movies/tv WTF is wrong with movie critics?

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, n1029 said:

 

I'm not sure if there is a way for me to be nicer on this subject while still having any hope of being persuasive. The "critics are useless" rhetoric has existed for as long as I can remember and the original post of this thread (along with the ensuing replies) seemed like more of that groan inducing boilerplate often used by defensive fanboys when they don't like their movies getting trashed. I feel like this mentality has played a major role in the "toxic fan" culture that has become a huge problem on social media today, and it's not one that's easily addressed with cold hard facts alone. I could go on and on about all the movies critics and audiences have in fact been in agreement on recently, but i suspect that it'd just be met with more cherry picked exceptions or vague strawman anecdotes. This issue really is a lot more about personal insecurities with tastes in art than in how "useful" film critics are, and I don't think there is a non condescending way to point that out.

 

If you're going to lump all your opposition into one group and respond to each of them as they all support the same thing with no differences in nuances then you're not going to persuade anyone anyway.

[n1029 224]

Well, I did try to go with the "indies need them" approach which is definitely true and addresses your premise that studios don't care about them, but you just dismissed that too.

[ChB 18,532]

On 2/17/2019 at 8:12 PM, KillerKingBakudan said:

Almost every movie I've seen in the last few years has gotten trashed by these people for reasons that are either devoid of any coherence, or just carelessly stupid, because their reputation is supposed to make the general audiences' opinions null and void.

If I may ask, what are some of those movies that deserve higher ratings than what the critics gave them. (Others may respond to this, as well.) 

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

On 3/22/2019 at 4:52 PM, n1029 said:

 

I'm not sure if there is a way for me to be nicer on this subject while still having any hope of being persuasive. The "critics are useless" rhetoric has existed for as long as I can remember and the original post of this thread (along with the ensuing replies) seemed like more of that groan inducing boilerplate often used by defensive fanboys when they don't like their movies getting trashed. I feel like this mentality has played a major role in the "toxic fan" culture that has become a huge problem on social media today, and it's not one that's easily addressed with cold hard facts alone. I could go on and on about all the movies critics and audiences have in fact been in agreement on recently, but i suspect that it'd just be met with more cherry picked exceptions or vague strawman anecdotes. This issue really is a lot more about personal insecurities with tastes in art than in how "useful" film critics are, and I don't think there is a non condescending way to point that out.

 

Toxic? Lol. That's a popular term with SJWs these days. Particularly with those that hijacked the entertainment industry, and their own fanboys.

I don't mind if a critic dislikes a movie that I liked if they're being sincere about it, but a lot of them haven't been putting any substance into negative reviews. To suggest there hasn't been a growing pattern of this in recent years is incredibly naïve.

Does "early access media" ring any bells? If this isn't clear evidence of shilling, I don't know what is.
 

On 3/24/2019 at 2:30 PM, ChB said:

If I may ask, what are some of those movies that deserve higher ratings than what the critics gave them. (Others may respond to this, as well.) 

Alita: Battle Angel, for one. The only reason this has been getting so much flak as of late is because it's seen as a direct competitor to Captain Marvel. Even though it has a high audience rating and just managed to hit the sequel mark at the box office, we still have jackasses like Scott Mendelson trying to downplay its success. Then there's the SJW attacks. The complaining from idiots about the character being "over-sexualized" are highly suspect, especially after insider leaks of Kevin Feige giving Brie Larson's flat ass a butt double.  

There's also the MLP movie. I personally didn't care for it myself, but even I have to admit it's not the huge dumpster fire that critics made it out to be. Peter Travers immediately comes to mind as a disgrace. He didn't give this a fair assessment at all; his review just boiled down to how much he hated MLP as a franchise, and excessive puns made in some vain attempt to make his bashing sound humorous.

Warcraft wasn't that bad. Even though it didn't leave much in the way of exposition for casual audiences, the story telling was decent enough and it wasn't bogged down by repetitive action sequences. I actually liked the fighting from the third act a lot better than the Wakanda scene from Infinity War. Not that it would really matter in the end though. Because it carries that stigma of being a "video game movie", it would never be given a fair chance no matter how much effort Blizzard put into it.
 

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,410]

As a general rule, if a movie critic hates a movie, it’s probably good or at least passable. Sometimes they’re correct but...

[OG CHUCK 64]

I never neede critic to tell me was a good movie or bad mlp was a great movie beside rotten tomato score and many oders

[Castle Bleck 19,166]

@OG CHUCK

Given its Audience Score (77%) versus its Tomatometer (48%), it's hard to disagree with you.

[OG CHUCK 64]

14 minutes ago, A.V. said:

@OG CHUCK

Given its Audience Score (77%) versus its Tomatometer (48%), it's hard to disagree with you.

that prove my point

[ChB 18,532]

2 hours ago, KillerKingBakudan said:

 

On 3/24/2019 at 2:30 PM, ChB said:

If I may ask, what are some of those movies that deserve higher ratings than what the critics gave them. (Others may respond to this, as well.) 

