In one of the biggest mind blowing moments of the year, it’s being alleged by Mark Hughes (critic, contributor of Forbes) that someone or even Rotten Tomatoes, itself, has posted a review for JUSTICE LEAGUE under his name on the site.I’ve been yelling from the top of the mountain for years now that critics and Rotten Tomatoes have been deliberately attacking the DCEU, and Zack Snyder (director). That the unfair critiques of the DCEU for things that Marvel gets a pass on were a sign of an almost institutional bias against the two — DCEU and Snyder. Until now, it’s just been basically me being paranoid, but not anymore.

We find that Hughes who has been an overall fan of the DCEU, and at the least a fair critic became aware of the fact that a review for JUSTICE LEAGUE was posted to RT under his profile. Hughes tweeted,

This was music to my ears. It’s supporting evidence to what I’ve been suspecting.

At this stage, things just aren’t coincidence anymore; they’re not paranoia, or a fanboy mad at a negative review. To post a review under a critics name, through his profile without his consent is a new low. This is legitimate destabilization. And I say that, because it’s undeniable that the RT score does affect overall box office numbers to a degree.

There’s a portion of the audience who believe that RT is a neutral site to collect reviews and display a rating based on them. So when a movie has a rotten score of forty-something percent, it will turn that portion of the audience off, and thus they stay home instead of seeing the movie (ie. JUSTICE LEAGUE).

Now, Hughes did then backpedal his initial vibe (of RT being responsible) by saying that there’s a “fault” in how things are rated on RT. That an in-between review is automatically given a rotten rating despite the critic’s actual stance,

But that’s not exactly accurate.

As Peter Travers (critic) reviewed both JUSTICE LEAGUE and THOR: RAGNAROK where he gave the same basic summary of the two movies yet possessed two different stances– and yes, you guessed it! The one (RAGNAROK) was rated fresh and the other (JUSTICE LEAGUE) rotten.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

To say that a C+ gets a rotten rating while a B- is a fresh, and blame it on “site error” is absolutely disingenuous. It’s at best a way of shifting the attention on what is going on.

I don’t believe that this can be so easily blown off anymore. With evidence to back the fact that things are (a little more than) fishy, and there’s an absolute bias. This echoes what I’ve been preaching, to not base your decision on whether or not to go see a (DCEU) movie based on the RT score, and critics.

Overall I find myself even more curious as to how often this occurs (in Hughes’ case).

Make sure to go check Hughes’s real review of JUSTICE LEAGUE out over at Forbes.