If Hollywood was creating a stream of innovative, original movies that might only appeal to a percentage of the viewing audience, his argument might have some merit. But when the Hollywood model is sequel after sequel with the odd reboot thrown in so we can make more sequels, I want to know if a movie is crap.
I can remember CHiPs when it first screened on TV. Couldn't tell you any storylines, but I'm pretty certain it was nothing like the drek I'm seeing advertised now. I don't need to see a Rotten Tomatoes score to avoid that one, but I'll be interested to see how low it can go!
To me, Ratner complaining about Rotten Tomatoes warning me away from his film is kind of like the pregnancy test kit manufacturers complaining about Australia's TGA (Therapeutic Good Administration; kind of like the FDA) warning that stick pregnancy test kit's don't work (as happened recently). Instead of railing against web sites that inform consumers about the quality of his product, Ratner might be better served if he made a better product.
You know, kind of like how the free market generally works.