Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

stephenfollows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 421 posts

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#271

Post by switchbak »

asciimov wrote: post #248

The average of film critics shouldn't be in sync with the average of audiences, and that is okay! Critics watch movies from a different perspective of an audience member. Some really get pulled in by the technical details of the film while others are drawn to the story. Meanwhile the average movie goer's sole concern is entertainment. The best way to use movie critics is like a discovery service. Find several (4 or 5…

There's times when I want to know the inside-baseball angle of a film, that can be really interesting, but those times are rare for me (and most people, I'd wager).

When critics diverge so far from the role of answering the question "what's a movie I would enjoy" then no, they're not doing their job. I'm not sure exactly what job they're doing now, but I'd say by and large they aren't doing anything I'm interested in.

That's like having a tourist blog that only talks about places that other tourist blogs like to blog about but not places people want to visit! Not useful for the (assumed) intended audience.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#272

Post by boh »

I don't think it's too controversial to admit how irrelevant professional film critics have become. Being contradictory may be an attempt to gain some attention. I often see "hot takes" from critics where they diminish a massively acknowledged classic (like The Godfather) and praise what was traditionally considered low brow (Weekend at Bernie's). Film critics have to operate in the same clickbait-y environment like any other columnist. I think this divergence from the audience is just their version of sensationalism.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#273

Post by majormajor »

humanrebar wrote: post #242
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #207

No, I don't think so. I think they get it largely right. How many reviews of movies have you seen from a senior, experienced reviewer got a film really totally wrong? I don't mean "hated a movie that genre fans will like", or "dunked on a trashy movie", because in almost all cases those reviews acknowledge their biases and even the people who like that sort of thing will get the picture. I mean: really wrong. In rece…

Movie critics tend to give mediocre movies a bump when they like the message or think it otherwise is politically desirable. Similarly, critics tend to downplay movies that have a more... blue collar?... appeal, no matter the artistry or purpose of the film. For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of acti…

> For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of action film.

I wouldn't be surprised if 41% of the general population didn't much like Taken either. I've never had a desire to watch it a second time, for instance, which places it pretty far down my personal list of movies I've seen.

So you can think it's "too blue collar" or whatever, or you can think "it's a subgenre, so broad appeal isn't expected" and you could then argue about how movies without universal appeal should be reviewed, but jumping straight to "they don't like it cause damn blue state liberals" or somesuch seems like a stretch.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#275

Post by crossroadsguy »

A lot of the established ones (the ones whose full time job is reviewing films; hopefully after watching them fully) are deliberately and often needlessly contrarian.

And then there are the “forced” art filmmakers. The kind who wanted to make an art film since the day zero of film school. An “art” film for sure. No conviction, no original idea (if any idea at all), no coherence (that’s actually a recipe now), definitely no story. Shoddy camera work becomes experimental cinematography, bad acting is termed as realistically absurd way of channelling the character. And that’s what they actually make - not a film, but an art film. Film festivals love such films - it should just check more than few boxes of weird.

These two kinds often complement each other.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#278

Post by Aunche »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #149
cbozeman wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes hear this, but I disagree. If you're 40 years old, you need to be able to consume any kind of media and then place yourself into the mindset of a younger person and judge it from that mindset - because you used to be that younger person. Truly exceptional media is good enough to transcend the age barrier and is enjoyable for everyone, e.g., The Incredibles is enjoyable for young kids because it's a cartoo…

The funny thing is that games used to be FAR more punishing than they are today. Give an 8 year old (or hell, a 16 year old for that matter) Super Mario Bros. Watch their reaction when they get to World 1-3 or something and then lose all of their lives and realize that the game doesn't care, they have to start ALL the way from the beginning. Compare that to Elden Ring, which has difficult boss fights but otherwise is…

I don't think Super Mario Bros was ever considered particularly difficult or punishing at the time. It was just designed for an audience that had less access to videogames. They'd rather repeat the same levels with the prospect of seeing a new one than breeze through the game they paid $25 for ($60 in today's money) in 2 hours.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#279

Post by HighChaparral »

elil17 wrote: post #255
monkeybutton wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I would say user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes skews more towards film nerds and IMDb is the more everyday sort of person. Between the two platforms there's a disconnect in users' preferences.

I’d agree, but I think both are very far away from the typical person, who does not post online reviews at all. Maybe the difference isn’t film nerd vs. not, but I’d wager there’s a big difference between an IMDB reviewer and a randomly sampled person.

This was my reaction to the article also - the base assumption that the relatively tiny group of audience members who rate films on imdb are statistically representative of the audience at large needs to be proven first.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#280

Post by julienchastang »

bluenose69 wrote: post #249

Others have said they miss Ebert. I'm certainly in that club. I haven't paid much attention to film reviews since Ebert died. Sure, he gave scores, but they were not the point. I read his reviews because they helped me to explore my own thoughts about the films. It's the same reason I enjoy chatting with friends about films, books, art, etc. Scoring is not the point. Agreement is not the desired outcome. Oftentimes,…

Ebert wrote beautifully. I was lucky enough to have met him once or twice at book signing events here in Boulder. He was a regular at the Conference on World Affairs dissecting movies one shot at a time. I attended all of his "Cinema Interruptus" for Mulholland Drive, La Dolce Vita, (no small commitment actually) and a few others. On top of it, Ebert was a kind, good human. I also miss Ebert. Check out his "Great Movies" book series if you can.
Post reply on HN