Podcast Summary: "Is the Rotten Tomatoes Formula Fresh or Rotten?"

Podcast: The Town with Matthew Belloni
Host: Matthew Belloni (The Ringer, Puck)
Guest: Jacqueline Coley (Awards Editor, Rotten Tomatoes)
Date: September 17, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Matthew Belloni hosts Jacqueline Coley, Awards Editor at Rotten Tomatoes, to debate the current state and perceived problems of Rotten Tomatoes’ influence on movie criticism and the film industry. The conversation covers the mechanics of Rotten Tomatoes' scoring, issues of review aggregation, the evolution of film criticism, and accusations of "grade inflation" and potential industry manipulation. Belloni challenges the methodology and implications of the Tomatometer, while Coley defends the platform’s practices, transparency, and continued relevance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Decline of Individual Critics & Rise of Aggregators

• Belloni’s Opening Context (02:10–03:45):
  • Movie criticism has shifted from prominent critics (e.g., Siskel & Ebert) to aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
  • “No critic really matters. Not really. The Internet and social media has unleashed a torrent of opinions...” (A, 02:40)
  • Studios and audiences now look primarily at the Tomatometer, not at individual voices.

2. How Rotten Tomatoes Works

• Coley Outlines the System (05:35–10:12):
  • Community: ~3,000 critics (1,200 individuals, 1,800 outlets).
  • Scoring:
    • Fresh: ≥60% positive reviews.
    • Certified Fresh: ≥75% with additional requirements (e.g., top critics).
    • Rotten: <60% positive.
  • Credentialing: Annual applications reviewed by a curation team (about 8 staffers).
  • “...those folks are credentialed at a high level. ...they read hundreds of thousands of reviews.” (C, 09:03)

3. Expanding the Pool: Diversity & Changing Media

• Response to Criticism of Elitism (10:12–12:27):
  • The 2018 roster “refresh” expanded beyond traditional media to freelancers/individuals, reflecting journalism's shift.
  • “We had to change our product to reflect that change. So the why is that.” (C, 10:43)
  • Belloni argues this correlates with, if not causes, the decline of “serious” critics at major outlets; Coley counters it's primarily economic/media evolution, not Rotten Tomatoes’ fault.

4. Aggregation, Binary Scores & Shill Concerns

• Awards Pundits & Bias (13:13–14:45):
  • Belloni raises “awards shilling” and potential conflicts. Example: Pete Hammond as both critic and industry shill.
  • Coley: “We are not in the business of telling people who [outlets] should put in … We are in the review and discovery business.” (C, 13:55)
• Binary System Limitations (14:45–17:15):
  • Belloni: The binary “fresh/rotten” system flattens nuance and inflates mediocrity.
  • “It generally rewards movies that are fine, that are okay. It does not necessarily reward the exceptional movies.” (A, 15:00)
  • Coley: “Not everybody wants to see certified fresh baddies...The best thing about Rotten Tomatoes is we kinda think of ourselves like Burger King. You can have it whichever way you want.” (C, 15:17)
  • The design is a feature, not a bug — market demand prefers simplicity.

5. Gaming the System: PR Influence & Malfeasance

• Publicists/Studios Gaming (18:29–23:34):
  • Belloni cites reports of PR firms influencing scores and stacking friendly critics.
  • Coley: Describes safeguarding procedures, majority self-submission, and multi-person curator oversight.
  • Highlights 2023’s “bug 15” incident as an anomaly: “We were the victim of a crime...When we found out...we removed the malicious parties from our site for violating our code of conduct.” (C, 19:12)
  • Reviews are mostly submitted by critics themselves (60%), with 40% curated by staff.