Alita: Battle Angel, for one. The only reason this has been getting so much flak as of late is because it's seen as a direct competitor to Captain Marvel. Even though it has a high audience rating and just managed to hit the sequel mark at the box office, we still have jackasses like Scott Mendelson trying to downplay its success. Then there's the SJW attacks. The complaining from idiots about the character being "over-sexualized" are highly suspect, especially after insider leaks of Kevin Feige giving Brie Larson's flat ass a butt double.  

There's also the MLP movie. I personally didn't care for it myself, but even I have to admit it's not the huge dumpster fire that critics made it out to be. Peter Travers immediately comes to mind as a disgrace. He didn't give this a fair assessment at all; his review just boiled down to how much he hated MLP as a franchise, and excessive puns made in some vain attempt to make his bashing sound humorous.

Warcraft wasn't that bad. Even though it didn't leave much in the way of exposition for casual audiences, the story telling was decent enough and it wasn't bogged down by repetitive action sequences. I actually liked the fighting from the third act a lot better than the Wakanda scene from Infinity War. Not that it would really matter in the end though. Because it carries that stigma of being a "video game movie", it would never be given a fair chance no matter how much effort Blizzard put into it.
 

Thanks for the reply! I never heard of Alita: Battle Angel, but now that I have, I might give it a chance.

I agree with you about the MLP movie. I haven't read and cannot find Peter Traver's review, but I have read a bad review by Michael Rechtshaffen. Like what you said about Traver, he doesn't actually explain why the movie is bad, other than "oh...it's a movie about ponies..."

[KillerKingBakudan 702]

11 hours ago, ChB said:

Thanks for the reply! I never heard of Alita: Battle Angel, but now that I have, I might give it a chance.

I agree with you about the MLP movie. I haven't read and cannot find Peter Traver's review, but I have read a bad review by Michael Rechtshaffen. Like what you said about Traver, he doesn't actually explain why the movie is bad, other than "oh...it's a movie about ponies..."

They've already started pulling Alita out of theaters in the US, so if you can still find it playing in your area, you should definitely see it. It's unquestionably the best live-action film ever made based on a manga. Plus it's directed by Robert Rodriguez and written by James Cameron. Cameron has a proven track record of writing strong female leads, and Alita is no exception. Which is another reason media shills and SJWs are slandering this movie as sexist. It goes against this bullshit narrative they're trying to push with garbage like Captain Marvel. You can craft stories with strong heroines without trying to demonize men, or mocking their masculinity.

Edited March 27, 2019 by KillerKingBakudan

[KatonRyu 1,026]

I figure critics pay more attention to individual facets of a movie and then use that to form a complete picture of the movie. For instance, they might put a lot of stock in how well the actors portray their roles, or how well-made the sets look, or if the editing has been done well or not. I'd also expect a critic to compare a movie against others in its genre to see how it stacks up to them.

The casual moviegoer, on the other hand, is much more likely to view the entire film as a whole, and judge it by simply asking themselves if they found it enjoyable or not. I've enjoyed movies which were horribly made, with wooden acting and plot holes the size of planets, and I've hated well-crafted films, and I don't always have good reasons for them. For instance, I despise Chicago (85% on Rotten Tomatoes) because I hate literally every single character in it. That alone makes me ignore every other facet of the movie, the point that I remember nothing else about it, just a jail cell and pure hatred.

[ChB 18,532]

8 minutes ago, KatonRyu said:

I figure critics pay more attention to individual facets of a movie and then use that to form a complete picture of the movie. For instance, they might put a lot of stock in how well the actors portray their roles, or how well-made the sets look, or if the editing has been done well or not. I'd also expect a critic to compare a movie against others in its genre to see how it stacks up to them.

The casual moviegoer, on the other hand, is much more likely to view the entire film as a whole, and judge it by simply asking themselves if they found it enjoyable or not. I've enjoyed movies which were horribly made, with wooden acting and plot holes the size of planets, and I've hated well-crafted films, and I don't always have good reasons for them. For instance, I despise Chicago (85% on Rotten Tomatoes) because I hate literally every single character in it. That alone makes me ignore every other facet of the movie, the point that I remember nothing else about it, just a jail cell and pure hatred.

Well said. 

I think it must also be noted that critics have seen many, many more movies than the average viewer. Imagine if you had to watch hundreds of movie per year and write reviews for all of them. Chances are that you’re going to find a lot of repetition in movie tropes that the average viewer may not be aware of. What some viewers consider novel or original may be considered generic to critics.

[Misty Shadow 7,084]

I'm sure most people do not need any more proof of what a hack site Rotten Tomatoes is now...but whatever, I'm a jerk who needs to rub in the fact that he was right and this is hilarious. 

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

https://pluralist.com/aoc-movie-gets-100-rotten-tomatoes-rating-but-the-audience-score-says-it-all/

[Misty Shadow 7,084]

There are only nine critic reviews of Dave Chappelle's Sticks and Stones Netflix special in contrast to over 11,000 audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. 

If you want to argue with me that the reason so few critics are reviewing this despite the fact that it was watched by so many people is anything other than the "moral dilemma" they face with going against the PC narrative...well, shoot.