Why Rotten Tomatoes is rotten
When you visit a site like Rotten Tomatoes to get information about a film, you need to ask yourself one very important question, “Is Rotten Tomatoes trustworthy?”
Rotten Tomatoes as a movie review service has come under fire many times for revitew bombing and manipulation. That is, Rotten Tomatoes seem to allow shills to join the service to review bomb a movie to either raise or lower its various scores by manipulating the Rotten Tomatoes review system. In the past, these claims couldn’t be verified. Today, they can.
As of a change in May 2019, Rotten Tomatoes has made it exceedingly easy for both movie studios and Rotten Tomatoes itself to game and manipulate the “Audience Score” ratings. Let’s explore.
Rotten Tomatoes as a Service
Originally, Rotten Tomatoes began its life as an independent movie review service such that both critics and audience members can have a voice in what they think of a film. So long as Rotten Tomatoes remained an independent and separate service from movie studio influence and corruption, it could make that claim. Its reviews were fair and for the most part accurate.
Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. In February of 2016, Fandango purchased Rotten Tomatoes. Let’s understand the ramifications of this purchase. Because Fandango is wholly owned by Comcast and in which Warner Brothers also holds an ownership stake in Fandango, this firmly plants Rotten Tomatoes well out of the possibility of remaining neutral in film reviews. Keep in mind that Comcast also owns NBC as well as Universal Studios.
Fandango doesn’t own a stake in Disney as far as I can tell, but that won’t matter based on what I describe next about the Rotten Tomatoes review system.
Review Bombing
As stated in the opening, Rotten Tomatoes has come under fire for several notable recent movies as having scores which have been manipulated. Rotten Tomatoes has then later debunked those claims by stating that their system was not manipulated, but then really offering no proof of that fact. We simply have to take them at their word. One of these allegedly review bombed films was Star Wars: The Last Jedi… where the scores inexplicably dropped dramatically in about a 1 month period of time. Rotten Tomatoes apparently validated the drop as “legitimate”.
Unfortunately, Rotten Tomatoes has become a bit more untrustworthy as of late. Let’s understand why.
As of May of 2019, Rotten Tomatoes introduced a new feature known as “verified reviews”. For a review’s score to be counted towards the “Audience Score”, the reviewer must have purchased a ticket from a verifiable source. Unfortunately, the only source from which Rotten Tomatoes can verify ticket purchases is from its parent company, Fandango. All other ticket purchases don’t count… thus, if you choose to review a film after purchasing your ticket from the theater’s box office, from MovieTickets.com or via any other means, your ticket won’t count as “verified” should you review or rate the movie. Only Fandango ticket purchases count towards “verified” reviews, thus altering the audience score. This change is BAD. Very, very bad.
Here’s what Rotten Tomatoes has to say from the linked article just above:
Rotten Tomatoes now features an Audience Score made up of ratings from users we’ve confirmed bought tickets to the movie – we’re calling them “Verified Ratings.” We’re also tagging written reviews from users we can confirm purchased tickets to a movie as “Verified” reviews.
While this might sound like a great idea in theory, it’s ripe for manipulation problems. Fandango also states that “IF” they can determine “other” reviews as confirmed ticket purchases, they will mark them as “verified”. Yeah, but that’s a manual process and is impossibly difficult to determine. We can pretty much forget that this option even exists. Let’s list the problems coming out of this change:
- Fandango only sells a small percentage of overall ticket sales for a film. If the “Audience Score” is calculated primarily and solely from Fandango ticket sales alone, then this metric is a horribly inaccurate metric to rely on.
- Fandango CAN handpick “other” non-Fandango ticket purchased reviews to be included. Not likely to happen often, but this also means they can pick their favorites (and favorable) reviews to include. This opens Rotten Tomatoes up to Payola or “pay for inclusion”.
- By specifying exactly how this process works, this change opens the Rotten Tomatoes system to being gamed and manipulated, even by Rotten Tomatoes staff themselves. Movie studios can also ask their employees, families and friends to exclusively purchase their tickets from Fandango and request these same people to write “glowing, positive reviews” or submit “high ratings” or face job consequences. Studios might even be willing to pay for these positive reviews.
- Studios can even hire outside people (sometime known as shills) to go see a movie by buying tickets from Fandango and then rate their films highly… because they were paid to do so. As I said, manipulation.
Trust in Reviews
It’s clear that while Rotten Tomatoes is trying to fix its ills, it is incredibly naive at it. It gets worse. Not only is Rotten Tomatoes incredibly naive, this company is also not at all tech savvy. Its system is so ripe for being gamed, the “Audience Score” is a nearly pointless metric. For example, 38,000 verified reviews based on millions of people who watched it? Yeah, if that “Audience Score” number isn’t now skewed, I don’t know what is.