6. Early Festival Scores & “Hype Generation”

• The Viral Boost (23:34–27:43):
  • Belloni: Early, small-sample festival reviews allow studios to “game” hype (e.g., Springsteen movie, awards films).
  • “All of a sudden, this movie...is the best movie out there. And it will sit there for weeks before...other critics are allowed access.” (A, 24:24)
  • Coley: Audiences see review counts, understand the context, and film festivals are inherently “hype generators.” Score shifts reflect evolving consensus as more reviews are added.
• Thresholding System Explanation (27:43–28:51):
  • Number of reviews needed for a score to go live depends on box office projections.
    • <$60M: 10 reviews.
    • $60–120M: 20 reviews.

    • $120M: 40 reviews.

7. "Grade Inflation" Accusations

• Rising Scores Over 10 Years (28:51–31:26):
  • Belloni: Tomatometer scores up 13% since 2014; suspects junket press and studio influence.
  • Coley: Disputes methodology, notes shifting genre weight (horror over comedy), increased overall volume, and audience/market changes as primary causes.
  • “Rotten Tomatoes is a temperature check of sentiment...When people are getting upset and getting big feelings about us, I have a lot of sympathy for weathermen.” (C, 31:26)
  • The site reflects, rather than shapes, critical sentiment.

8. Final Barbs and Closing Thoughts

• Belloni's Last Words (32:25–32:42):
  • Asserts "sycophant," “junket,” and “awards” press have crept in, but thanks Coley for a spirited, informative exchange.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Rotten Tomatoes’ Influence:
  • “Today, no critic really matters. Not really...the single most influential force in movie criticism is now Rotten Tomatoes.” — Matthew Belloni (03:05)
• On Diversity Push:
  • “We decided to credential individuals more so than outlets ... to reflect the changing media landscape.” — Jacqueline Coley (10:12)
• On the Binary System:
  • “It generally rewards movies that are fine, that are okay. It does not necessarily reward the exceptional movies.” — Belloni (15:00)
  • “We kind of think of ourselves like Burger King. You can have it whichever way you want.” — Coley (15:17)
• On Critic Selection:
  • “We have a very robust criteria. ...It's a commitment to journalism. We read their reviews, we look at their history of reviewing, not just one.” — Coley (08:41)
• On Studios Gaming the System:
  • “We were the victim of a crime...When we found out, we removed the malicious parties from our site for violating our code of conduct.” — Coley (19:12)
• On Early Scores & Festival Hype:
  • “Film festivals, in their very essence, are kind of hype generators. And that has nothing to do with us at Rotten Tomatoes.” — Coley (26:09)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [03:05] — Belloni sets up Rotten Tomatoes as the industry’s dominant critical voice
• [05:35] — Coley explains Tomatometer mechanics and credentialing process
• [10:12] — Discussion of 2018 refresh, freelance/individual reviewers, and diversity
• [13:13] — Awards “shilling” and outlet designations
• [14:45] — Binary system vs. Metacritic; impact on film evaluation
• [18:29] — Addressing accusations of PR gaming and “review laundering”
• [24:24] — Early review hype at film festivals and the potential for gaming
• [27:43] — Thresholding system for review counts
• [28:51] — Grade inflation: Rising Rotten Tomatoes scores over the decade
• [31:26] — Weather analogy: Rotten Tomatoes as aggregator, not influencer

Tone & Style

Playful yet probing, the conversation is a genuine debate between an industry insider skeptical of Rotten Tomatoes’ results and a company representative candidly defending—sometimes with humor, sometimes with exasperation—the platform’s value and processes. Coley is transparent about the limitations and challenges and repeatedly points Belloni (and listeners) to the published, public-facing criteria and evolving mechanisms. Belloni’s tone is at once critical and fair, pressing on issues widely discussed within Hollywood.

Summary for Non-Listeners

This episode of “The Town” dives deep into the mechanics, challenges, and cultural power of Rotten Tomatoes, the go-to aggregator for movie quality in the streaming age. It covers why and how the Tomatometer score wields such power, how critics gain entry, debates over “grade inflation” and shilling, and why the system, while imperfect, is reflective of a digitized, diversified, and atomized media landscape. Both guests grapple with the authenticity and trustworthiness of aggregated film criticism, leaving listeners with a nuanced view of a tool many love to hate but can’t ignore.