The huge, color-coded number is located at the top of the page. A percentage next to a cartoon tomato, green for fresh and red for rotten, has somehow grown to be one of the more significant single figures in the entertainment industry. It was featured in trailers by studios. It can be seen on posters. Chains of theaters make reference to it in their marketing materials. Distributors regard a movie with a 95% fresh rating differently than one with a 60% rating, even if the underlying reviews reveal a more nuanced picture than either figure indicates. For a very long time, that number has been very significant. It is now carrying less of it.
The Bunker 15 narrative, as published by Vulture, is the most detailed account to date of what many industry insiders knew was taking place in various ways. According to the claims, a public relations business recruits small, self-published critics—those who do not write for large publications but are nevertheless monitored by Rotten Tomatoes—and pays them $50 or more for each favorable review of particular movies.
According to critics who spoke with Vulture, the arrangement went one step further: reviewers who had bad opinions about a movie were allegedly urged to write their opinions solely on lesser blogs that Rotten Tomatoes would not track. If the mechanism functioned as claimed, the outcome would be a Tomatometer that only reflected authorized positive answers. Financially motivated reviews are prohibited on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s another matter entirely whether that ban can be successfully upheld by thousands of critics who write in various parts of the internet.
However, the systemic issue is more pervasive than any one PR business. The Tomatometer’s binary rating system has always been a crude tool. A review that describes a movie as “mostly entertaining despite a weak third act” qualifies as fresh. A review that describes it as “a near-masterpiece with minor flaws” is also considered fresh. When combined, they are indistinguishable. Tone, tempo, subject matter, and whether or not the elements the critic found appealing also happen to be things you care about are all aspects that a smart viewer truly needs to determine whether a given movie is appropriate for them. The percentage completely eliminates that context, leaving you with a number that indicates the collective conclusions of expert critics but provides little insight into their reasoning.
An additional layer of noise from the opposite direction is added by review bombing. Fan forums and social media platforms are frequently used to organize campaigns that drive audience ratings to extremes unrelated to the film’s quality. A superhero film that features an actor that some people on the internet find objectionable. A follow-up that modifies something that fans hold dear. A movie that seems to have a political theme. The audience score fluctuates depending on variables that, at best, are close to the real viewing experience. Although Rotten Tomatoes has implemented some verification procedures to restrict voting by individuals who have not bought tickets, the issue remains unresolved.
Observing all of this, it seems as though viewers have subtly evolved a more sophisticated solution to the issue than the platforms have. Letterboxd has become a popular reference tool since it allows you to read individual evaluations and follow users whose tastes you can relate to. Reddit discussions on certain movies are typically lengthy and detailed enough to provide true critical nuance. Instead of a numerical average, YouTube film essayists with recognized voices have audiences who trust their unique sensibility. None of these are ideal substitutes. However, they provide an alternative to the Tomatometer in that it allows you to compare other people’s opinions to your own before deciding whether to spend two hours and pay for a ticket.