Case in point. The “Audience Score” for The Rise of Skywalker is 86%. The difficulty with this number is the vast majority of the reviews I’ve seen from people on chat forums don’t rate the film anywhere close to 86%. What that means is that the new way that Rotten Tomatoes is calculating scores is effectively a form of manipulation itself BY Rotten Tomatoes.
To have the most fair and accurate metric, ALL reviews must be counted and included in all ratings. You can’t just toss out the vast majority of reviews simply because you can’t verify them has holding a ticket. Even still, holding a ticket doesn’t mean someone has actually watched the film. Buying a ticket and actually attending a showing of the film are two entirely separate things.
While you may have verified a ticket purchase, did you verify that the person actually watched the film? Are you withholding brand new Rotten Tomatoes account reviewers out of the audience score? How trustworthy can someone be if this is their first and only review on Rotten Tomatoes? What about people who downloaded the app just to buy a ticket for that film? Simply buying a ticket from Fandango doesn’t make the rating or reviewer trustworthy.
Rethinking Rotten Tomatoes
Someone at Rotten Tomatoes needs to drastically reconsider this change and they need to do it fast. If Rotten Tomatoes wasn’t guilty of manipulation of review scores before this late spring change in 2019, they are now. Rotten Tomatoes is definitely guilty of manipulating the “Audience Score” by the sheer lack of reviews covered under this “verified review” change. Nothing can be considered valid when the sampling size is so small as to be useless. Verifying a ticket holder also doesn’t validate a review author’s sincerity, intent or, indeed, legitimacy. It also severely limits who can be counted under their ratings, thus reducing the trustworthiness of “Audience Score”.
In fact, only by looking at past reviews can someone determine if a review author has trustworthy opinions.
Worse, Fandango holds a very small portion of all ticket sales made for theaters (see below). By showing all (or primarily) scores tabulated by people who bought tickets from Fandango, this definitely eliminates well over half of the written reviews on Rotten Tomatoes as valid. Worse, because of the way the metric is calculated, nefarious entities can game the system to their own benefit and manipulate the score quickly.
This has a chilling effect on Rotten Tomatoes. The staff at Rotten Tomatoes needs roll back this change pronto. For Rotten Tomatoes to return it being a trustworthy neutral entity in the art of movie reviews, it needs a far better way to determine trustworthiness of its reviews and of its reviewers. Trust comes from well written, consistent reviews. Ratings come from trusted sources. Trust is earned. The sole act of buying a ticket from Fandango doesn’t earn trust. It earns bankroll.
Why then are ticket buyers from Fandango any more trustworthy than people purchasing tickets elsewhere? They aren’t… and here’s where Rotten Tomatoes has failed. Rotten Tomatoes incorrectly assumes that by “verifying” a sale of a ticket via Fandango alone, that that somehow makes a review or rating more trustworthy. It doesn’t.
It gets worse because while Fandango represents at least 70% of online sales, it STILL only represents a tiny fraction of overall ticket sales, at just 5-6% (as of 2012).
“Online ticketing still just represents five to six percent of the box office, so there’s tremendous potential for growth right here.” –TheWrap in 2012
Granted, this TheWrap article is from 2012. Even if Fandango had managed to grab 50% of the overall ticket sales in the subsequent 7 years since that article, that would leave out 50% of the remaining ticket holder’s voices, which will not be tallied into Rotten Tomatoes current “Audience Score” metric. I seriously doubt that Fandango has managed to achieve anywhere close to 50% of total movie ticket sales. If it held 5-6% overall sales in 2012, in 7 years Fandango might account for growth between 10-15% at most by 2019. That’s still 85% of all reviews excluded from Rotten Tomatoes’s “Audience Score” metric. In fact, it behooves Fandango to keep this overall ticket sales number as low as possible so as to influence its “Audience Score” number with more ease and precision.
To put this in a little more perspective, a movie theater might have 200 seats. 10% of that is 20. That means that for every 200 people who might fill a theater, just less than 20 people have bought their ticket from Fandango and are eligible for their review to count towards “Audience Score”. Considering that only a small percentage of that 20 will actually take the time to write a review, that could mean out of every 200 people who’ve seen the film legitimately, between 1 and 5 people might be counted towards the Audience Score. Calculating that up, for very 1 million people who see a blockbuster film, somewhere between 5,000 and 25,000’s reviews may contribute to the Rotten Tomatoes “Audience Score”… even if there are hundreds of thousands of reviews on the site.
