The critics are out of touch...except when they're not
- Thread starter Hawki
- Start date
OBJECTION OVERRULED!! Yours is a singular example, as was mine, both entirely plausible in nigh infinite possible permutations of critics expertise versus subject matter appreciation.CaitSeith said:
The video (watch it to better understand what I was actually saying) is an explanation of the logic behind Rotten Tomato's aggregate scoring practices, and how it allows for widely disparate ratings of the same movie between audiences and critics. At a high level, RT aggregates thousands of black-n-white "Recommend? Yes/No" votes from professional critics, a voting pool which includes ("is tainted by," if you will) votes from professional critics who are obligated to see films they might not want to see or otherwise weren't predisposed to see, so their critique is purely clinical, devoid of any connection to or excitement for what they're watching. The audience scores are [more than likely] to be an aggregate of people who wanted see the film, wanted to enjoy it, and are thusly more easily predisposed to do so and give less weight to flaws.
Look, here's how it is: The only members of the public who go to watch a movie are the ones who expect that they'll enjoy the flick. If the only critics who watched Venom were the ones who expected to enjoy it, I can assure you that the critics, too, would have given it a higher average score.
I'd expect that such an effect would be more broadly based - i.e., it would apply to most if not all movies. Instead, it seems about equally likely that the audience score will be higher or lower (except at the extremes).Queen Michael said:
I tend to view critics as there to judge the film as well a film and all that entitles. Which means they gotta actually look at how a shot is done with lighting, camera positioning, and shit. As well as all the other stuff that audience might notice. I don't look for that when I watch a movie.
As well as what Queen Michael said. If I'm going to see a movie, it's because I'm interested in it. I'm not old, retired, and rich. So I only go and see movies when they interest me.
As well as what Queen Michael said. If I'm going to see a movie, it's because I'm interested in it. I'm not old, retired, and rich. So I only go and see movies when they interest me.
As a wise man/an asshat once said "fans of the show will like it".
Plus, like, I don't watch nearly as many movies or play nearly as many games as somebody paid to do just that. Things that might seem stale or tropey to a review is still going to be fresh for me, because I haven't seen the 300 other shows that used it.
Case in point, I liked the humor in the new Ghostbusters movie, because I don't watch comedies. If they used formulaic setups, recycled SNL bits, stale jokes? I wouldn't have any way to know.
Conversely, I have read a fair bit of dark and edgy stories, so when trash like Goblin Slayer comes out, my brain shuffles it into the out pile without absorbing too much of it. Because it's trying to out edge Berserk and out sex-violence Vampire Hunter D, and the writing is just trash comparatively. I've seen that better done.
Plus, like, I don't watch nearly as many movies or play nearly as many games as somebody paid to do just that. Things that might seem stale or tropey to a review is still going to be fresh for me, because I haven't seen the 300 other shows that used it.
Case in point, I liked the humor in the new Ghostbusters movie, because I don't watch comedies. If they used formulaic setups, recycled SNL bits, stale jokes? I wouldn't have any way to know.
Conversely, I have read a fair bit of dark and edgy stories, so when trash like Goblin Slayer comes out, my brain shuffles it into the out pile without absorbing too much of it. Because it's trying to out edge Berserk and out sex-violence Vampire Hunter D, and the writing is just trash comparatively. I've seen that better done.
Or to put it another way: The breadth of information available, especially from easy-to-access places like these very forums, means we're less reliant on the whims of critics to inform our viewing/playing/reading experience. Sure, critics have their place, but they aren't the gold-standard of what is "good" or "bad" as much as they used to be.Silentpony said:
Besides, everything appreciates with time, and the things both the audiences and critics bash now in a decade or two's time they'll have a better opinion towards.
Waiting to see how right or wrong the critics are for this one [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/halloween_2018/].
Wtf are YouTube embeds not working anymore?
I love this trailer [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1MY3nLVAj20] as a throwback to the original film. Really hoping the actual feature lives up to it.
I love this trailer [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1MY3nLVAj20] as a throwback to the original film. Really hoping the actual feature lives up to it.
The problem is, critics are people, and people have different tastes. I don't bother listening to critics who have different tastes than me, cause well, we disagree.
I hate seafood, so I give fuck all about a seafood critic, nor do I care what someone who thinks well-done meat is disgusting things.
I love the MCU, and what makes me decide if a MCU movie is good or not is really dependant on well, my interests as a Marvel fan. I am going to see Venom shortly, and I already hate the lack of Spider-Man, but if you dont care about accuracy to Marvel lore, then I dont care about your opinion of the film. And someone who doesnt care about Marvel lore probably wont care what I think of the film...though why they would then see a Marvel movie...I dunno.
I think there is both objective and subjective criticism, but I think too many critics view their subjective views as objective.
I hate seafood, so I give fuck all about a seafood critic, nor do I care what someone who thinks well-done meat is disgusting things.
I love the MCU, and what makes me decide if a MCU movie is good or not is really dependant on well, my interests as a Marvel fan. I am going to see Venom shortly, and I already hate the lack of Spider-Man, but if you dont care about accuracy to Marvel lore, then I dont care about your opinion of the film. And someone who doesnt care about Marvel lore probably wont care what I think of the film...though why they would then see a Marvel movie...I dunno.
