Skip to content

when did profession critics get so out of touch?

unavailableunavailable Member Posts: 268
in Off-Topic
They are so out of touch with what the audiences want. There are some top box office movies where the critics are pretty on point with the audiences, but for the most part critics are doing a bad job lately.



https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ferdinand

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daddys_home_2

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_star_2017

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_trek_discovery/s01

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orville/s01

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi

«1

Comments

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    I think that by default critics's view on product is way different's than fans. For once, critic's job is to read/watch/play a lot things and rate them accordingly. Critic or professional reviewer needs to balance the objective and informational part of review with subjective opinion.

    Fans, I would say, have it much easier, since they focus on what they want and don't have to make any professional approach when rating anything. Then this might be just my observation, but general audience, especially on the internet, tends to use extremes while rating a movie/game etc. More often than not it's either "it's good" or "it sucks". And I would rather not speak of "fanboys/fangirls" part of fans as a group.

    These two approaches, I believe, are bound to clash between themselves and hence I don't consider rotten tomatoes or metacritic very reliable. I think the best way is to find a reviewer who's opinion is often close to your own, and then while reading/watching a review, focus on what reviewer says more than on the final rating. I think the "why" factor is more important than the grade itself.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,437
    The user ratings on sites like Rotten Tomatoes are inherently unscientific. They rely on users to go to the site (which means the audience sample is potentially biased by self-selection), and they don't verify if the user actually saw the movie.

    More scientific audience polls like CinemaScore (https://www.cinemascore.com/) conduct random surveys of audiences after they have viewed a movie (eliminating self-selection bias and "reviews" from those who haven't seen a film). The grades are pretty high on average (B+ is an average grade), but their results are actually pretty good at predicting the final box office gross as a multiple of the opening weekend.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Opinions differ.

    Rating systems are hard to gauge unless you take in all of that reviewers work.

    Usually a writer will explain WHY they do or do not like something. Its up to the reader to determine if they agree with that type of opinion.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,437
    Also, audience opinion not always lining up with critic opinion is about as earth-shattering as reports of a rainy day in London. :wink:
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    edited December 2017
    AstroBryGuy said:

    The user ratings on sites like Rotten Tomatoes are inherently unscientific. They rely on users to go to the site (which means the audience sample is potentially biased by self-selection), and they don't verify if the user actually saw the movie.

    I just generally don't like Rotten Tomatoes. Even the Rotten Tomato "fresh" rating for critics isn't very reflective of the quality of the movie.

    For instance, Wonder Woman got a 92% fresh rating but an average rating (among critics) of 7.5/10

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wonder_woman_2017/


    The new Jumanji movie gets a 77% fresh rating but an average rating of 6.1.

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jumanji_welcome_to_the_jungle

    (There are probably other examples, but these are just some of the more recent ones I've noticed)


    So I think that website in general is kind of messed up.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,042
    I have always ignored movie critics, as everyone should.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    1) when they started only letting intelligent people into the profession.

    2) when haters leared how to rig polls.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,437
    Mathsorcerer said:

    I have always ignored movie critics, as everyone should.

    I don't necessarily agree with that. There are many times I've seen wonderful lesser-known films because of recommendations from critics and events like Roger Ebert's Film Festival (http://www.ebertfest.com/).
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited December 2017
    AstroBryGuy said:

    Mathsorcerer said:

    I have always ignored movie critics, as everyone should.

    I don't necessarily agree with that. There are many times I've seen wonderful lesser-known films because of recommendations from critics and events like Roger Ebert's Film Festival (http://www.ebertfest.com/).
    Roger Ebert is one of my favorite writers period. Very few are up to his level though. I do take critics into account, because I generally like the films they do. Though I also like ones they don't. But I rarely see a critically-acclaimed film and walk away feeling like I didn't get something out of it.
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,985
    This is nothing new, unfortunately. H.L. Mencken wrote about this back in the 1910s and 1920s.

  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    If I don't know what a thing is, I just look at the rating score. If it's high or low, then there's usually a reason behind it. So far it got me wrong only a few times.
  • unavailableunavailable Member Posts: 268
    tbone1 said:

    This is nothing new, unfortunately. H.L. Mencken wrote about this back in the 1910s and 1920s.

    What are they good for if audiences disagree with them half the time? They seem to be a lot better at stirring controversy and keeping people discussing opinions than they are an indicator of appeal or quality.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    unavailable said:

    tbone1 said:

    This is nothing new, unfortunately. H.L. Mencken wrote about this back in the 1910s and 1920s.

