Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Entertainment

Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows? (digg.com) 181

Posted by msmash from the an-exploration dept.
Why do we never utter sentences like "'Cobra Kai' has been certified 100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes?" or "'Stranger Things'" was rated 8.9 out of 10 on IMDb"? It's not because the reviews of TV shows aren't aggregated by these websites -- they are. Contrary to what you might think of IMDb, given that its name is Internet Movie Database, TV shows also occupy an essential, if relatively smaller, place than movies there. And the same thing goes for Rotten Tomatoes. An exploration: So if the lack of availability of TV rating sites isn't the issue, why is it that we hardly use critical or audience scores as a way to measure the quality of a TV show to our peers? Here are a few of my theories:
There Are Too Many Good Shows Out There
It's an odd dilemma to have, but it's true that when it comes to TV shows, there are so many high-quality programs for us to consume. People have been talking about Peak TV for a few years now, and a quick scroll through Rotten Tomatoes' website would seem to confirm that we've been offered an embarrassment of riches. [...]

The Price Of Admission Is Higher For Movies
 Another reason why viewers might care less about a TV show's critical scores than a film's might be the high price of moviegoing. Tickets in metropolitan areas in the US can be extremely expensive, costing up to $25.49 if you're going for an IMAX screening in New York City unless you're subscribed to a service like Moviepass or AMC's new subscription program.

Networks And Platforms Market Emmys More Than Critical Scores Compared to critical scores on review websites, networks and platforms seem to place more stock on the Emmys when it comes to the marketing of TV shows. Despite the fact that the Emmy, arguably the best TV award, might not offer shows as big of a ratings boost as it did decades ago, the awards still play a crucial part in helping create social buzz around television shows, especially for shows with smaller audiences.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows? More

Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows?

Comments Filter:

  • You don't watch multiple episodes of a bad serie (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2018 @02:40AM (#57201402)

    My theory is that when a movie is bad, you still watch it until the end and feel entitled to evaluate it. For a TV show, on the other hand, if you don't like the first episode, you don't continue with the following episodes and feel then not entitled to evaluate the entire series.

    • Re:You don't watch multiple episodes of a bad seri (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @07:22AM (#57202124)

      My theory is that when a movie is bad, you still watch it until the end and feel entitled to evaluate it. For a TV show, on the other hand, if you don't like the first episode, you don't continue with the following episodes and feel then not entitled to evaluate the entire series.

      Plus, turning on a TV show is easy. Just push a button. You didn't spend any money, or even have to leave the couch where you had already planned to spend your time. You didn't have to plan it out, at this moment you decided you have the free time to spend. You are not committed either, you can turn it on, get interrupted and pause it/end it, and resume later.

      Movies are big deals, particularly if you are a grown up, even more so if you are married or in a long term relationship, even worst if you have children. You're now talking about blocking out a 2 hr+ portion of your free time, which is a huge commitment on its own, and you have to commit to that 2 hours ahead of time (in the days of recliner seating in movie theaters, often days or even weeks ahead of time). If something comes up you have to make a decision, and that decision might involve flushing the money already spent on the movie. You have to leave your house, another really big deal. You have to go out in public and be around other people, this is more of a problem for some of us than others. And then if and when the movie sucks, you realize that you are out a heap of time and money you won't ever get back.

      When you look at the investment you are making just to try out a movie, particularly given that most movies out there right now are beyond awful thanks to the need to capture chinese investment capital and hit a "global market" that may require concessions to the "harmonious society", you really want to be selective.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by arth1 ( 260657 )

        These days, most people watch movies from the couch, and not even a tape or disc, but streaming. The effort to start watching a movie isn't high anymore.
        On average, movies are still longer than TV shows, so you do put more effort in after it has started.

        But I think the main reason for dscrepancies is that most movies are one-offs. TV shows, people either stop watching, or get drawn in, and then it will either be love or dislike. So reviews tend to be useless, because they'll either be followers or those

        • I guess movies that are already on netflix/prime I don't bother looking at rotten tomatoes at all. I've already paid for those services, if I'm bored I'll fire up the movies.

          But in terms of actually going to the theater, I always look at RT. I won't see a movie that has no rating, and if its really bad and I'm just not a series fanatic for the movie, I also won't go.

