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

281–290 of 421 posts

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#281

Post by jdougan »

JadeNB wrote: post #266
cwkoss wrote: post #186

Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie. I think there has always been a fundamental disconnect, in that critics think the masses should be watching 'smarter', 'more artistic' or, less flatteringly, more pretentious movies. The world has become a lot more political over the past couple decades. I woul…

> Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. I think this really depends on the critics. Lots of critics never explicitly articulate a philosophy—or, if they do, I don't bother to seek it out—but, for one notable example, Roger Ebert explicitly subscribed to the philosophy that you should review a movie based on whether it achieves its goals, not on whether its goals are the same as you…

I miss Ebert. He never cheated and was clear as to which standard he was judging a movie by.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#282

Post by jwaterhouse »

My gut feel is that using IMDB users isn't a good stand in for the general audience. I would think they're a lot more "into" movies than most people, and this analysis is closer to comparing professional vs "non-professional" critics.

There's an old video that videogamedunkey where he talks about the relationship between a critic and reader. Critics (particularly of art/media) shouldn't be looked at as some objective judge of whatever it is their critiquing (even if that's what they're trying to be). Instead you need to build a "relationship" by reading/viewing their stuff to get an idea of their own likes/dislikes/biases.

For me I've gravitated to a few critics whose stuff I read pretty frequently. Even when I've already seen a movie I'll go and read their review afterwards to hear their thoughts on it. Whether I agree with it or not I think it enriches the movie going experience.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#283

Post by wnoise »

robbiep wrote: post #246
bananamerica wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a film major. I wrote about film on print for quite a while. This was not in the US. I did want to prescribe, but not to the masses. To other crítics, to the pedantic purists that thought Bruce Lee was unimportant and Spielberg formulaic and uninspired, and that unless your name is David Lynch anything American is worse by default. People who thought anything with emotion was trash for the masses. And I was there…

That’s an interesting take on the remake I hadn’t considered before. But as someone without an artsy bone in my body, I wish something other than superhero movies could be made

The vast majority of movies are still non-superhero movies.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#284

Post by freediver »

pc2g4d wrote: post #259

Film critic reviews are the Hacker News of the film world: nerds nerding out. I once went out with a woman who was highly steeped in film criticism and such. I think she volunteered as dramaturg at a theater company or something like that. We watched "I'm Thinking of Ending Things" together, and I thought it was the most dismal, dispiriting, horrible movie I'd ever seen. Afterward she opened my eyes to how a critic w…

> Film critic reviews are the Hacker News of the film world: nerds nerding out.

Thanks for making this observation, it applies to so many things.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#285

Post by bryanrasmussen »

JadeNB wrote: post #266
cwkoss wrote: post #186

Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie. I think there has always been a fundamental disconnect, in that critics think the masses should be watching 'smarter', 'more artistic' or, less flatteringly, more pretentious movies. The world has become a lot more political over the past couple decades. I woul…

> Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. I think this really depends on the critics. Lots of critics never explicitly articulate a philosophy—or, if they do, I don't bother to seek it out—but, for one notable example, Roger Ebert explicitly subscribed to the philosophy that you should review a movie based on whether it achieves its goals, not on whether its goals are the same as you…

Ok, but he did also penalize films for having bad goals. Case in point The Human Caterpillar.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#286

Post by michaelbrave »

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…

Most early console games had a heritage from arcades, which made more money if it was difficult but teased the chance of progress. So higher difficulty was more profitable, then when ported to console or when the same game designer designed for console it inhereted some of that. It was also more niche to be a gamer then, and those who did leaned more hardcore.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#287

Post by bko »

cwkoss wrote: post #186

Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie. I think there has always been a fundamental disconnect, in that critics think the masses should be watching 'smarter', 'more artistic' or, less flatteringly, more pretentious movies. The world has become a lot more political over the past couple decades. I woul…

I don't want a critic to tell me what I SHOULD be watching. I rely on them to tell me what I will like. I can't watch every movie, the movie critic is meant to be a filter.

Historically movie critics judged a film based on its relative value. That's why you see a positive review on a cheesy rom-com and a negative review on a more ambitious flawed work of art. The rom-com review is viewed in the context of other rom-coms. For a positive review, it's saying "if you like rom-coms and their premise, this rom-com is good". I want it to be more prescriptive to what I will actually think when I watch the movie.

Most people use movie reviews to tell them whether they'll like a movie given its genre. That's why people say "I trust this person's reviews". They mean if the critic says the movie is worth watching and I decide to watch it, I will not be disappointed

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#288

Post by WalterBright »

I'm old and have watched an awful lot of movies. They rarely impress me anymore. I tire of the same old stuff, like that same old hawk scream whenever there's a long shot of wilderness. There's the "guess the order in which the lesser characters die" trope. The final fight in the darkened warehouse. The bad guy is vanquished, but is restored for another battle. The hero's boss turns out to be the bad guy. The computer guy is always a pathetic nerd. The guy stalks his dream girl and wins her.

But enough of that. What I really dislike is the heavy-handed moral lessons that Hollywood elites insist that they need to teach us.

Chris Rock's rude joke and Will Smith's bitch slap shows that Hollywood is no better than the rest of us and has no particular business lecturing us on what we should believe and how we should behave. (To top it off, the Academy didn't even see fit to eject Smith from the premises, and still gave him an Oscar.)

There are some exceptions to the unending stream of tripe. "House of Cards" was good.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#289

Post by robbiep »

wnoise wrote: post #283
robbiep wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting take on the remake I hadn’t considered before. But as someone without an artsy bone in my body, I wish something other than superhero movies could be made

The vast majority of movies are still non-superhero movies.

You're right but it doesn't really feel that way (and I would think that as a percentage of spending, surely the superhero franchises have a fair fraction?)

It would be nice to see more new, original sci-fi and action. (but perhaps the other poster is on the money, and I am sure from a studio perspective it's easier to go with the tried and tested rather than out on a limb)

Post reply on HN