I think there is both objective and subjective criticism, but I think too many critics view their subjective views as objective.
Didn't Jim do a video awhile back about objective vs subjective, and he completely blew it because he didn't know what the real difference was, he thought objective meant emotionless? In his defense most critics don't know the difference, and color 'objective' opinions with their personal preferences.Saelune said:
The objective review is a unicorn. It doesn?t exist. The second you make any claims on the movie?s quality you?re being subjective because there?s no objective right or wrong when it comes to that. Jim?s objective review parody was him stating facts about FF13 and not saying whether it was good or not because that would be his opinion.Silentpony said:
If nobody cared, you'd see fewer tantrums about bad reviews for [thing I like]. Instead, the usual suspects keep showing up and complaining in the same places over and over and over, and people have paid attention.Silentpony said:
So much for nobody caring.
My usual sentiment has been that ideally a critic's job is to present information that would help a potential patron of the piece recognize whether they would enjoy the piece or not, regardless of whether the critic themselves enjoyed the piece or not. Perhaps with presenting information about the piece (and/or its creators and performers) that a casual patron might find useful and not be aware of.
It's all but inevitable that someone who makes it their job to review a medium will eventually both have strong opinions about that medium and become somewhat "jaded" about it. It's difficult to appreciate the acting and cinematography of a romantic comedy when you're gritting your teeth at the highly telegraphed third-act conflict that will lower the IQ of everyone involved thirty points just so the movie can drag on for another twenty minutes, because you've been forced to endure a couple of months of romantic comedies. Someone who sees *one* romantic comedy on a date night may well have a very different kind of appreciation.
A critic is observing works for others, at least, if they're any good at their job. They have a greater obligation to watch work with both an awareness both of the culture, history, and lore surrounding it, and their own biases and foibles. Viewers can just watch something and experience it on a more visceral level (not saying that some don't have a more cerebral or knowledgeable take). It's not surprising there would be some gap at least some of the time.
The more interesting question is which movies have larger gaps, and why. Aggregator sites like RT make it easier to chart things, but comparing the reaction to a nine-figure superhero film and an indie Bollywood sleeper hit doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
It's all but inevitable that someone who makes it their job to review a medium will eventually both have strong opinions about that medium and become somewhat "jaded" about it. It's difficult to appreciate the acting and cinematography of a romantic comedy when you're gritting your teeth at the highly telegraphed third-act conflict that will lower the IQ of everyone involved thirty points just so the movie can drag on for another twenty minutes, because you've been forced to endure a couple of months of romantic comedies. Someone who sees *one* romantic comedy on a date night may well have a very different kind of appreciation.
A critic is observing works for others, at least, if they're any good at their job. They have a greater obligation to watch work with both an awareness both of the culture, history, and lore surrounding it, and their own biases and foibles. Viewers can just watch something and experience it on a more visceral level (not saying that some don't have a more cerebral or knowledgeable take). It's not surprising there would be some gap at least some of the time.
The more interesting question is which movies have larger gaps, and why. Aggregator sites like RT make it easier to chart things, but comparing the reaction to a nine-figure superhero film and an indie Bollywood sleeper hit doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
And as we all know, when two critics disagree one of them is a shill. The shill is identified as being the one who's worse at playing the game.McMarbles said:
You can tell a good critic because even when they're wrong, they're wrong for the right reasons.
How do we rate a "good" movie? Does "good" mean popular, or does it represent all manner of measures like quality of plot, acting, characterisation, cinematography, etc.? A critic who predicts what's going to be popular is effectively telling us nothing. They're just witlessly trying to tell the public what the public want to hear. Thus a critic should appraise a film on other measures, and necessarily they are sometimes going to say movies the public like are bad movies.
How do we rate a "good" movie? Does "good" mean popular, or does it represent all manner of measures like quality of plot, acting, characterisation, cinematography, etc.? A critic who predicts what's going to be popular is effectively telling us nothing. They're just witlessly trying to tell the public what the public want to hear. Thus a critic should appraise a film on other measures, and necessarily they are sometimes going to say movies the public like are bad movies.
And they typically get it.hanselthecaretaker said:
The critics aren't always diametrically opposed to the public.
True, for the most part, but a critics bias is always going to appear in some form. To add to that, a good critic does not go out of their way to insult people for liking or disliking a film. That includes insulting the general public and their fellow peers. Or thinking they know better than the entire population of the country or wold. There are several Youtuber's or Internet critics that shall not be named that suffer heavily from this. The critics of old suffer from this as well.Agema said:
What's the down side??hanselthecaretaker said:
There are pigs who pick winning lottery numbers. It doesn't mean they're geniuses or can see the future. It just means they happened to point their snouts at the right object with the right number.
I'm from the Men in Black school of things. A person is smart, people are not. The public, as an entity, is not intelligent. That they mjight occasionally find a piece of merit does not speak to their discerning tastes, only to probability that ventually, a pig will pick the megaJackpot numbers.