n1029

Dunno how you draw that conclusion. All I can say is they're still relevant, and will continue to be as long as there are still non-big franchise movies being made (which I certainly hope is the case)

Social media obviously makes GA opinions more visible now, but studios know that; and they work to control that narrative in promoting movies by using bots and gussying up hype machine blogs with special screenings and gifts in exchange for positive reactions. In that sense critics do still matter because they are the closest thing to a "neutral" voice around the time the movie is released. Audience reactions usually take a couple weeks after release to get an accurate read on because rush viewers are caught up in the novelty haze (related to the stages of grief where they're conflicted between what they want to think and what they really think). And despite all the vague denials of this fact, critics and audiences do eventually tend to be on the same page. Also when it comes to new properties and indie movies screening at film festivals and such, good critical buzz is absolutely essential for their commercial prospects. That's generally the only way major distributors will pick them up and give them a decent promotional campaign and theatrical engagement.

Show me a film critic that was always "objective" yet still remained a well known and entertaining writer. I guarantee you wouldn't have to look very far in the Ebert archives to see him get emotional. Heck, some of his most famous reviews were the ones where he couldn't keep his composure. "Objectivity" in movie reviews is a mythical concept used as a way to reframe your personal disagreement as what the "truth" is. Even if critics did somehow achieve it, would it really do anything to satisfy the audiences who disagree with them? No one likes being told their feelings on art are "wrong". Movies aren't criminal law, you're allowed to feel about them how you want to, whether you get paid for expressing those feelings or not.

Ahem... CRITICS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! That is both psychologically impossible for a human being assessing a work of art and not the aim of film criticism in the slightest. There may be certain qualities of art that many agree make it good, but that does not mean everyone has to evaluate it on those terms. The goal of film criticism is to have a unique and interesting perspective that makes your views worth reading; whether people agree with your assessment or not. It is not yours or anyone else's place to say critics (or anyone else) are holding back their true feelings on a movie. No one really knows how they think besides themselves. All these eyeroll inducing hivemind theories like they're all being bribed or being pressured by the PC police, but they're really just human beings who see a lot of movies and get paid to write about them.

Semantics. Point is non critics can be stupid too. They're no less "unreliable" than you all like to say critics are.

Do you have real evidence of this that doesn't just involve liking/hating movies you don't? They're at least more honest than that campaign to downvote Captain Marvel before it even released that was the reason the audience reviews got removed. (And I didn't even like that movie either)

That's if you're asked directly. This is an open thread that isn't demanding a response. I've become real savvy about the way fan communities work from years of patronizing film sites. Everyone hangs on film critics' every word when they're loving their movie, but they look for any dirt to discredit the critics when they're not.

Call it disrespectful if you want, but as a rule the people who really don't care about something don't feel the need to announce it. Most of the biggest earning blockbusters have at least decent reviews with a few exceptions, but I see critics as more of a distillation of the public reaction to films than a force that controls what they decide to see. If they like a movie, chances are the audience it's aimed at will like it too. The vice versa is true too eventually once the need for saving face wears off.

Mainstream fashion has reached a peak balance between aesthetics and practicality. Think the only way things are going to change from here on out is via technological advancement; ie clothes that can be adapted to the weather.