Rotten Tomatoes scores “manipulated” by firm paying critics for reviews

❘ Published: 2023-09-07T10:31:06

Daisy Ridley appears in the 2018 film Ophelia, alongside the Rotten Tomatoes Fresh and Rotten logos

IFC Films/Rotten Tomatoes

While Rotten Tomatoes is a go-to source for determining whether a movie or series is worth checking out, the ratings and reviews site has come into question once more in light of a new report accusing a firm of “manipulating” scores by paying critics for reviews.

Since it was founded 25 years ago, Rotten Tomatoes has become the leading aggregation site for professional critics reviews and audience scores. Its iconic Tomatometer score, which rates films and TV shows as Fresh or Rotten based on the percentage of positive reviews, has become a significant factor in shaping the perception of a project’s quality; those with a Certified Fresh badge have a better chance of attracting audiences and boosting sales.

But there are some major flaws in this design. Though Rotten Tomatoes is a useful tool, it oversimplifies complex opinions into binary categories, which is perhaps one of the reasons why we so often see the critics and audience divide, as was the case with The Super Mario Bros Movie. Arguably the most damning factor is the ability to manipulate scores by review bombing or artificially inflating a film or show’s rating. And then there’s the argument of commercial influence, as a studios’ marketing efforts may impact the outcome of the score.

All of these issues are addressed in a new investigative report, which places the site under scrutiny once more and suggests we might want to think twice before trusting those all-important Rotten Tomatoes ratings.

Rotten Tomatoes scores “manipulated” by firm paying critics

According to an extensive new report by Vulture, a PR firm called Bunker 15 “manipulated” the Rotten Tomatoes score of a project it took on by paying critics for positive reviews and burying negative ones. The project in question is the 2018 movie Ophelia, a female-fronted adaptation of Hamlet starring Daisy Ridley.

Following an early press screening, the film received just 46% from 13 reviews, seven of which were negative. The report states that Bunker 15 “got to work,” and started taking on “obscure, often self-published critics” who are still part of Rotten Tomatoes’ tracked reviewers.

This became easier to do in 2018 when the site loosened restrictions on who could join this pool, allowing more freelance, self-published critics as well as YouTubers and podcasters to contribute. Vulture states that Bunker 15 used this to its advantage, with several critics telling the outlet that the PR firm pays them $50 or more per positive review – despite Rotten Tomatoes’ ban on “reviewing based on a financial incentive.”

An email about Ophelia, sent from a Bunker 15 employee to a potential reviewer in October 2018, and seen by the publication, reads: “It’s a Sundance film and the feeling is that it’s been treated a bit harshly by some critics (I’m sure sky-high expectations were the culprit) so the teams involved feel like it would benefit from more input from different critics.”

When asked what would happen if they didn’t like the movie, the employee replied to say that “super nice” critics would agree not to publish negative feedback on their usual sites, but instead put them on “a smaller blog that Rotten Tomatoes never sees.”

The trick appeared to work; between October 2018 and January 2019, eight reviews were added to Ophelia’s Rotten Tomatoes score, seven of which were positive and most of which came from critics who had reacted to at least one other Bunker 15 movie. This led the score to jump up to 62%, giving it a Fresh rating, and one month later, IFC Films bought distribution rights for its US release.

Covert Media, the production company behind the film, didn’t reply to Vulture’s request for comment, but Bunker 15 founder Daniel Harlow denied the claims. “Wow, you are really reaching there,” he said. “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.”

Nonetheless, when Vulture contacted Rotten Tomatoes about Bunker 15, it delisted a number of the firm’s movies from its site and said in a statement: “We take the integrity of our scores seriously and do not tolerate any attempts to manipulate them. We have a dedicated team who monitors our platforms regularly and thoroughly investigates and resolves any suspicious activity.”

The “math stinks” on Rotten Tomatoes

Bunker 15 scandal aside, the report goes into great detail about the issues with Rotten Tomatoes’ system, which has been slammed by various filmmakers over the years – including Martin Scorsese – who believe it has destroyed the art of individual experts’ thoughts and opinions.

“Its math stinks,” says Vulture, outlining how RT scores are calculated by “classifying each review as either positive or negative and then dividing the number of positives by the total.” One publicist told the outlet: “In the old days, if an independent film got all three-star reviews, that was like the kiss of death. But with Rotten Tomatoes, if you get all three-star reviews, it’s fantastic.”

We all know about review-bombing – the act of tanking a project’s early impressions publicly with one-star reviews. It’s an issue that continues to grow as new shows and movies are released. Many recent Marvel productions such as Ms. Marvel and She-Hulk have faced major review bombing from viewers, as well as flicks like The Little Mermaid.

But studios can also use subtle yet effective methods to work the system. For instance, ahead of the release of a title, a publicist might invite critics more likely to give favorable reviews to an early screening, so that it will have the best possible Rotten Tomatoes score and therefore sell more tickets before the theatrical release.

Vulture highlighted Ant-Man 3 as an example, which debuted to 79%, aka Certified Fresh, on RT. The MCU movie went on to enjoy the best opening weekend in the Ant-Man series, earning $106 million at the box office. When more critics were able to see the film, it dropped down to the 40s – and in its second weekend, its sales dropped by 69%, the steepest in Marvel history.

It’s important to note that while the Rotten Tomatoes score might not impact smaller indie projects in the same way it does a franchise flick or series, it’s still a huge deciding factor for audiences across the globe. Vulture’s advice? Maybe actually “read the reviews.” While Rotten Tomatoes can provide valuable insights, it should be just one of many factors considered when assessing whether a title is Fresh or Rotten.

You can check out some of our other TV & movies coverage below: