Rotten Tomatoes Shouldn’t Value Audience Opinions Over Critics’ Reviews

“They don’t build statues of critics.” This phrase, emblazoned on a pink crop top worn by Katy Perry in a recent Instagram story, was originally made famous by Charli XCX before a 2022 album launch. It’s easy to understand why it would resonate with Perry, whose recent musical endeavors have faced significant criticism. The implication here is simple: criticism is often seen as a refuge for those unable to create resonant and popular art themselves.

It would be easy to dismantle this argument. For starters, it’s factually incorrect—there’s a statue of the famous film critic Roger Ebert in Champaign, Illinois. Perry’s recent single, “Woman’s World,” also fell flat both with listeners and critics alike. It’s a sentiment that inevitably smacks of bitterness. Charli XCX probably wouldn’t champion this slogan today, especially after her recent album “Brat” received critical acclaim. It’s natural for artists like Perry to lash out. Creating art and putting it out into the world requires a thick skin. However, it’s indicative of a growing trend to undermine professional critics, which is concerning.

Rotten Tomatoes, the popular review aggregation website, recently announced changes to its rating system. Initially, the website compiled professional critics’ reviews, tallying up the positive and negative ones to give a film either a “Rotten” or “Fresh” score and a percentage figure. This system provided a quick and easy way for casual moviegoers to decide whether a film was worth their time. However, disparities began to emerge between critics’ opinions and public sentiment. Certain films that critics disliked were stubbornly popular among general audiences, like Tom Hardy’s “Venom” or “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Now, Rotten Tomatoes has introduced a new rating metric where everyday viewers can vote, categorizing films as “Stale,” “Hot,” or “Verified Hot” based on positive reviews.

This change reflects a growing belief in our culture that critics are “out of touch” or even biased against certain studios. Among the films retroactively receiving the “Verified Hot” rating are critical favorites like “Dune: Part Two” and “Oppenheimer,” but also crowd-pleasers like Ryan Reynolds’ “Free Guy” and even films that critics panned, like 2019’s “Aladdin.” This raises the question: What does this new rating mean if critically panned films are seen as top-tier? Why is such exaggerated praise necessary? These films were already box office hits, designed to be popular and profitable. The new system seems to stem from an insecurity among moviegoers, feeling the need for moral vindication for their preferences.

One major misconception about film criticism is that critics judge audiences for enjoying populist entertainment. While some degree of snobbery exists in criticism, expertise is essential for understanding the broader significance and context of art. Without a deep understanding of what has come before, it’s impossible to grasp and articulate what one is watching. Imagine someone whose only moviegoing experience was “The Boss Baby,” and then they watch another film thinking, “Getting a lot of Boss Baby vibes from this…” This scenario captures the essence of criticism devoid of expertise.

It’s not that ordinary people can’t have valuable opinions. However, Rotten Tomatoes audiences are an amorphous, unaccountable group. Reviewers could range from 12-year-olds to film history professors, with no filter. By shifting influence away from professional critics toward everyday viewers, the real winners are the big movie studios. These studios can enhance their marketing campaigns with flattery, confirming that viewers are not only entitled to enjoy their products but are also discerning for doing so.

The “everyone can have their say” approach to film criticism is susceptible to abuse. Online fanbases can manipulate a film’s score for political purposes. “Review bombing” is a tactic used when groups flood a release with negative reviews to drive down its aggregate score, often due to objections to minority representation. This is not unique to film criticism—Goodreads faces similar issues in literature.

Criticism should not be gatekept; many examples of excellent cultural criticism come from non-traditional sources like YouTubers and amateur writers. However, there must be an understanding of why critics are important and why the practice should be preserved. Otherwise, it’s just playing into the hands of the moneymen, and if everyone becomes a critic, the essence of criticism gets lost in the noise.