The fewer the reviews contributing to that score, the easier it is to manipulate that score by adding just a handful of reviews to the mix… and that’s where Rotten Tomatoes “handpicked reviews” come into play (and with it, the potential for Payola). Rotten Tomatoes can then handpick positive reviews for inclusion. The problem is that while Rotten Tomatoes understands all of this this, so do the studios. Which means that studios can, like I said above, “invite” employees to buy tickets via Fandango before writing a review on Rotten Tomatoes. They can even contact Rotten Tomatoes and pay for “special treatment”. This situation can allow movie studios to unduly influence the “Audience Score” for a current release… this is compounded because there are so few reviews that count to create the “Audience Score”.
Where Rotten Tomatoes likely counted every review towards this score before this change, after they implemented the new “verified score” methodology, this change greatly drops the number of reviews which contribute to tallying this score. This lower number of reviews means that it is now much easier to manipulate its Audience Score number either by gaming the system or by Rotten Tomatoes handpicking reviews to include.
Fading Trust
While Rotten Tomatoes was once a trustworthy site for movie reviews, it has greatly reduced its trust levels by instituting such backwards and easily manipulable systems.
Whenever you visit a site like Rotten Tomatoes, you must always question everything you see. When you see something like an “Audience Score”, you must question how that number is calculated and what is included in that number. Rotten Tomatoes isn’t forthcoming.
In the case of Rotten Tomatoes, they have drastically reduced the number of included reviews in that metric because of their “verified purchase” mechanism. Unfortunately, the introduction of that mechanism at once destroys Rotten Tomatoes trust and trashes the concept of their site.
It Gets Worse
What’s even more of a problem is the following two images:
From the above two images, it is claimed Rotten Tomatoes has 37,956 “Verified Ratings”, yet they only have 3,342 “Verified Audience” reviews. That’s a huge discrepancy. Where are those other 34,614 “Verified” reviews? You need to calculate the Audience Score not solely on a phone device using a simplistic “rate this movie” alone. It must be calculated in combination with an author writing a review. Of course, there are 5,240 reviews that didn’t at all contribute to any score at all on Rotten Tomatoes. Those audience reviews are just “there”, taking up space.
Single number ratings are pointless without at least some text validation information. Worse, we know that these “Verified Ratings” likely have nothing to do with “Verified Audience” as shown in the images above. Even if those 3,342 audience reviews are actually calculated into the “Verified Ratings” (they probably aren’t), that’s still such a limited number when considered with the rest of the “Verified Ratings” so as to be skewed by people who may not have even attended the film.
You can only determine if someone has actually attended a film by asking them to WRITE even the smallest of a review. Simply pressing “five star” on the app without even caring is pointless. It’s possible the reviews weren’t even tabulated correctly via the App. The App itself may even submit star data after a period of time without the owner’s knowledge or consent. The App can even word its rating question in such a way as to manipulate the response in a positive direction. Can we say, “Skewed”?
None of this leads to trust. Without knowing exactly how that data was collected, the method(s) used and how it was presented on the site and on the app, how can you trust any of it? It’s easy to see professional critic reviews because Rotten Tomatoes must cite back to the source of the review. However, with audience metrics, it’s all nebulous and easily falsified… particularly when Rotten Tomatoes is intentionally obtuse and opaque for exactly how it collects this data and how it is presents it.
Even still, with over one million people attending and viewing The Rise of Skywalker, yet Rotten Tomatoes has only counted just under verified 38,000 people, something doesn’t add up. Yeah, Rotten Tomatoes is so very trustworthy (yeah right), particularly after this “verified” change. Maybe it’s time for those Rotten Tomatoes to finally be tossed into the garbage?
↩︎
Spray tans and Self-Tanners
As a follow up to Sunscreens vs Natural Tanning, I thought I would discuss spray tans and self-tanners. Because suntanning is now almost considered taboo (thanks to the sunscreen and medical industries), many people opt to use a Mystic, Magic or Mist-On spray tanning booth to get that golden glow. A lot of people, for whatever reason, feel these are safer alternatives to sunlight produced color (melanin). Here’s some information that you may not know about these spray tan and self-tanners.
