Is the current disconnect between critics and the viewing public the biggest it's been in history?

Is the current disconnect between critics and the viewing public the biggest it's been in history?

For another example of this she critics/public ratings of The Last Jedi and Bright. Or the fact the Ghostbusters remake was Certified Fresh.

It seems like the critical community has become completely separated from reality and gives good reviews over and over to complete garbage. I don't think they are paid for this, but a lot of it is probably done out of fear of these megacorps like Disney, and fear of being branded racist/sexist by giving a bad review.

I just don't see this being fixed any time soon.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/20/rotten-tomatoes-confirms-its-55-last-jedi-audience-score-is-100-authentic/#43251f854231
i.4cdn.org/tv/1514355529734.png
youtube.com/watch?v=Z0LR3cjLTeo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

jews

Kikes

Juden

SPY is also top rated for some reason

>Is the current disconnect between critics and the viewing public the biggest it's been in history?
Nah. It's always been like that. We've never trusted critics.

Is #MovieGate the next frontier in the culture war?

hooknoses

jews

heebs

critics are just paid shills user. Do you really think these mega industries with millions of dollars on the line would actually risk bad reviews and not do everything in their power to make sure they are marketed as good?

Yes. It's part of the overall polarization of society. See Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" for more.

Yids

2015 was the breaking point. It's all exposure from here on out.

I think that critics are easily tricked into thinking films are good when the technical aspects are competent. When the acting, effects, and visuals are well-mannered, they feel as if they're watching a good movie.
At least that's the only explanation I can think of in the case of The Last Jedi. I'm still perplexed how it got universal critical praise. Even besides the things Sup Forums focuses on, absolutely nothing about the film makes any sense, both in the sense of the logic of the story and the principles of storytelling.

It's just really, really, really easy to shill RT user scores. For good or for bad. Marketing fags have figured out how to do it. Shit posting trolls have figured out how to do it. And now script kiddies are getting in on the fun.

It is so easy, and now RT has a real credibility problem on their hands.

You just have to realize critics are a type of audience of their own

Sometimes they are too pretentious to understand what appeals to normies, and they can't evaluate established media with a fanbase like fans can.

Two camps.
Paid shills and unpaid shills
Then there's the absolute mouth-breathing plebeians

Caring about public opinion is a losing game. Don't do it.

>I trust reviews from the unwashed masses.

When will plebeians ever learn?

I hope so, another nail in the Hollywood corporate machine means that true artists will have less impediment to make true kino

Reviewers are so afraid of backlash now, they have to pander to films/TV series that have an obvious SJW agenda.
If something isn't considered PC, then they'll lay waste to it... if it's happy friendly bullshit where terms like "progressive" are thrown around, they rate it high because liberals in the media are ruthless and will castrate you.

This

Best example I've seen is hail caesar. It's extremely competent and well made but the plot is paper thin and it doesn't have a hook. There's literally zero reason for an audience to be engaged by that movie.

Easier to pay a couple dozen critics than thousands or millions of viewers.

>Sup Forums only cares about the audience score when it's high and the critic score is low
>Completely ignore all the Capeshit flicks and brainless action movies they claim are garbage that all get at least 80% audience score

Its obvious its rigged for some movies. Like would a studio continue invite to screenings if a critic continuously gives negative reviews? Like i wonder how it works for Armond White.

We live in a period which, thanks to Trump's election, has exposed the true colors of these politically charged Marxists who control and influence the course of human history.
Normies are waking up and have finally begun criticism their SJW overlords.
Libtards, in particular, have been retaliating by overpraising any film, book, music, TV show, or video game that glorifies Marxism in any way (AKA Liberalism), and they'll continue to push their ideals upon us until all of Western Civilization is engulfed under Communism.
What follows is dictatorship, forced globalism, and eventual but slow species extinction.

>Paid shills and unpaid shills
Bingo.

And this is why you can't trust RT user reviews.

This. That's the problem with aggregate sites like RT. For a Critic to be of any use to you, you have to find one that you agree with on most films. If you try and get a collective opinion, you get stuck with opinions from The New Yorker, and Vanity Fair, who probably don't like the same kinds of movies as you, factored in.

You are all wrong, it is clearly...
Niggers

how the fuck is someone supposed to know if something is good without watching it all the reviewers are paid off and all of the audience members would watch 2 hours of explosions

Anyone defending user reviews obviously hasn't spent hours face-palming reading them and only jacks off to the numbers that pander self-interest.

If you want to turn your brain into flesh pudding go read user reviews.

they haven't figured out shit. JUSTice league was rightfully shit on

the last jedi is a shit movie though.

> I think that critics are easily tricked into thinking films are good when the technical aspects are competent. When the acting, effects, and visuals are well-mannered, they feel as if they're watching a good movie.
this user has it right. normie audiences who think they "get" film fall into this category too. but they're just surfacefags who don't truly understand film. TLJ is hackery by studio exec, in this case kennedy having RJ doing her bidding

Why does anyone use this tomato site? IMDB is far superior.

