Rotten Tomatoes' Verified Hot Audience Score: Verified Not
Written by Andreas Babiolakis
I don’t like coming on here just to whine about Rotten Tomatoes, because the review aggregate website is a major reason why I am a film critic today. I loved seeing the pool of many critics’ thoughts brought into one source: a tapestry of collective or contradictory thought that changed how reviews could be approached. No longer were you just relying on the opinions of a few. You had access to all of the major critics and what they had to say about major motion pictures, independent projects you need to know more about, and other works you wouldn’t have discovered anywhere else. Having said that, I have complained about Rotten Tomatoes on here (Exhibit A, and Exhibit B) before because nothing is perfect, and the once hottest of hot spots for cinephiles has shown its flaws over time (they proceed to only worsen over time, since Rotten Tomatoes’ approaches to upgrading itself don’t typically fix what is presently worsening the site).
Granted, before I go down this rabbit hole of pessimism, Rotten Tomatoes has also made some better changes, including the inclusion of reviews for lost films to better paint a picture of the films we cannot ever have access to, and trying to include more reviews from all walks of life to accurately depict a wide range of articles as opposed to just one niche train of thought. Today, however, I’ll be briefly focusing on the latest update which is the kind of change that sours the website even more, and it started many years ago once Rotten Tomatoes started to prioritize audience scores (essentially, user ratings) more than the ratings of critics. I have many problems with how users bastardize voting systems out of fanatacism and obsession (negatively reviewing films that have higher scores than their favourites, as well as review bombing, for starters), but I don’t dislike the idea of user ratings overall.
My biggest issue is that there are already websites that have this system in place, and in a way that works better for their demographics. IMDb is the champion of user rating sites (unless you now want to include Letterboxd, which I view more of a social media platform and app than a database, but I’ll mention it here because I think it works well enough). There’s also CinemaScore which I personally detest, but I have to give credit: the way the site functions, the developers and team clearly know how to work with their demographic. I simply don’t have to use the site, which I don’t, but I know that the system works with those who do like the site and agree with the crowd consensus there. That’s beside the point.
The point is that Rotten Tomatoes was the bastion of how critics’ reviews could be used and understood in the digital age. Once it began implementing user ratings in such a prominent way, it was never done so properly. What should have been an add-on or an alternative became the curtailing of one’s original identity due to peer pressure. Essentially, Rotten Tomatoes began to suffer from review bombing, the decrying of people on social media who “don’t care what the critics think” (then why follow a review aggregate website, dumbass?), and other forms of toxicity. Instead of sticking to its guns, Rotten Tomatoes began to slice itself sacrificially to the point of being nearly dead at this point. It first began with the implementation of the audience score (before, users could voice their opinions in the comment sections of films, on the Rotten Tomatoes forum, or even with their own user review in the same vein that Letterboxd uses now); the score now made these voices louder. This wasn’t too worrisome. It got even worse when the critics’ scores became harder to decipher (the movement of the button to see the full score averages and top critics’ scores, for example). Then there was the shifting of where critics and audience scores were placed.
Now, we have reached the biggest misstep in all of this self-destructive journey to try and be appealing to everyone on Earth (a futile quest): the “Verified Hot” audience score. In the same way that critics can highly rate a film and enough positive reviews will result in a “Certified Fresh” tomato score, now audience scores can be “Verified Hot” when the aggregate is positive enough. On paper, this feels like a win because now audiences can gauge both what critics adore and what will be liked by the general public (these two don’t always coexist depending on the film), but I saw right through this illusion quickly. I see the problems and deceptions that exist, and the further deterioration of a once sensational website.
Before I continue, I want to bring up again that I don’t believe in outright silencing the opinions of users (I mean, I’m just a guy who pays for a domain and has my own website, I don’t view myself as more knowledgeable and credible than all other cinephiles despite considering myself a film critic). In order to prove this, I’ll bring forth a similar website that has implemented a far better integration of user opinions: Metacritic. While also an aggregate of critical thought, the user section is given its space without ever encroaching on the critical space. The site hasn’t lost its initial purpose. It has simply integrated a more modern thought where — in the face of social media — everyone wants to get their voices heard. Metacritic still retains the oomph it has always possessed, all while providing a space for its users to talk. The site doesn’t feel like it gave in to public demand, nor does it feel like it is self-mutilated due to persistent bullying.
Then there is Rotten Tomatoes. You can tell by the constant marketing of the Verified Hot add-on, and the audience score has been transformed into the popcorn metre (in the same way that the critics’ score is the tomato metre), with varying degrees of hotness. The popcorn has long represented the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, so this all makes sense. The problem is that that there is a bit of malicious intent here with the popcorn score and the “Verified Hot” status. Here’s a vague example before I get into specifics. You know that big Disney film that didn’t perform well because critics ripped it to shreds? You can now find a glowing “Verified Hot” rating slathered all over it. There’s nothing wrong with a film doing well because it has an audience, but there’s something fishy about a years-old film being brought forth on Rotten Tomatoes’ social media now as a Verified Hot film, as if Rotten Tomatoes is in the hot seat of Disney’s wrath for not helping sell a film better (when Rotten Tomatoes was never meant to be a promotional device for films, but here we are). It’s not just Disney, either. It’s all of the big studios.