    • It will depend on how bad that first episode is. Normally the first few episodes are setting the stage, getting the characters in their spot, and the Universe they live in set.
      Right now shows with story arch are kinda popular, but still the first few episodes may be, well, episodic, with events not really playing into the next episode as much, a bad guy of the week, a problem that get resolved in a neat little package, this can create some annoying first episodes, but they do make us understand the charac

  • Media 'Reviews' of TV Shows Are Actually Previews (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @02:44AM (#57201414)

    This is true on Metacritic at least: check out critic reviews for any given weekly-broadcast TV show, and invariably you'll find that the review covers the first 1 or 2 episodes. In other words, they're judging the entire show based on just seeing one or two episodes. If it's a serial, that means not all of the main characters have likely been introduced, the premise hasn't even been fully revealed, and the story arc is just starting to develop and who knows where it's going or if it'll ever pay off.
    Notice that the second season of a TV show will usually have a far higher critical review score than the first, simply because those reviewing the second season are actually reviewing the entirety of the first. If you want more accurate reviews of these shows (particularly the first season), wait until the season is done and then read user reviews.
    The reason it is done this way is obvious: new stuff gets reader attention, since it's being currently heavily marketed; the reviewer doesn't have access to later episodes; people want to know if something is any good before they start watching it; and lack of reruns of weeks-old-episodes means you have to jump on board within a week or so of the show first airing.
    Of course, with the Netflix-style releasing of a whole season at once, this upends the above, and makes critical reviews more useful.
    Personally I rely on word of mouth, then research something I hear about. Read a variety of reviews -- for the worst drek imaginable, someone somewhere will say it's a masterpiece, just as surely as someone will say something is drek even if it's my favorite.

    • if it does not hook you up in 2 episodes then they are doing their job wrong. A serial is not supposed to hook you up by end of season 3 episode 14, it is supposed to hook you up at the start. If it does not , then the show failed at its job. Life is short, I want to know from the start if it is going to suck 2 hours from my life and have nothing for me.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        I don't think there's even by a TV SciFi series where the first half of season 1 was any good. It always takes a while for the writers and cast to find the characters.

        • Re:if it does not hook you up in 2 episodes... (Score:4, Informative)

          by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @07:42AM (#57202208)

          Yeah, sadly that seems to be the norm.

          Exception _might_ include:

          Travelers
          The Expanse
          Rick and Morty
          Dark Matter
          Continuum
          Battlestar Galactica (2004)

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            I gave up on both The Expanse and BSG during the first half of the first season, though I hear they were good. Perhaps nostalgia colors your memory there. I also gave up on Bab5 on episode 2, only to come back later and discover it was my favorite SF TV (and the second episode was the worst of 5 seasons).

            • I love both The Expanse and BSG (and everything else on my list), so no, not nostalgia. =P

              I could see how you bailed after mid-season -- they aren't meant for the action-every-minute ADD/AHDH person. Continuum had a REALLY slow start 1st season -- I was ready to bail on that but stuck with it and ended up loving it, so maybe it just comes with the territory of character / story building?

              I wasn't a fan of BSG either at first, especially with the gender swap of Starbuck sending off red flags, but overall the

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by lgw ( 121541 )

                I think Amazon has Bab5 as free for Prime members, BTW. IMO, the middle third of that 5-year run was the best SF TV ever made. If you do watch it, make heroic efforts to remain spoiler-free. Unlike Lost, every clue and prophesy is paid off, one way or another - even when there's a change in actor to write around. Half the fun is anticipating how everything will play out.

        • I don't think there's even by a TV SciFi series where the first half of season 1 was any good. It always takes a while for the writers and cast to find the characters.

          I can name a few that hooked me from the beginning: Stargate, Killjoys, The Expanse (I had read the books, so this one might not count).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            The Stargate movie was so bad that I ignored the series when it came out. Since I was binge-watching season 1, I don't have the same perspective, but the first couple of episodes were pretty bland (episode 2 in particular was bad), and I thought it took a while for any chemistry to emerge from the team (who started as very bland stereotypes).

        • Firefly.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • This is true on Metacritic at least: check out critic reviews for any given weekly-broadcast TV show, and invariably you'll find that the review covers the first 1 or 2 episodes

      I think a quick take is usually still pretty accurate. A good show has great cast chemistry from the start. And most of my favorite shows have taken less than 5 minutes to make up my mind. There are exceptions. For some reason, I really enjoyed Buffy and the acting was beyond terrible for the entire first season (possibly longer). By all accounts, it was terrible and I shouldn't have liked it.