RT audience reviewers aren't the lowest common denominator. They at least care what they themselves think about movies. I find them pretty reliable.

Though the best cases are where critics and the audience agree.

When there's a huge disparity I consider the politics of the situation for who I'd trust.

The problem with TV show RT scores is that they're based only on the first few episodes that are available to critics. If a show gets better or worse the scores don't change.

>18%
What the fuck? I wouldn't call Orville fantastic, but it's good. The acting is good, the episodic plots are fun and engaging. Why do I have to defend Seth McFuckingFarlane of all people?

I have the perfect article for you

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd

Everyone knows fuck all about how many jelly beans are actually in a jar, but when aggregated the average is closer than anyone would imagine.

An aggregation of "experts" fails to filter out idiosyncratic noise because you're sampling from only a particular type of person.

In the past critics had a discoonnect from audiences because they generally disliked mass appeal schlock and were considered pretentious. There also was a limited number who could get exposure in newspapers.

With the rise of the internet film critics are now disconnected from the audience in different ways. They are now fanboys who either say what they think the audience or company wants to hear to get c or they go the opposite way to get outrage clicks. Critics are also everywhere so tons just get sucked into the hype and marketing machine and others are scared of losing their position if they piss off a big studio.

The thing is when you see it with your own eyes, you realize the system is broken. TLJ is still 91% Fresh. Bright is 30% Rotten.

I had more fun watching Orville this year than I had watching any trek show in many many years. Yet it's 18% rotten? STD was so fucking bad I couldn't even hatewatch to the end of the season. Yet it's 82% Fresh?

The entire system is hopelessly broken.

They aren't critics. They are people who are paid under the pretension that they have the capacity to say things that convince others that the movie is good, or worth the time and money to watch.

On the most basic level, a critic is someone whose function is to critique something. That is, to analyze it, break it down, examine it, and use this knowledge to evaluate the quality of the product in an objective sense according to some criteria or methodology.

It's presupposed that the reason you pay attention is that they are good at their job. They fail at this job if they are incompetent, or purposefully lying.

Or they don't even have that pretension and just say words. I've not seen a critic that is actually critic. They just write things.

The biggest one for me is the Ghostbusters remake being 74% Fresh. Like, how. HOW?

TV scores are only based on the first few episodes available. It doesn't reflect the season as a whole. So whereas Orville improved as the season went on and Discovery the opposite. Nothing in the scores reflect that because television RT scores don't get updated as the season progresses.

The only thing you can really do is to ignore critics on the internet and if you meet one in real life express to them face to face how bad their understanding, knowledge and opinion of cinema is and how much of a failure they are in thier professional and personal lifes.

(((they))) just like to shit on /ourguy/ Seth

user you've sold me on the orville, will watch tonight. I despised STD, it practically parodies star trek yet some mates that are also trek fans fucking gobbled it up and loved it; turtle klingons, shaboon mary sue and all.
I couldn't inflict the last episode upon myself either

It's great. The humor is the weakest part, but there isn't enough of it to drag it down. It had a real old school TNG feel that I hadn't felt in so long.

I will admit there were some REALLY BAD episodes of The Orville.

But the last 3 episodes or so have been 8/10. Really good. If it keeps getting better we'll have a 9/10 show on our hands.

Are you watching this Seth? Keep learning from your mistakes. Less topical comedy. Don't make a show that tries to be funny now. Make a show that succeeds in being funny even 20 years from now.

I also like the most recent blend of comedy + drama. It's like 15% comedy 85% drama. It makes it feel a lot more Star Trek. Humor is good. But I like that there's more to Orville.

Orville was pretty rock solid from the beginning though desu

The Orville just had to find it's tone. At the beginning it was jumping in between parody and spiritual successor. It had to find the right balance. I think that they figured out that on the serious episodes dial the humour back to a minimum. But on filler episodes you can essentially go full parody. Just don't try to do both in a single episode.

Ex: the Krill episode. Either have it be a fish out of water comedy OR a story of difficult moral decision making. Having jokes about rental car companies juxtaposed with the discussion of murdering children is jarring to say the least.

I think it's only gonna get better though. Looking forward to more of it.

Is the current trend of bot-bombing reviews something that you conveniently ignore until it suits your narrative?

Talk about living in the fucking past. It was confirmed not bots ages ago, it was all real users.

>forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/20/rotten-tomatoes-confirms-its-55-last-jedi-audience-score-is-100-authentic/#43251f854231

>Rotten Tomatoes Says Its 55% 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Audience Score Is Authentic

>the biggest it's been in history?

Maybe if you're underage and your history only goes back five years.

Some internet writers have been saying this as well.

Critics are trying too hard to be fans instead of assess films based upon their own understanding.

That article has a long list of problems with the concept.

>Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.[16] When there is not a precise answer crowds can come to arbitrary conclusions.[17]

Getting the masses to rate art is a terrible idea.

