I believe that critics have less of an impact on the improvement of film than they tend to believe they do.
Especially mainstream film. Yes, the effect of critics is seen in independent film and the productions by third year film students, but I daresay that Hollywood barely listens. It can employ critics to say whatever it wants them to say, as long as a movie is basically functional, even if it is bland and formulaic.
I'd be very impressed if MovieBob's reviews ever directly affected a film's earnings to any substantial, measurable and obvious amount, particularly in the negative sense. People listen to critics for controversy and for entertainment, as well as to extend the knowledge of film itself, not just to decide whether to see a movie or not. If they did just the latter, I think that film would be much worse off than it is now.
MovieBob, to be honest with you, if anything I'd suggest that you are too accepting of popular movies relative to other film critics. You like superhero films. Granted, the Marvel ones have been quite well made in the last few years, with only a few exceptions, but you have to acknowledge that they are deeply formulaic and archetypal stories. If people are complaining that you hate popular film, then they really haven't listened to many other critics. You're as far from that as I've seen from anyone with a decently sized audience.
Finally, I'd like to address your implied philosophy that film critics should be unbending in their response to the formulaic. Reviews have an audience. At least superficially, some (or perhaps a great deal) of that audience expects you to tell them if a film is worth seeing for them. If you see a lot of movies and they don't, shouldn't you at least consider that in your logic and in your recommendations? To be fair, I think that you do this already, but it's important that you acknowledge the importance of this in your theory as well.
Especially mainstream film. Yes, the effect of critics is seen in independent film and the productions by third year film students, but I daresay that Hollywood barely listens. It can employ critics to say whatever it wants them to say, as long as a movie is basically functional, even if it is bland and formulaic.
I'd be very impressed if MovieBob's reviews ever directly affected a film's earnings to any substantial, measurable and obvious amount, particularly in the negative sense. People listen to critics for controversy and for entertainment, as well as to extend the knowledge of film itself, not just to decide whether to see a movie or not. If they did just the latter, I think that film would be much worse off than it is now.
MovieBob, to be honest with you, if anything I'd suggest that you are too accepting of popular movies relative to other film critics. You like superhero films. Granted, the Marvel ones have been quite well made in the last few years, with only a few exceptions, but you have to acknowledge that they are deeply formulaic and archetypal stories. If people are complaining that you hate popular film, then they really haven't listened to many other critics. You're as far from that as I've seen from anyone with a decently sized audience.
Finally, I'd like to address your implied philosophy that film critics should be unbending in their response to the formulaic. Reviews have an audience. At least superficially, some (or perhaps a great deal) of that audience expects you to tell them if a film is worth seeing for them. If you see a lot of movies and they don't, shouldn't you at least consider that in your logic and in your recommendations? To be fair, I think that you do this already, but it's important that you acknowledge the importance of this in your theory as well.