      Maybe it takes longer to decide to love a show if it gets the casting and characters right but the plot meander

  • Price of Admission (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @02:45AM (#57201420)

    My "price of admission" is the time I have to invest to work out something is rubbish. A movie could be as long as three or four hours, so do I really want to completely waste that time? A 20min TV show is a small (potentially wasted) investment.

    • Guess you're not a book reader either.

    • A 20min TV show is a small (potentially wasted) investment.

      Judging a TV show based on one episode is a fool's errand.

      • Go ahead and watch the rest of CSI: Cyber [wikipedia.org] and Cavemen [wikipedia.org]. I'll wait. It took less than one episode. I didn't even have to watch them, but I did watch one of each anyway.

        • Into The Badlands had me barf it after the first 10 minutes. Some guy gets into a fight with 10 bad guys, who surround him, then come at him one by one and he defeats them all.

          Cornball-level martial arts deliberately on display. Nope. Not interested in a Walking Dead-style societal apocalypse with goofy martial arts instead of zombies.

    • The time to know if it is crap is half an hour, but the time to know if it is really good is many hours for a TV show. A series that starts promising can turn to shit 14 hours in to the first season.
      And for a review to be of any real value you should have seen quite a lot of it before reviewing. And since it is easy to dismiss shows after the first episode I think reviews are skewed to be made by fans rather than the average population. This leads to scores that are way too high for many TV shows. This is w

  • I have my own taste. I don't care what you or some other muppet on the Internet thinks. You can't see with my eyes.

  • Speak for yourself, I do this all the time. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alsn ( 911813 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @03:29AM (#57201520)
    A tip for others: TV shows are generally rated more generously than films. On IMDB for example, a film with a rating of 7 or higher is generally very good. For TV shows, I would say the same level of quality requires at least a rating of 8.

  • Does it really require this level of thought? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @03:33AM (#57201528) Homepage

    Listen, going to a movie is *going*.

    As in, effort. Yes, money, but also time.

    - You have to drive or take a train
    - You have to stay out late if you're a working person
    - You have to commit 1.5-2.5 hours
    - You have to deal with significantly increased costs for the comforts of refreshments, even a simple drink if you get thirsty
    - It's actually quite a pain in the ass
    - And of course the ticket cost

    With TV?

    - "Can't find anything good to watch" means a waste of a few minutes at most
    - There's no transit time or other significant preparation
    - You can pause at any time and return; there is no set time commitment
    - Food and drink = cheap
    - You can multi-task with that time
    - If you "abort" a show, you can immediately do something else, and you've not lost an investment of time, money, whatever

    Basically, you're investing a lot (time, money, effort, lost convenience) to go see a movie. So you want to know if it's going to suck so that you're not stuck wasting all of that investment or having to sit through something you don't enjoy just so you *don't* waste all of that investment.

    In combined costs if you have, say, a spouse and a kid and the kid gets thirsty or wants a snack, it's going to cost something like $50-$60 minimum, more if you have to pay to park, which is, like, half a year of Netflix.

    People don't care about TV ratings but they do care about movie ratings for the same reason they don't bother to research pencils before they buy a 10-pack at the store but they do research fountain pens before they buy one. Anytime something costs an order of magnitude more, and involves significant additional investments beyond that, people are going to want value for money.

    Make new releases $1.00 PPV and show them via streaming in living rooms and people will stop caring about reviews for movies, too.

    • On top of that, there is also a restricted choice. It is no use finding out that TV show X is brilliant if it s not on at the time that you have free to watch something or it is not available on whatever streaming services you have access to.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      I generally agree with your post, though I would add that with TV, it can be a simple time-filler. Waiting for an off-hours conference call? Even if it's something crappy like the eighth time you've seen that particular episode of CSI it's still a way to occupy your time. It can also be a way to veg-out to decompress after a rough day, and even if a particular show's storyline is lackluster that might be a feature, rather than a bug, as one can just turn it off when one finally wants to go to bed or to d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      I uprate movies because of the investment of effort and downrate TV shows due to the lack of effort.

      It reminds me of the phenomenon that began to occur as I got progressively larger portable media players.

