Poll: Are movie critics out of touch with what people want to see?

[Blatherscythe]

Remember critics loved No Country for Old Men? Well my parents were telling me about it and it sucked they said it did everyone they went with said it sucked and critics raved about how good it was.

 

[Thaius]

Some critics just suck at that. I mean, District 9 didn't win a single academy award this year. Screw those guys and their stuffy superiority complexes. But at the same time, take a look at what people want in movies. Most men want stupid, unintelligent movies with lots of sex and violence, and as long as it delivers on those grounds they don't care how good the movie is. Most women want stupid, unintelligent movies where a guy and a girl fall in love, and as long as it has that basic formula it doesn't matter how derivative or cheesy the movie is. In a world where movie critics agree with the masses... all hope for film as an artistic storytelling medium is lost.

 

[GodKlown]

I don't frequent the movie theaters very often. Not really because I am openly cheap jerk, but because I never see enough about a movie before deciding to want to see it. I've fallen on to MovieBob to give me more info without ruining a movie for me, and at least you know he doesn't work with an agenda.
But the old standbys and local movie critics often stink. They want to pick these odd artsy-fartsy movies from foreign countries that require a lot of information beforehand about the back story of said movie before watching it. I can't say that Siskel or Ebert ever convinced me to watch a single movie based on their review. I would watch At The Movies to see a halfway decent length trailer for an upcoming movie (before the advent of the internet) and listen to them prattle on and on about the artistic touches and nature of some movie that never got released in general movie theaters in America. Some of the movies they talked about I have never heard of again... so much for getting a great review on your obscure movie.

Sometimes I have to wonder what movie these "critics" were watching after seeing a movie they reviewed and reading their comments. But people can be so unpredictable with their interests that it is just a sham all around.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Movie Critics are just the same as Game Reviewers to me people who are paid to give their own opinion on the hottest movie sometimes it's tripe and rubbish. I have my own opinion and don't need someone else telling me what i should watch.

 

[Newfie]

See, the issue there in lies, is that a movie critic and the average person judge a film on very different degrees of merit. Where a large portion of the film going public enjoys what Hollywood calls "High Concept" film, and it haves something for everyone. Critics on the other hand are looking for something intelligent, something with deeper meaning from the story, and something spectacular done to cinema as an art form. The same can be applied to any art form. Do you ever wonder why a book like War and Peace is only liked by critics? Because it doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, it is the top of its class so people usually can't relate, and the same can be applied to film.

 

[Cody211282]

Maybe you just like "shitty movies"?

Maybe the movie critics are out of touch with what you "want to see"?

That might be very true, but they are also out of touch with what my friend and family want to see as well to the point that I don't know one person who still cares what they say, and from twhat I can tell that means they sorta fail at their jobs.

Since your friends and family constitute the entire global viewing public.

They are really the only people in the global public who's opinion matter to me, I could go out and poll random people next to the theater if you like but I thought this would be easier to see if people felt the same way I did, and it seems so far they do

I don't believe you.

what that I don't care or that people are mostly agreeing with me, because the poll says they are at 13 yes to 6 no at the moment, but I'm a bit lost at what your saying you don't believe

I don't belive you.

Where's the " I don't give a fuck about what the critics think, art is subjective and therefore the goodness of it to me can only be evaluated on my terms" option? I choose that one.

so you don't believe what now?

 

[Toriver]

See, the issue there in lies, is that a movie critic and the average person judge a film on very different degrees of merit. Where a large portion of the film going public enjoys what Hollywood calls "High Concept" film, and it haves something for everyone. Critics on the other hand are looking for something intelligent, something with deeper meaning from the story, and something spectacular done to cinema as an art form. The same can be applied to any art form. Do you ever wonder why a book like War and Peace is only liked by critics? Because it doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, it is the top of its class so people usually can't relate, and the same can be applied to film.

QFT: That's a good portion of what I was trying to say in my above post, but done more concisely. Nice.

EDIT: Ignore that, I saw your post count without seeing when you actually signed up, sorry.