    What are they good for if audiences disagree with them half the time? They seem to be a lot better at stirring controversy and keeping people discussing opinions than they are an indicator of appeal or quality.
    Well, very seldom do I admit to myself that I totally wasted $10 and two hours of my time. Most people will say something like 'it was ok' even if it sucked. Critics wouldn't do that.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    Ardanis said:

    If I don't know what a thing is, I just look at the rating score. If it's high or low, then there's usually a reason behind it. So far it got me wrong only a few times.

    In the last couple of years so called "audience" ratings have been manipulated for political reasons (as is the case in at least one of the examples in the OP). As for critics, its better to read what they actually write, rather than the actual numerical score, since it is more useful to know WHY they like or don't like something.
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,308
    edited December 2017
    unavailable said:

    They are so out of touch with what the audiences want. There are some top box office movies where the critics are pretty on point with the audiences, but for the most part critics are doing a bad job lately.



    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ferdinand

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/daddys_home_2

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_star_2017

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/star_trek_discovery/s01

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orville/s01

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi

    the job of a critic is not to get a feel on what the audiences want. film criticism is a branch of the arts criticism which is a distinct cultural field, with it's own methods, traditions, and standards, separate from the entertainment industry, and originally and inherently not geared to the average consumer (requires reading which most people hate). when the critics don't agree with the "audiences" (audience scores are not faithful btw), it doesn't mean they aren't doing a good job.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    I find it FAR more helpful to ignore the score given by a reviewer and simply read the review to get a feel for why they feel the way they do about a movie. My taste in movies is a little different and I'll even hold different kinds of movies to completely different standards, that I can't really count on any single reviewer to have similar taste as me.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    A good case in point this year was Bladerunner 2049. This was an awesome film (as judged by me) and the critics generally gave it very good reviews, but it was a commercial flop. Why? Because people are stupid.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,985
    unavailable said:

    tbone1 said:

    This is nothing new, unfortunately. H.L. Mencken wrote about this back in the 1910s and 1920s.

    What are they good for if audiences disagree with them half the time?
    What you do is find the idiot critic: if he hates it, it’s worth checking out.

    In fact, if I were to get on football, I would just bet the opposite of what my friend does.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    semiticgod said:

    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.

    And it has the temerity to suggest that anyone can be a hero, irrespective of who your parents are.
    ( too many female and ethnic minority characters is another reason for the attacks).

    Star Trek: Disovery, likewise, has had it's ratings spiked for having a black female lead and a prominant gay couple.


    Bottom line: you may not agree with the critics, but they are much less downright corrupt than "audience ratings".
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited December 2017
    Fardragon said:

    Ardanis said:

    If I don't know what a thing is, I just look at the rating score. If it's high or low, then there's usually a reason behind it. So far it got me wrong only a few times.

    In the last couple of years so called "audience" ratings have been manipulated for political reasons (as is the case in at least one of the examples in the OP). As for critics, its better to read what they actually write, rather than the actual numerical score, since it is more useful to know WHY they like or don't like something.
    It goes both ways, critic reviews can also be affected by authors' political opinions. Which is much worse, because while with anonymous rating you can just accidentally miss, a detailed review can influence your judgement before you even start watching. And I prefer going in blind as much as possible.
    Besides, if it's some known franchise or a particular director is involved, then I don't even need the score numbers, I already know whether I care or not to watch it. The rest of it is good with just ratings, the probability of it mismatching my own score (good, ok, meh, bad) has proven to be sufficiently negligible to not worry too much about missing something good or stumbling into something bad.
    semiticgod said:

    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.

    It's sitting at 7.7/10 on IMDB. That's "likely to be very good and definitely not a waste of my time" in my book.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited December 2017
    The thing is, if a critic has a political axe to grind, you can generally tell from their writing. Anonymity is a shield for dishonesty.

    As for TLJ, we are seeing something of a fightback against the downvote-bots. But still, it should be more like 9.7.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited December 2017
    semiticgod said:

    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.

    And I see constant arguements that Rey is a "Mary Sue" because she has come into her powers so quickly. Is that so?? In "A New Hope", Luke went from being a moisture farmer to blowing up the Death Star with the Force in a couple of days. His training with Yoda in "Empire" can't possibly have lasted more than a few weeks unless you think the situation in Cloud City unfolded over a matter of months. And when we get to "Return of the Jedi" he has come so far in his powers that he is able to easily dispatch Vader. And Rey is the one who has an unrealistic character-arc in regard to her power and Force-potential?? Something deeper is going on with this argument.

