Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

You have critics saying things like

> "I recognized the humour in the film, but connected with none of it," O'Connell wrote in his review.

> "By rooting Turning Red very specifically in the Asian community of Toronto, the film legitimately feels like it was made for Domee Shi's friends and immediate family members. Which is fine — but also, a tad limiting in its scope."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/turning-red-review-pul...

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/12/1086040083/turning-red-contro...

For example there was an article making rounds about how of the Top40 most sold DC comics recently, Batman is in 37 of them.

Basically, Batman sells, other DC properties, not so much. Even Superman is struggling.

I have no idea why is that, but I suspect that is because most DC characters require too much skill to write well (for example superman is literally invincible and indestructible, the only conflict you can have in his stories are psychological, ethical, etc... ones. But instead crappier writers kept relying on the stupid kryptonite, because that is the only way to force Superman to have a not-boring action sequence if there are no psychological, ethical, sociological, etc... restraints).

You could have a first run movie in a movie theater that cost less than a few millions to make, and it had a shot of finding an audience. Movies could hang around for more than a couple of weeks because it didn't cost three digits to take a family to the theater and have a box of popcorn.

Now, if the movie doesn't make $900 billion by the end of the opening credits, it's yanked. Movie makers can't compete with major studios with tent pole IP for screen space, so they've taken their talents to streaming services like Neflix, or even YouTube.

There's also a communal aspect of movies in the US that's gone. Cultural touchstones aren't made in the movie theater anymore. It's all divided and subdivided by algorithms so the geeks and jocks (or greasers and socs, or Jets and Sharks) never have to mingle unless they make an effort. These days you can mix in a constant stream of ethnic and racial grievances about who is represented or not, or how much, or all the other social justice palaver that makes our current world so very lovely and livable.

Not only that, they are intensely competitive to heap praise on cool stuff and dump shit on stuff that's not "cool"

For example Crash one the best picture oscar in 2006. Its a shit film. Yes it talks about racism, and that perhaps the racist isn't that bad because he's got a sick dad. But still he can feel up a black woman though, thats allowed.

Its just such an unsatisfying movie.

near that time https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all... all these came out, and there are some genuinley entertaining movies in there. V for vendetta, The queen, casino royal

All sorts.

But the critics loved crash because it was "brave"

was it fuck. It was a mashed about script that barely survived the gazillion re-writes and "tweaks" from producers that have more money than sense.

In short, most critics should be ignored, and placed in the same bin that contains "film theorists"

As someone who was both forced to take a film theory module in uni, and then went to work in the movies for ten years, I can firmly tell you that film thoery is mostly wank

1) author theory. Nope, its a massive team effort, no such thing

2) Feminism in hollywood: there is none. there are like 6 female directors of rank, of which at least two are only there because of their dad. Most screen writers are male as well. Any female script will be "tightend" by a committee of men, you known to make it sell.