While film and television reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes has come under scrutiny by filmmakers like Martin Scorsese before, a new report doubles down on why consumers may want to think twice before taking a recommendation from the website.
In an in-depth report published earlier today, Vulture uncovered a scheme from a PR firm called Bunker 15 to goose reviews for 2018 Daisy Ridley drama Ophelia. After initial reviews came in, resulting in a disappointing 46% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (a movie is deemed “rotten” if falling short of a 60% rating), Vulture reports that Bunker 15 started paying lower-level critics on the website to post positive reviews for $50 a pop, essentially trying to manipulate the system. The firm also lobbied one critic to change their negative review to positive.
As it turns out, the scheme worked and the money followed: Ophelia jumped up to a 62% rating, scoring that coveted “fresh” label, and the next month, IFC Films announced it acquired the film for distribution.
Bunker 15, for its part, denied the allegations, with founder Daniel Harlow telling Vulture, “We have thousands of writers in our distribution list. A small handful have set up a specific system where filmmakers can sponsor or pay to have them review a film.”
Understandably, many reacted to the report with a mixture of disbelief and sadness over how this could happen.
A PR firm has been manipulating the Rotten Tomato scores of movies for at least five years by paying some “critics” directly. Truly depressing stuff here by @LaneBrown https://t.co/s0gwMJCfVy
— Mike Ryan (@mikeryan) September 6, 2023
Why am I wasting time trying (and often failing) to say something cogent or interesting about movies I see when I should just be writing “yes” or “no” and hitting publish https://t.co/TwpW5Tettx
— Richard Lawson (@rilaws) September 6, 2023
what’s more grim: that film marketers are paying off critics to boost rotten tomatoes scores or that they have to pay so little https://t.co/JZb9pyxpMM pic.twitter.com/mGc7WzRn93
— Matthew Zeitlin (@MattZeitlin) September 6, 2023
Rotten Tomatoes has always been an embarrassment to the profession; the certified critic designation, the equivalent of a participation trophy; the grading format, a total sham! It weaponizes the illusion of “diverse voices” against basic standards of good criticism. Burn it!
— Beatrice Loayza (@bealoayza) September 6, 2023
And although Rotten Tomatoes told Vulture that it takes “the integrity of our scores seriously and do[es] not tolerate any attempts to manipulate them,” it’s an alarming example of how easily critics aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes can be manipulated – especially when there’s financial incentive to do so.
The Economy of Rotten Tomatoes
As the Vulture report notes, Rotten Tomatoes has become incredibly influential, both within the business of Hollywood and from the consumers’ perspective. When it comes to the former, the example of Ophelia is a fitting one; when films debut at festivals like Sundance, as Ophelia did, companies monitor their reception to evaluate whether or not they should acquire those movies for distribution. Whether they’re prioritizing commercial appeal or potential awards glory, how critics and other viewers respond out of those initial screenings isn’t without importance.
And as for consumers, that’s a little more obvious. For some, a Rotten Tomatoes score could make or break a decision to head out to the movie theaters or pay for a rental. While a “fresh” or “rotten” score isn’t everything, many look to the percentage to get a quick idea of how they should spend their money.
“Rotten Tomatoes is something the studios can game. So they do.
To be clear, Rotten Tomatoes and other critic aggregators like Metacritic aren’t to blame for the reviews themselves, excluding the Bunker 15 situation. But a “fresh” or “rotten” label can be an important one for a film, meaning it’s easy to see why this sort of thing could happen. What this new report sheds light on is how unfortunately easily the system can be manipulated.
Filmmaker Paul Schrader puts it a little more bluntly later in the Vulture report: “The studios didn’t invent Rotten Tomatoes, and most of them don’t like it. But the system is broken. Audiences are dumber. Normal people don’t go through reviews like they used to. Rotten Tomatoes is something the studios can game. So they do.”
Editor’s note: IGN owned Rotten Tomatoes from 2004-2010. It no longer has any business affiliation with the website.
Alex Stedman is a Senior News Editor with IGN, overseeing entertainment reporting. When she’s not writing or editing, you can find her reading fantasy novels or playing Dungeons & Dragons.
About Author