    And as for the people claiming an "SJW" agenda, you are entirely correct that it is because of the casino and weapon running statements, but also that Poe's brash fly-boy behavior is revealed to be the exact WRONG way to go in this movie, and it is checked by two older, powerful women.

    If "The Force Awakens" was about reviving the mythology of the series after the distaste (for many) of the prequels, "The Last Jedi" is about tearing the myth down so something new can be built. But, more than that, it's about learning from failure. Which apparently alot of people can't stand.
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    edited December 2017
    @op, ie @unavailable

    Unless you really think Oscars have artistic merit - such as C. Theron getting one for accepting to look "ugly" or A.Hathaway getting one for getting thin and cutting her hair to look "boyish" - let us not pretend artistic merit and popularity always, or very particularly coincide.

    Heck, why by that logic of "integrity" did not Piano get best director Oscar, even if the ending was "watered down"? (I do enjoy the pun here)

    It could be these were well made movies some vocal but unrepresentative segment of the audience did not like.


    The influence of opinion corrupts, surely as power does with some - whom in these fora has not liked to be liked?

    But to dismiss whole profession of critics seems unfair. I personally believe that reputable publications shall require their critics to either demonstrate great general analytical ability, or specific understanding of the medium.



    Edit: or Peter o'Toole not getting recognised for Lawrence of Arabia? That was a travesty, only he played partially unlikeable char compared.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    semiticgod said:

    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.

    I just watched the movie with my ultraconservative dad and neither of us saw anything remotely political about it. Some people are just too touchy I guess. I thought it was a great movie myself. Other than having to suspend my disbelief in parts I thought it was a worthy addition to the Star Wars anthology...
  • TStaelTStael Member Posts: 861
    edited December 2017
    Balrog99 said:


    I just watched the movie with my ultraconservative dad and neither of us saw anything remotely political about it. Some people are just too touchy I guess. I thought it was a great movie myself. Other than having to suspend my disbelief in parts I thought it was a worthy addition to the Star Wars anthology...

    But in all this I just wonder: what would have been so damaging about it, even if an artwork was not hyper-sterile?

    Your conservative daddy never voted, say - and now he might be blind, seeing a movie that had an opinion?

    None of the RPGs I've loved the best dodged human issues. Which means politics, religion, privilege and oppression, our ideals and nefarious deeds - and the lot.


    Torment, BG, NWN2, DA.


    All of those are deeply human stories. It bothers me such self-censorious attitude would be purportedly asked of movie makers, when best of gaming was never so. But I also think the "outrage" is manufactured.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    jjstraka34 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    semiticgod said:

    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.

    I just watched the movie with my ultraconservative dad and neither of us saw anything remotely political about it. Some people are just too touchy I guess. I thought it was a great movie myself. Other than having to suspend my disbelief in parts I thought it was a worthy addition to the Star Wars anthology...
    Balrog99 said:

    semiticgod said:

    Apparently the Last Jedi was the victim of a review bombing scheme. Some people thought the movie was too influenced by liberal ideology (because it negatively portrayed casinos and weapon companies?) and decided to post a bunch of bad reviews to drag the movie down. The reviews are much higher on websites where you have to have seen the movie in order to write a review of it.

    I just watched the movie with my ultraconservative dad and neither of us saw anything remotely political about it. Some people are just too touchy I guess. I thought it was a great movie myself. Other than having to suspend my disbelief in parts I thought it was a worthy addition to the Star Wars anthology...
    Beyond that, I'm also seeing alot of people upset about how Luke is portrayed in the film, and (without giving anything away) the fact that they think it's ridiculous that he would have one moment of weakness that led to the way things were. Where this idea that Luke had infallible judgement came from I have no idea. Luke's bad judgement is the centerpiece of the second half of "The Empire Strikes Back".
    Not only that, Obi-wan displayed almost the exact same bad judgement with Aniken. To me that was a well written bit of irony. Most of the Jedi had flaws (including Yoda). That's what makes Star Wars interesting imho.

    Incidentally I had no problem with the all female cast of the new Ghostbusters but I thought it was a movie that didn't need to be made. It paled in comparison to the original. The original is a classic that I don't believe is dated at all. My 10 year old daughter liked both movies though.

    The remake of The Thing was weirder to me with the female lead because there were no female characters whatsoever in the 1982 film, the 1950's film or the book. She looked very out of place to me in that context. I still enjoyed it but it was a tad annoying...
Sign In or Register to comment.

2024 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2024 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.