides and pitfalls of aggregating critical opinion and its effect on which movies people see.
My own work is included in both Rotten Tomatoes’ score and that of its more exclusive cousin, Metacritic. It’s not a simple cause-and-effect situation. And as most movie critics (including myself) will tell you, the correlation between Rotten Tomatoes scores, critical opinion, marketing tactics, and actual box office returns is complicated. It’s easy to see why anyone might assume that Rotten Tomatoes scores became more tightly linked to ticket sales, with potential audiences more likely to buy tickets for a movie with a higher score, and by extension, giving critics more power over the purchase of a ticket.īut that’s not the whole story. Since then, studio execs have started to feel as if Rotten Tomatoes matters more than it used to - and in some cases, they’ve rejiggered their marketing strategies accordingly. People had been using Rotten Tomatoes to find movie reviews since it launched in 2000, but after Fandango acquired the site, it began posting “Tomatometer” scores next to movie ticket listings. That’s when Rotten Tomatoes (along with its parent company Flixster) was acquired by Fandango, the website that sells advance movie tickets for many major cinema chains. In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes - the site that aggregates movie and TV critics’ opinions and tabulates a score that’s “fresh” or “rotten” - took on an elevated level of importance.
0 kommentar(er)