 

[Plurralbles]

Remember critics loved No Country for Old Men? Well my parents were telling me about it and it sucked they said it did everyone they went with said it sucked and critics raved about how good it was.

but... I loved it. The ending, which most people despise when considering the demographic of haters, I thought was really awesome and exactly what the point of the movie was about.

Oh and... pressurized death devices and a silenced shotgun and a guy who blows up a car to get medication for a gunshot wound is complete bad assery. He was my favorite villain of the year. Eh, wait, that might not be true, as I liked the Joker better from TDK.

 

[Chewster]

Those sites are aggregate, which ignores the intricacies of each review, instead boiling it down to an either "yay" or "nay", or, with MetaCritic, a number, which never does any film any degree of justice, so I'd take both sites with a grain of salt. Numeric reviews are often suspect anyway (as has been pointed out by Yahtzee, how does one boil a complex opinion down to simple math?) but if they were not included, the reviews would be impossible to market since people need to hear something concrete before they will decide on something anyway.

Besides of which, the entire film industry is set up for self-promotion. Sure, some films get bad reviews in an effort to keep people placated and give the impression of objectivity, but frankly, the majority of reviews just seem like self-promotion vehicles, paid for by the film industry. Clearly some publications are most suspect then others, but still.

The best you can hope for is to know what you like in films, read several reviews (positive and negative, ignoring the final scores) and see if what is mentioned is what you look for in the medium.

 

[Mythbhavd]

No, the movie critics aren't out of touch with what people want to see. They just see so much of it, that they're bored to tears with what the people want to see. I don't know if there is an original movie idea out there anymore, but if there is, for every one that comes about, there are 100 that fit a mold. Some fit the mold better than others. People want to see the same type of stories over and over. We pay our cash, go in and see a movie that fits our idea of a good movie and come out pleased. However, the critics must sit through hundreds of these things. Yes, they get paid to do it, but it also builds up callouses to what they're seeing. So, when something that is unusual comes along, it stands out to them as interesting or good because it is actually different from the last 99 samey movies they've seen. This also means that it's usually not something that the general public will embrace as a great movie. So, I think the honest critics try to remember what it is that the public enjoys and review accordingly, while always looking out for that thing that will catch his and her attention and remind them of why they are watching all of these movies.

I agree that good original movies are extremely hard to come by, last one I saw was probably Moon, but what I have noticed in most critics are that they tend to hate something even if its good just because something like it has been done before.

I'd say it's just that. We like it, because it fits our idea of a good movie. They don't like it, because they've seen it done over and over again with nothing to make this one out against all of the rest.

 

[Cody211282]

Some critics just suck at that. I mean, District 9 didn't win a single academy award this year. Screw those guys and their stuffy superiority complexes. But at the same time, take a look at what people want in movies. Most men want stupid, unintelligent movies with lots of sex and violence, and as long as it delivers on those grounds they don't care how good the movie is. Most women want stupid, unintelligent movies where a guy and a girl fall in love, and as long as it has that basic formula it doesn't matter how derivative or cheesy the movie is. In a world where movie critics agree with the masses... all hope for film as an artistic storytelling medium is lost.

True, I thought District 9 was a great movie that should have gotten an award, but then again I think the Oscars are useless and the only reason they are on is to make people in Hollywood feel good about themselves. I usually like movies with a good story but that is still fun to watch, I haven't seen to may movies that can balance the two out(best one was probably The Great Escape) and I would rather have a fun time watching a stupid movie then a boring time watching a smart movie, so that might be why I don't agree with critics alot.

 

[Cody211282]

No, the movie critics aren't out of touch with what people want to see. They just see so much of it, that they're bored to tears with what the people want to see. I don't know if there is an original movie idea out there anymore, but if there is, for every one that comes about, there are 100 that fit a mold. Some fit the mold better than others. People want to see the same type of stories over and over. We pay our cash, go in and see a movie that fits our idea of a good movie and come out pleased. However, the critics must sit through hundreds of these things. Yes, they get paid to do it, but it also builds up callouses to what they're seeing. So, when something that is unusual comes along, it stands out to them as interesting or good because it is actually different from the last 99 samey movies they've seen. This also means that it's usually not something that the general public will embrace as a great movie. So, I think the honest critics try to remember what it is that the public enjoys and review accordingly, while always looking out for that thing that will catch his and her attention and remind them of why they are watching all of these movies.

