in the midst of BvS rotten tomatoes shitfest, i want to talk about it, about review aggreator sites be it Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, but especially Rotten Tomatoes.
i always find review aggregator site absurd.
art is a subjective matter, and some piece of art, only get appreciated by the critics and people alike few years - decades, even - after the supposed release dates.
art is an expression of the artist, and to reduce it to a mere number, or worse, a fresh or rotten tomatoes is insulting to the art and to the nuance of the critics itself.
now the question arise, are there such thing as bad art? depends. in painting, Pollock's splash of colour - not that this is a derogatory, merely simplifying Pollock's art to the uninitiated - is regarded in the history of art at the same level as Picasso's Cubist painting. BUT, there are bad cubist painting, and there are good cubist painting, what constitutes a bad or good cubist painting, that i do not know.
the key point is in genre.
you compare classical music to another classical music, what is a good classical music? i have no idea, but it'll be stupid to compare say, Kreisler's Liebesleid to Daft Punk's Something About Us.
now, movie is a weird case for me.
what constitutes a good movie?
now for me, what constitutes a good movie, technically, is screenplay, acting, editing, sound, cinematography, and story in general. and finally, when the movie successfully to be what it's trying to be.
now a good movie is different than movie that YOU enjoy. and this is completely subjective.
my point is, i believe, as a critic, they should review movies - or art, in general - by first and foremost knowing the purpose of the movie, and whether it achieve it or not.
my problems with critics nowadays, it's just that they're more of a reviewer, instead of a critics. they tell their readers whether they like it or not, not the technical aspects of it.
because BvS is the most recent example, i will use it as an example.
most of the criticisms of BvS revolved around whether it was their Superman/batman/wonder woman or not, whether it was "fun", whatever fun means nowadays.
almost nobody talks about actual things, like plot? is it too busy or not, i accept that it is too busy, but it is not stupid and full of plotholes. the editing? it was jumpy, because WB asks snyder to cut 30 minutes of it.
just because BvS is a superhero movie, they compared it to another superhero movies, which is stupid. imagine in the 80s when people read Watchmen for the first time, and compared it to previous superhero comics before it, and said it was not fun.
now the problem with review agreggator: because review now is completely subjective and sometimes banal, to reduce it to numbers is insulting to critics. do RT really think that Richard Roeper opinion is hold at the same level as some 20 something blogger from fucking Buzzfeed?
reviewer comes from different kinds of background, and just to ignore that nuance to a mere yes/no algorithm is stupid.
i mean i just found out that Jumper is at 16% at RT, when i watched it years ago, i enjoyed it immensely. i mean there's no fucking way the sharknado - at 80 something - is better than Jumper, from technical level and story.