Live data from Hacker News

Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

stephenfollows.com

361–370 of 421 posts

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#361
The people rating movies on IMDB are not average audience members though. They are movie geeks and enthusiasts. But compared to professional critics, there is a significant difference because they still pre-select moves to watch based what they think they will enjoy. A movie enthusiast might have seen all science-fiction movies in existence but never a french new-wave movie. The professional critic on the other hand will watch a broader range of different movies, and probably a lot more older movies.

Younger people goes a lot more to the movies, so the average critic will probably be notably older than then average movie audience member.

Critics tend to be negative towards remakes because "this is unnecessary, the original was better". But most in the audience haven't seen the original so it doesn't matter to them.

Critics tend to hate formulaic and derivative movies, but for the audience it is not that bad, they haven't seen the formula enough time to get bored by it. Fans loved The Force Awakens because it was exactly the same formula as the original Star Wars. Critics were less enthusiastic.

Critics tend to value originality more than the average audience. Hollywood have always been formulaic and rehashed old ideas, but they have still been able to make great movies. But the current movies relies on franchises to a larger extent, and the franchises put hard constraints on the amount of originality and character development which can be allowed.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#362
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am getting your point, you are basically positing that critics are inherently disconnected for different reasons and we should see them as some fringe freaks more than anything ? PS: to put it out there, there’s people working at beer makers tasting beer samples every single day to check it is exactly the right taste. Ideally every day it has the same taste, if it differs they’ll do what’s needed to bring it bac…

> If I am getting your point, you are basically positing that critics are inherently disconnected for different reasons and we should see them as some fringe freaks more than anything ? They are writing for different audiences. That does not make them "freaks". And their audience is more biased toward a.) those more deeply interested in movies b.) those seeking out of mainstream weirder things. People only casually i…

Historically, aggregated mass scores weren’t really possible until social media, so one could argue that being a movie critic was something that had a pre-Twitter value that may have since changed.

Box-office receipts kind of correlate with this, but take a while to shake out, and sometimes what does and does not succeed at the box office is a matter of timing and chance.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#363

General population has terrible taste, movie studios are now buying fake audience reviews to pump the ratings, they also buy critics but I assume they've always done that. Pretty hard to argue that critics are out of touch when the general population votes Avengers: Infinity War a top 10 movie of all time when it's released.

Infinity war if not in top 10, but is a very entertaining, well made action flick which deserves to be rated high. Probably one of the best action movies in the 2-3 decades.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#364
People who usually go to imdb for ratings should check out letterboxd too. The crowd is usually obnoxious, woke, hipsters, who write memes as reviews. But the lists they make are usually of high quality and the number ratings quite appropriate. I watched a lot of not so popular movies which was recommended and it was actually good. The interface is 100x better than imdb's crappy ad pested site. Movies on Imdb gets review bombed frequently. So i have completely switched to letterboxd for seeing reviews and deciding what to watch.

Tldr: Ditched imdb in favour of letterboxd. Great user interface, obnoxious users, great user made movie lists.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#365
Yes, absolutely. From Rotten:

Mulan - Critics: 73 - Audience: 47

The Last Jedi - Critics: 91 - Audience: 42

Captain Marvel - Critics: 79 - Audience: 45

It's clear that audiences - and you can read this as "people who like movies and are willing to leave a review" - and critics are miles apart. This prompts the common retort: "so what?" I continue to argue that the purpose of movie critics, for many decades, has been to tell the broad audience if they will like the movie. That's it. It has not been to, for example, critically deconstruct the abstract themes of power dynamics in inequitable social system. This kind of analysis appeals to a small minority of viewers. It has its place, but it should not be the majority of critics using this kind of lens, which it is.

This leads us to today, where critic reviews are functionally useless for the broad audience. Said movie minority are of course very happy with the entire critic industry catering to their needs, and they argue vociferously to keep it this way, using all kinds of condescending arguments about our lack of culture and refinement. Sometimes I just want to see cool explosions and fight scenes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#366
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I recall one movie with a director's commentary track. It was full of each of the actors saying their bit about the movie. Everyone (including the dog) casually concluded with he/she had to sleep with the director to get the part. Another one where the commentary track was better than the flick. Wait you’re not going to tell us what movies these were? Also I assume in the first example they were kidding? Or the dir…

I thought the movie was "Kids", but I looked it up and that wasn't it. But it was a movie about teens in the 1990s. Of course they were kidding. Dogs can't talk, for example. Eddie Muller has commentaries on Film Noir dvds I've gotten from Netflix. Angel Face is an example. Google produced a list: https://www.eddiemuller.com/completelist.html Enjoy!

Thanks. In my defense I knew for certain you were kidding about the dogs, but… some weird shit happens in Hollywood that goes undocumented for generations and it’s striking when these things surface publicly.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#367
post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to people who watch thousands upon thousands of movies this gets astoundingly boring. I would say that there's so many different ways to appreciate films, so many different types of audiences, and such wildly different intentions behind the films and the critics who write about them. It seems reductive and a bit misguided, to me, for someone to write an article about the divergence between metascore and imdb ra…

You're not totally wrong. But if I want to quickly decide if a movie is worth watching, looking up its IMDB score is a blunt but fairly decent instrument. I'm not going to read reviews of 10 movies, usually. Personally, I most enjoy watching reviews after I've seen a movie anyway, to get a critic's take on the movie I enjoyed (or didn't).

Before it got killed by Amazon, one of the best things about LoveFilm was that it showed the distribution of user scores for each movie. For many movies the distribution was normal (peak in the middle) and those movies were usually "OK" ... but the interesting ones were the "marmite" movies with lots of 0s and 5s. Both sets would have the same average score, but you could gamble on the marmite ones and maybe get a great movie with a 3 average.

(I also try to avoid reviews before watching)

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#370
I follow simple rule - don't watch anything under 7/10 on IMDb (with less than 500-1K votes) - to save my time and then I still choose mostly movies I like.

This obviously doesn't work for Indian movies where users patriotically rate even crap movies way higher and have tons of votes because of size of Indian population, never seen such problem with movies from any other country (consistently I have to say, if I choose Iranian movie with good rating it's almost guaranteed it's not overrated, same can't be said about other countries, maybe Scandinavian movies to some extent are usually not very overrated unlike IN/US/KO production, Japanese have very few votes so it's hit or miss if you rely on lower number of votes).

After watching thousands of movies in recent decades I came to conclusion 7/10 it's sweetspot dividing mediocrity from decent movies on IMDb, though it doesn't mean you won't find bad movies rated higher than 7, but it's extremely unlikely to find good movie underrated under 7 from few exemptions I ocassionally try, if the movie looks really interesting.

Post reply on HN