I agree that good original movies are extremely hard to come by, last one I saw was probably Moon, but what I have noticed in most critics are that they tend to hate something even if its good just because something like it has been done before.

I'd say it's just that. We like it, because it fits our idea of a good movie. They don't like it, because they've seen it done over and over again with nothing to make this one out against all of the rest.

I can get were they are coming from with that but the problem is why never take into account that most people don't go out and see that many movies, so even if they have seen it before it probably has a new spin or it's been a long time since they have seen something like that, maybe if they were to take that into account it might be better, and that's usually the reason why user reviews are better then pro reviews.

 

[Zersy]

Critics are useless for movies. Just look at movie bob, I only watch him for either to see how many bad points he can make about a movie or just for fun.

In the end it's all opinion. Game critics are fine most of the time though

 

[Cody211282]

Critics are useless for movies. Just look at movie bob, I only watch him for either to see how many bad points he can make about a movie or just for fun.

In the end it's all opinion. Game critics are fine most of the time though

Ive noticed its a bit easier to rate a game because alot of it is does it work, how does it handle, how bad are the bugs, is it honorably broken, if you can make the game and make it solid then you will get a decent review (for me is about 7/10) the rest is usually how much they fine tuned it and if they liked the story. And as for Movie Bob, I stopped caring after he spent 5 min raving about the bible in Book of Eli, I get it if you don't like it but he spent the entire time raving about something that wasn't that big of a deal in the movie, honestly he sounded like a bit of a lunatic.

 

[Tdc2182]

All you have to do is consider the source. I consider myself somewhat of a movie guy, yet also unfortunately easily swayed when someone tells me an opinion.

For instance, I thought Crank was boring as crap, and still dont get the big deal behind Pulp Fiction, despite QT being my favorite director. And I to this day, cannot watch The Godfather. It is the most boring thing that I can comprehend. Its almost painful to watch.

Edit: Could someone tell me if my avatar is moving? Its suppose to be a gif, but it wont move on my screen.

Edit 2: Actually, game critics are very untrustworthy. They will give high score to the hype, which is contrast to movie critics, who tend to absolutely have no idea what any one else thinks.

 

[Elexia]

99.9% of movies as well as games I really really like and thoroughly enjoy are always panned by critics and reviewers alike - except the average person on the street. I've ceased paying attention to critics or reviews I read/watch because my enjoyment is vastly contrary to theirs.

 

[Klarinette]

I tend to disagree with them a lot, so I don't normally bother checking who thinks what about different movies before seeing them. I also like to try and go in without any expectations; it's just another movie, with many possibilities.

And I to this day, cannot watch The Godfather.

Thank god there's someone else out there!!! I wasn't going to mention this unless someone else did first. (Yeah, I'm a wuss - step off.)

 

[NeuroticMarshmallow]

What exactly it is that people want to see? Pro Movie critics study film a bit more so they know the mechanics of what makes a movie work and the probability for it working for some people.So they may be a bit biased because they have seen more films. But of course there are films that just work regardless of these invisible "guidelines". Critics are just here to give you a taste of what you can expect. They don't tell us what we want to hear--rather they rather bluntly say what they thought. So I really don't know how they could be out of touch with the people. They still are people.

It depends, it seems today most critics (specially internet based nobodys) are after hits more than a qualified-well structured opinion. Take for example movie bob, its just me me me fuck fuck fuck...no real attempt at anything other than attention getting. So, they tend to follow along with whats in, if vitriol is in then thats what you get.

I apologize but how did you get to that conclusion? It seems to me that Movie-bob presents reasonable arguments to why he preferred a film or not. What makes him any more attention grubbing than any other critic?

 

[SilentVirus]

The purpose of a Critic is too inform others of what they thought of the movie. Usually the individual's opinion is trusted among the community. So if think something was bad doesn't really its bad for everyone else.