Statistics & Movie Critics

[Pangloss]

Interesting article in Slate today analyzing some numbers generated by comparing movie reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes with the box office receipts.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2194532/

 

Rotten Tomatoes aggregates reviews of hundreds (sometimes thousands) or reviewers, compiling a cumulative score for the movie. Anything 60% or higher is considered "fresh" and anything below that is "rotten" -- the idea being to help viewers decide if they should go see a movie or not (instead of having to decide based on a single review).

 

But does it work? And are movie critics actually valuable, or are they just film snobs with no connection to the average popcorn buyer?

 

 

While there were fewer "fresh" films (i.e., movies that critics liked) and they showed on fewer screens and took in less overall box office, they tended to make almost $1,000 more per screen than "rotten" movies (i.e., movies critics didn't like). So, on a per-screen-basis, more people are following critics into theaters than not.

 

And when he broke the numbers down even further:

 

Critically acclaimed films average about $2,000 more per screen than critically lambasted films.

 

Interesting article.