Spray Tan Booths
How safe are spray tans? Well, let’s start with what’s in these spray tanning formulations. Obviously, there’s water in the solution. The active ingredient (that tans you) is Dihydroxyacetone (known as DHA) and possibly even Erythrulose. Both of these ingredients provide color, but in different ways. Both Erythrulose and DHA are the ingredients in most off-the-shelf self-tanning products that you can find in the drug store. I say ‘most’ because there are other alternatives that can provide skin color without self-tanners (although, these are simply dyes, colorants, coatings or powders). Inactive ingredients include temporary bronzer colors (to give immediate color gratification) and possibly other chemicals to aid in delivery. There are some spray tan booths that provide clear solutions instead of bronzed solutions (which can mark up clothing). The benefit to the spray tan is that they tend to spray on very evenly and help prevent blotchy, streaky and uneven application. The drawback to spray tanning is that it aerosolizes the DHA and other ingredients so that you inhale it. Most spray tanning booths offer no ventilation systems during the spray tanning process. In fact, they don’t want the ventilation because the floating particles may help you tan better. But, because the solution is aerosolized, you are now inhaling these ingredients. Yes, you wanted your skin surfaced tan, but did you realized that you are now tanning your lungs and nasal passages? This is not a good thing.
DHA, Erythrulose and the dyes and colorants are not intended to be inhaled in mist particles. So, while the spray booths are great for even application, they don’t really offer the necessary ventilation to prevent inhalation of these potentially problematic chemicals. Salons are supposed to provide nose plugs that may help filter out these chemicals. Too many times, however, salons are out of the plugs and you end up inhaling anyway. In fact, because of the time it takes to spray tan, you really can’t easily hold your breath. So, you will eventually breathe in the chemicals.
Note that salons that have spray tan booths may opt to purchase third party DHA solutions. These are solutions not made by the original manufacturer. As a result, some people have experienced orange or yellow tones from spray tans in salons. If you spray tan and your color is highly orange, it’s possible that your salon has opted to buy cheaper refills with cheaper ingredients.
Self-tanners: How they work
The two self-tanners listed above include Erythrulose and Dihydroxyacetone (DHA). Erythrulose takes up to 5 days to fully appear. Erythrulose provides a yellowish color to the skin. The Erythrulose color is used to offset the oranges that DHA provides. DHA begins developing in 4-6 hours reaching maximum color by 12-15 hours. DHA’s color actually looks reasonably natural between 4-6 hours after application. Once DHA begins to darken, however, it begins to show the familiar orange and unnatural look by the 12 hour mark.
Airbrush Tan
For the same reason as a booth is a problem, so is an airbrush. The airbrush provides finer control and finer particles, but that doesn’t equate to safer inhalation risks unless they provide an active vent hood which can reduce inhalation risk. Airbrush tans, though, do provide better and more even coverage than a spray tan booth.
Safest Way to Apply Self-tanners
The lotion versions are, in fact, the safest way to apply a self tanner. While an aerosol makes it even and fast, it also makes it more dangerous for inhalation problems. So, opting for a lotion prevents the inhalation issues. The difficulty with lotions is uneven application and the possibility of an orange color.
Why do self-tanners turn orange?
Part of the reason for this is color theory. If you have a bluish undertone to your skin or are very pale, that mixes with the developing color to produce an orange-ish tone. If you have a tanned tone, the self-tanner enhances the tan and produces a much more natural color and deepens the tan. Another reason that DHA turns orange is because of the base ingredients with which it’s mixed. The lotion base that most brands use are cheap. As a result, the lotion ingredients change the color of the developing DHA to become more orange. To avoid this, you want to find a high quality lotion base or alternatively find a self-tanner mixed in a gel base. Some lotions that work well and keep their proper color are Dave’s Famous Moisture Tan and L’Oreal’s Sublime Bronze Gelee. Dave’s lotion is made in a white base and has a very light nutty scent. L’Oreal’s product has the typical nasty self-tanner scent, but it spreads on incredibly even (not streaky) and gives very good color.
What skin tones can use self-tanners?
While I know that dermatologists recommend self-tanners, you don’t want people to know you fake bake simply by looking. So, you need to assess your present skin tone to determine if a self-tanner is right for you. Certain skin tones do not do well with self-tanners. For example, the white-bluish skin tones do not fake bake well. The self-tan will likely make you orange or yellow very fast. The best you can hope for is getting a very light self-tanner, applying it and then washing it off right as the color develops. Washing immediately as the color develops lets you stop the color development at a point before it gets too dark. You will also need to find a self-tanner that gets you to the proper color. Some ‘light’ self-tanners still get way too dark, so you should be cautious. If at the 12 hour mark you are getting too dark, take a shower and lightly soap and rinse to stop further development.
Why do self-tanners smell?
The developing process between the DHA and the skin’s protein gives off an aroma as a result of the developing process. The smell has been described as ‘wet dog’, ‘musty’, or ‘earthy’ . The smell comes to its height at about the 12 hour mark after application. It begins to subside after the 24 hour mark (when the color begins to wear off). Because of the smell, this is a very telltale way of knowing when someone has used a self-tanner. Frankly, I find the smell offensive and refuse to use self-tanners for this reason alone.