      Going to work/class, long bus ride, long walk -- I would be stuck with whatever 1-3 cassettes I could be bothered to bring with. Until I got a "walkman" that had music skip for tape, I often just listened to whatever was playing not even changing tapes unless it was obviously convenient (sitting on the bu

  • But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)

    So greater choice must either divide these pools over more programs or a greater percentage of shows must have no budget or talent. This only matters once you reach some critical value - budget left over simply becomes profit, not better shows, and writing talent left over becomes skid row. Though, not necessarily their lyricist.

    So y

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      There'a a lot of writing talent in the world, but Hollywood stays far from it. Every mid-tier professional author out there ( and there are a lot of them, and they're cheap) writes better stuff than 99% of Hollywood drivel.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        They're not as cheap as producers already required for "reality" tv shows doing the "writing" to establish the cockamamie scenarios tailored to the personality quirks and failings of the contestants.

    • (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)

      The book The Bell Curve made this point: all human attributes fit within a standard distribution, so there is always a shortage of higher expertise and an excess of lower.

    • But total money and total quality writing talent are fixed. (There are many scriptwriters, and you can always hire more, but the talent is a fixed percentage of the population.)

      The talent out there is way underutilized. It's the money that's the problem. Nobody investing in TV/movies wants to risk that money on something that isn't a sure thing. So we get more and more of the same focus-tested crap. That is why British TV had a lot more depth and took more risks - they didn't have to make their money back.

  • Maybe it's because for most people, watching a movie costs extra money. Watcing a new TV show usually doesn't.

  • why? (Score:3)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @05:00AM (#57201706)
    Why would I give a shit about what random people think? What matters is what I think or what friends I know with similar tastes think. Some of the absolute shit that gets rated well makes sites like IMDB, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes all but completely fucking useless.

    • "Why would I give a shit about what random people think? "

      Because it is infeasible to watch every TV show to determine which TV shows you will enjoy watching.

  • As recent as this weekend, I got a text saying "Did you hear of this show? 8.2 on IMDb. We're checking out the first ep now."

    Leaving aside how inflated scores are in general – it's rare to see anything below 7 that's not pretty horrible – they serve pretty well as a rough indicator of overall quality. Or, to put it another way, an 8+ show might be worth checking out even if it seems a bit outside of what I'd normally watch. Likewise, low 7 or into the 6s is probably only worth checking out if it

    • Yeah I have no idea what they are talking about, from my experience people (including myself) use IMDb and RT scores for shows pretty much exactly as much as they do for movies. Meaning those who do, do for both, those who don't , don't for either. I agree they are good tools for quick screening of bad shows/movies.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      I've never looked at the IMDB (or Rotten Tomatoes) score for any Movie or TV show. There's no useful information there.

  • Couldn't care less (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theNetImp ( 190602 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @05:12AM (#57201730)

    Rotten Tomato Scores suck, for both TV and Movies. There have been very many movies with high RT scores that were terrible, and just as many with low RT scores that were actually fairly good. The system is crap and instead when i want to know if a movie is any good I just ask if any friends on Facebook have seen it, and I can tell by their answer and who they are (ie things they like) whether or not to trust their opinion.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      My go-to example is The Orville. I have a screen shot from shortly after it started running, with a "critics" score of 11% and an audience score of 90%. Meanwhile, STD was the other way around, though with not quite so much of a disparity.

    • Hi, I'm working on a aggregation site rating system. On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate Rotten Tomatoes?

  • I personally, and most of my friends will not commit to a show with less than 7 on our aggregator of choice, usually iMDB, and that is of a topic that is interesting to us. The reason I don't watch Cobra Kai, for instance, is because even though I'm a sucker fo retro, I just don't like the narrative of that show. The same reason I quit watching the highly praised, good production-valued Orange is the New Black - it simply stopped appealing to my senses.

    Granted, my social circle is mostly comprised of workin

  • It's pretty simple. You don't read reviews for free stuff. What's the point?

  • There Are Too Many Good Shows Out There

    Yeah; that's it ...

  • Rotten Tomatoes has been gamed by industry for years, just like most online review sites are gamed. Who has a legion of employees who badly want for something to succeed? They all have internet devices and are busy posting away and voting up their own projects. If that fails, they can always buy vote blocks like they do on Reddit. Most of what we consider "free" social media is in fact simply propaganda; the difficulty is that the propaganda does not come from the publisher, necessarily, but from shills and

    • Rotten Tomatoes has been gamed by industry for years, just like most online review sites are gamed.

