Does anybody value Rotten Tomotoes scores any more? Or any crowdsourced scores? I think such things have been widely recognised as being highly manipulated these days. I view crowdsourced ratings as essentially valueless, whatever the platform. At this stage in the game, it's a case of identifying specific reviewers you trust.
I think that this is overstating it. I think it is more accurate to say that as certain crowdsourced ratings became more important, there became a greater incentive for people to try and manipulate those ratings. And for that reason, you have to be diligent when you look at that information (just as you do with any other information).
The classic example is, of course, a review of a random product on Amazon; it is well-known that certain fly-by-night manufacturers will do their utmost to bombard the site with 5 star ratings.
When it comes to Rotten Tomatoes, I don't think that it provides a lot of granularity in terms of different types of movies. For example, I just watched
Maestro on Netflix (the Bradley Cooper movie about Bernstein), which has an 80% critics rating and a 61% audience score.
A similar movie profile would be
Asteroid City, which has a 75% critics and a 62% audience score.
On the other hand, Equalizer 3 has a 76% critics score ... but a 94% audience score.
I happen to think that this is all useful information. A person can see this, and they would know that all of these are
good movies. But I would say that
Asteroid City is a great movie (albeit not for most people),
Maestro is a very good movie (albeit not for most people), while Equalizer 3 is a decent action movie with Denzel that you can turn your brain off for a few hours and enjoy, if you're into that, which happens to have some pretty shots of Italy (which I assume is why Denzel totally agreed to it, in addition to the paycheck). Still, you can know that these are all good movies for at least some people. I can talk about why I prefer one to the other, but they are all good movies for what they are trying to do.
On the other hand, Rebel Moon has a 22% / 59% (REALLY?) which teel you its a bad movie, while Five Nights at Freddies has a 32% / 87% divide, which I think accurately conveys the divide between "being a good movie" and "giving fans something."
ETA- One thing that is always funny is to see the divide between movies that most "movie people" (which includes critics) hate, which still have people that love it. There is a great and funny podcast called "How Did This Get Made," where the hosts go through terrible (really terrible) movies, and then at the end they read the five-star reviews on Amazon that people have posted for the movie.