Last year’s DC and Warner Bros. project, Blue Beetle, got this little post on Rotten Tomatoes’ Facebook page this past week. This film is an entire year old. Why is it being pushed as “Verified Hot” when the dust has settled and the film hasn’t even been talked about in many months? Is it because it is the lowest grossing DCEU film at the global box office? Additionally, Marcel the Shell with Shoes On — a film I love (so don’t think I’m just complaining about films I don’t like) — is two years old and also just had a post made for it in a similar vein. Again, I love this film and like seeing it be celebrated, but how many people are discussing this film nowadays to the point that this post makes any sense? Why? Why can’t Rotten Tomatoes just focus on newer releases when promoting this audience-based designation? Something feels quite off with the force that this new feature is being pushed: as if to say that this was never about actually caring about audience opinion, but instead the involvement of studios and the industry.
Even if that wasn’t the case, this is still an awful idea because it only further destroys the critics’ section that was once the focal point of the website (don’t even get me started on the main front page and how far down you have to scroll to find the “Certified Fresh” films and television series, whereas the “popular” titles take up all of the online real estate above this section), or how hard it is to sift through the bite sized critics’ reviews on the main page of a film or series before being forced to expand to “see all” reviews). Ever since social media came into play, Rotten Tomatoes has felt threatened and as if it couldn’t remain as it once was. Think of how Instagram had to become a video-dominant platform in response to TikTok, which has only angered most Instagram users ever since this bullshit decision. Rotten Tomatoes had its purpose, but it is almost all but entirely gone. Now, it remains like the many user-based sites. When the art of film criticism is in need of major help like it is right now, the medium needed to be defended and supported. Instead, Rotten Tomatoes — once the biggest supporter of film criticism — is turning its back on what made it the online juggernaut it once was. It feels filthy and dishonest.
Now, there are a couple of rules in place that make me feel the teeniest better about this new addition. Firstly, unlike the “Certified Fresh” tomato score which is when the response to a film is around seventy five percent positive, if memory serves correctly, the “Certified Hot” audience score has to be over ninety percent, which is quite high and so fewer films will be considered, making this honour feel at least a bit more prestigious. Then there is the enforcement of having only users who have paid for tickets to see the film they’re reviewing be considered, perhaps as a two-birds-one-stone sort of deal (the validity of an audience score is made better and more true whilst preventing review bombing, while theatres have more people going to screenings so that these film lovers can partake in the popcorn score of the film). I also foresee how — like most nice things (let alone iffy ones) — this system will be misused. I can sense the attempts to review bomb a film, the use of different IP addresses to try and vote multiple times, the loopholes to get around the need for a ticket, and so many other factors. These are the only aspects that felt like there were good intentions, but I guarantee that they won’t stop what is to come.
Maybe it isn’t with ill intent that Rotten Tomatoes is behaving this way (again, see the above stipulations), but that doesn’t help the fact that the site is not what it once was. Those running it are listening to the social media sticks-in-the-mud who defalcate on every post of theirs and whine about how they don’t care what critics say (again, why fucking follow Rotten Tomatoes then you shits-for-brains; apologies for the tantrum on my end). Those in control of Rotten Tomatoes care more about how studios perceive this journalistic vessel as a means of selling tickets as opposed to being what it is meant to be: a collection of reviews from all major critics. In a clear attempt to keep the site up and running during tough times, Rotten Tomatoes is only hurting its legacy and much of its audience, those who cared about what critics had to say and would offer their opinion from time to time.
In an effort to focus on the user ratings, it will only create more toxicity. Even on the social media posts for “Verified Hot” films, I see people complaining about these numbers as well, as if to say that all of the ranting about critics’ scores was never an issue about users versus critics: it was one solely about individual online users disagreeing with aggregates. Rotten Tomatoes has completely misread these online spaces and has tried to resolve issues that never existed; you cannot please everyone, and yet those who don’t actually care about the site or how it operates were being listened to the most. Make it make sense, please, dear reader.
Does Rotten Tomatoes not understand that the majority of the audience scores come from people who may never even use the site, have some allegiance to some studio, franchise, or film (because life is already too short, so why not waste more of it caring so much about a property or properties), and are just trying to be the best fanatic of all by worshiping via high user ratings? I could be too harsh on Rotten Tomatoes for this new feature, but I’m also speaking from a place of disappointment knowing what Rotten Tomatoes once was. There are many websites that incorporate user ratings, and in far better ways. Rotten Tomatoes was one of the only sites to favour critics, and I can’t even tell if that’s true anymore (if anything, the “Certified Fresh” tomatoes that once stood for something are likely just being tossed back in the face of critics, because their opinions barely matter as far as naysayers are concerned, and Rotten Tomatoes is only proving them right, either accidentally or through flip-flopping on their own power supply). At the end of the day, it feels like Rotten Tomatoes is trying to be a crowd-pleaser; it may ultimately wind up pleasing no one if it keeps this track record up.
Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Ryerson University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.