      Garbage In, Garbage Out.
      RT is an aggregator. Aggregate garbage and you get garbage.

  • Movie reviews suck more than movies do (Score:3)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @07:54AM (#57202264)

    Probably because I don't give a shit about what other people think about a movie. Why would I give a shit about what they think about a TV show?

    It seems like whenever I watch a movie and I really like it (which is rare), I ot on the internet to read about it and find it was poorly reviewed and/or did not do well, and I think, "WTF?? How is this possible??" Similarly, if I think a movie totally sucked, I will find it was wildly successful.

    If I relied on movie reviews to determine what to watch, it seems like I would only end up watching stuff that I think sucks. Why would I want to do that?

  • 1) When I decide to see a movie, I can see ANY movie. So going to a review site makes a lot of sense. Anything they rate highly, I can go see. Anything they downrate, I can avoid.

    Not true about TV. I do not get all channels, I only have so much money. Cobra Kai sounds good, but I don't get YouTube Premium and I don't get that.

    Going to Rotten Tomatoes means looking at things I can't see. This makes it significantly less useful. It becomes an exercise in disappointment, not a helpful decision aid.

    2

  • Haven't watched network TV in decades. Don't plan to start doing so. So why should I give a rat's ass about Rotten Tomatoes' reviews of TV shows?

    That said, I used to enjoy more than a few shows that were cancelled quickly. Which means that other people's opinions of the shows generally didn't match mine. So, again, why should I give a rat's ass about Rotten Tomatoes' reviews of TV shows?

    • First, I disagree with you and that you shouldn't have a right to say it.
      Well you should have a right I just noticed your sig, which I agree with.
      Second, you sound like the person who is hoping for a TV related story just so you can say, "I don't watch TV."
      I do agree with your comment about shows I like being canceled, d'oh.

  • Because you don't pay for individual TV shows you are okay with enjoyable cheesy garbage. TV gets easier grading anyway.

  • Reviews in general (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Monday August 27, 2018 @09:16AM (#57202664)
    Reviews in general reflect one person's highly subjective opinion and reflects their individual bias and interests. Also there is a built in bias towards negative reviews. When people are angry, agitated or just disappointed, they're much more likely to leave a review. I will say this about movie reviews: I have to go to see a movie I am interested in myself because rotten tomatoes has trashed movies I've actually liked.

  • "Rotten Tomatoes" has been unreliable for a long time. Most critics fall into a demographic that are biased toward movies that they like, but if you're not part of that demographic, their reviews are not very reliable.

    It feels like I'm trying to decode a secret message to get the right rating. If it's below 30%, it's probably bad. Above 30%, I compare it to the audience rating to see if there is a large discrepancy. If the critics score it 98% and the audience scored it 70%, it's probably bad. If the critic

  • I'll spend 15 minutes on a show on my DVR and decide if I like it. minimal investment on my part.

    Movies:
    10 minutes checking reviews
    5 minutes buying tickets online
    $30 spent
    [mumble-mumble] minutes getting the wife ready and into the car
    20 minutes driving to the theater
    10 minutes getting snacks an

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I'd say it's for the exact same reason we don't care about the Rotten Tomatoes score of movies. It doesn't take a lot of complexity to understand why people take aggregate numeric ratings with a grain of salt: you don't know that the other people who rated, care about the same things that you care about. Preferences are too diverse.

    • Generally true, although I personally check the viewer scores (and generally ignore the critics) if I'm undecided about paying money to see a film in-theater.

  • When I look at reviews on RT, I'm generally most interested in reviews by professional critics rather than by the general public. This is no guarantee of a rating I would agree with. Many of the highest critics ratings are for documentaries, for example. Also, a mediocre aggregate critics rating along with a high aggregate audience rating often signals a less serious movie that I might find amusing. But for insightful, specific observations about a movie, I look to critics whose opinions I tend to agree wit

  • I don't feel any compulsion to track RT because there's absolutely no hurry. When there's room in my schedule for another show, I can see what's become available, whether people liked it, make sure it didn't die an untimely death, and stream it when I feel like it. There's no urgency anymore.

Slashdot Top Deals

The wages of sin are unreported.

Close