Note that Dave’s self-tanner is made with limited fragrance, so it pretty much smells like the lotion mixed with DHA (it has kind of a nutty scent). The good thing about this is that there is no fragrance to mix with the developing odor to make an even nastier smell. Too many self-tanners on the market include entirely horrible fragrances to mask the DHA smell. So, when the color (and odor) develops and mixes with the fragrance, it can sometimes be a nauseating combination. You want to shower just to get the smell off. With Dave’s lotion, the light nutty fragrance dissipates rapidly so there is no fragrance left when the DHA color and odor develops… and that’s a blessing in disguise.
Self-tanners make my skin rough and dry
Yes, they do. The best way to resolve this issue is to use a moisturizer frequently. If you must use DHA to color your skin, your skin texture will change as a result. You may find that you don’t like the texture that a self-tanner leaves on your skin. If that’s the case, you may have to abandon use of DHA.
Flaking, peeling and splotchy uneven wear
Self-tanners don’t wear off evenly. It can wear off to make your skin look splotchy or odd colored. This is a lot more apparent when you try to go too dark and your skin is very light. The good thing, though, is a fake bake usually wears off completely by 7-10 days. That means, if there was a problem during application, it’s gone pretty fast. The downside, of course, means that you have to reapply the color every 7-10 days to keep your skin tone. The problem with reapplication is that you need to completely scrub the color off before adding more. Otherwise, the new color won’t adhere to your skin well enough. To make your self-tan last as long as possible, here are some tips.
- Scrub your skin with a exfoliating buff pad thoroughly prior to application (to remove as much dead dry skin as possible).
- Let your skin dry completely before application
- Apply a small amount of moisturizing (non-tanning) lotion to the backs of your hands, knuckles, knees, elbows and ankles to prevent full strength DHA absorption
- Once the color appears, apply lotion daily to keep the tan as long as possible
- Remove the tan fully with a buff-pad once the tan begins to noticeably flake
Always fully remove any previous self-tan before applying a new tan. If you don’t do this, your tan will become uneven and may go on too dark. So, remove the old tan first.
Removing the old self-tan
To remove a self-tan, the best way is to wait until most of it has worn off. Then, use a body exfoliating buff pad to rub the rest off. The benefit if using a buff pad is that it will get all of the old color off and, at the same time, prep your skin for a new tan. You should always prepare your skin by exfoliation prior to using a self-tanner. Otherwise, it may wear unevenly and/or turn way too dark in places.
Tips for working with self-tanners
Self-tanners will tan any skin surface or hair. So, be careful with it around the plams of your hands and your nails. Always wear gloves when applying and use a sponge applicator if possible. For ease of application, buy a lotion with a dark guide. The guide will aid getting it on evenly. Gels with oil are reasonably easy to get applied evenly because you can see where the oil is. The problem with the gel type with oil is that the oil dries slowly. Lotions dry much faster. Guides can stain clothing, so be careful. Do not swim, shower or sweat within 4-7 hours of application. This can wash off parts of the DHA and cause splotchy or uneven color. Wait until the color develops before doing swimming or other activities that make you sweat.
If you choose to go the route of a drug store lotion, look for reviews on the Internet first. People who like a product will usually recommend it. Amazon is a good place to get reasonably honest reviews of products. To get self-tanner off your palms, fingernails or cuticles, use a cotton swab and some bleach. The bleach will lighten the self-tanner and make it far less noticeable.
Overall
Finally, expect to spend between 1-3 hours prepping, applying and waiting to dry. Then, 4-6 hours before color begins to develop. So, this is not a fast process by any stretch. Be sure to fully exfoliate before you apply a self-tanner (whether from a bottle or in a salon). You should moisturize daily to keep the skin moist and preserve the look of the tan. There’s little you can do to mask the developer odor, so just try to keep yourself from getting wet (when it smells the worst).
Finally, I would like to point out the following possible health issues with self-tanner chemicals:
- A DHA tan does not protect you from UV. Do not use it thinking that you won’t get burned outdoors. In fact, DHA offers no UV protection at all. So, if you must be outdoors with your DHA tan, apply sunscreen to fully protect your skin from a burn.
- DHA has no long term toxicity studies for its use on the skin. It is a possibility that DHA leeches into the bloodstream on application. So, applying DHA may not be healthy to your skin or body… which may take years before it’s ultimately linked to any injury.
- Aerosolized DHA in spray tanning booths will be inhaled. You should be cautious of inhaling aerosolized DHA when using a spray tanning system. Inhaling DHA into the lungs has not been tested for possible health issues.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment