The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that it essentially rewards mediocrity

It seems that Rotten Tomatoes is becoming more and more important when people choose what to see and like someone mentioned in another thread about it, there are now people who won't go to see movie if it's less than 90%. And while studios and some filmmakers have raised their concerns about it, it's mostly met with ridicule and stuff like: "Maybe just make better movies", but I think that the whole system of Rotten Tomatoes is rotten and it basically rewards mediocrity.

What I mean is that as long as every critic thinks that your movie "pretty good entertainment, worthy watch" you get 100%, while if you make a film where half of the critics think: "Greatest film in the history of cinema", and some minority of critics think:"I didn't like it", it gets much slower score. But I am pretty sure that the second film has much bigger change of being great than the first example.

I mean for example look at Wonder Woman or new Spider-Man and compare their RT score to for example BBC's list of greatest films of 21st century and they pretty much all have slower scores than those painted by the numbers superhero films that are pretty much made by committee.

So essentially Rotten Tomatoes rewards films that play everything safe and don't take any risks. Is anyone else bothered by this? I think that often great cinema is controversial (just think how something like Kubrick's Clockwork Orange or many Peckinpah films might have played in world with RT) and it's sad if RT's system will reward films that only play it safe.

Submitted August 18, 2017 at 02:36PM by soldierofcinema http://ift.tt/2v75JHO