They gave wonder woman 90 never trusting any reviewer I'm just gonna see It by my own view if I like it that's fine if I don't they can fuck off and I move on

>dude trust us we totally checked all of them
The most desperate damage control I've seen all year.

They specifically said in the article that the user reviews are all from unique IP addresses and that they went through the user ratings for TLJ and found no unusual bot/spamming behavior. In fact they found the opposite; that there were more real people signing up to RT for the first time just to rate TLJ.

Audiences have always been stupid.

You can measure the progressive index by dividing critic score and audience score. eg suicide squad vs ghostbusters.

The elite are more motivated in liking something that reflects well on them while the plebs just want entertainment.

>seth was the good guy the whole time

Why is there a war on comedy

I couldn't name a recent critically acclaimed movie that was a comedy

This has always been the case. Comedy is the lowest form of cinema as far as critics are concerned.

...

Go to bed Kathleen

>I couldn't name a recent critically acclaimed movie that was a comedy

The ghost busters remake. Certified fresh.

Oven dodgers

Because humour is politically incorrect

This is going to sound harsh but for the most part you're going to be much more critical of movies as you see more of them. It's why kids love almost any movie they see. If a critic sees every major release, a movie like Bright isn't going to be all that impressive by comparison. Meanwhile, if some guy sees maybe 6 new movies a year and decides to put on Bright, he'll likely enjoy it more because he doesn't have the same scope. He'll be able to appreciate the film simply for being a good time. Of course there's other factors that come into play with franchise films. Critics aren't often diehard fans of franchises so they don't go into a Star Wars or a Star Trek with the same personal qualms a superfan would.

Lefties aren't funny. They're too busy language policing to have a sense of humor.

I watched 20 minutes of that movie and it was not fucking funny.

Fuck tomatoes

>big disconnect
considering the reviewers are all Jews and are inbred, id say their out of touch with humanity in general.

Look at how the same jewish groups reviewed Passion of the Christ. People say entertainment isnt political but it is when groups align themselves for reviews based upon politico-religio affiliation such as Jews hating all content not made by other jews.

This is a very stupid post. I want you to stop posting until you take a step back and realie why it is so stupid.

Critics have to be PC or face backlash. Anything with diversity can't be bad for that simple fact.

The average shmoe doesn't have to adhere to PC or face backlash in their personal lives......yet.

Bright and Stah Wahs both sucked. The difference is that Disney pays well.

das juden

IMDB has a weighing function where ratings by people with an equal distribution of different ratings are weighed heavier than people who rate nothing but 1s and/or 10s. Once marketers figured out how to keep a pool of "heavy" raters, imdb was useless too. As just about every heavily marketed film will start out in the high 9s (before its released) then settle down into the 7s and 8s as people actually see it.

Whether RT was broken quicker because it was easier to break or simply because it came into existence after corporate entities started taking the internet seriously is a moot point, though.

D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

i.4cdn.org/tv/1514355529734.png

Review culture as we knew it is a thing of the past. There is no core group of people who actually enjoy movies reviewing them, just bloggers and journalists who couldn't get their dream job right away. The industry is also saturated with these people because it's an easy job to "criticize" things someone else did and attracts the lazier crowd joining the industry.

Additionally, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes like aggregates have essentially destroyed any legitimacy of reviews by turning it into a faceless mass of ideas without any context. Sure you can read individual reviews, but who really does this? This further feeds the badly written reviews from newer members of the industry because they expect people won't actually read their essay and just jump to the end of "watch" or "don't watch" if they even bother to check their individual piece. This lack of effort further feeds into the lessening quality because to get paid you need attention so they start buying into clickbait headlines for the growing blogger section of the reviewers.

This can also lead to being easily bought out by anyone wanting to push an agenda. Be it a blog conglomerate wanting to write a narrative, or potentially damage control PR hiring a bunch of these nobodies to shift things in their favour. Of course this is probably not as common as people can make it seem. OP's point about fear is definitely a major concern for larger pictures for less established, or dying reviewers. Tow the agenda, or lose early access and thus your job.

In the end this leads to a disconnect. It's no longer people actually critiquing things and giving the audience a view before they see it. Instead it turns into a generic ad paid for by the companies, or shoving their world view ahead of any other regardless of merits of the actual material.

At this point if you still want honest reviews find someone who writes them and then follow that. Find your own Siskel and/or Ebert replacement. Ignore RT.

my God can you imagine? A world where we're free to make kino without having to suck Harvey Weinstein's cock? A world where we don't have to fill diversity quotas in film franchises? A world of completely boundless freedom to create the vision you alone see?

Humanity will eventually get rid of this cancer, which is the infuriating part

Do these dumb kikes really think this is going to work

The Orville is fucking awful.

the only review I trust

youtube.com/watch?v=Z0LR3cjLTeo

>I don't think they are paid for this, but a lot of it is probably done out of fear of these megacorps like Disney, and fear of being branded racist/sexist by giving a bad review.

That's exactly what I thought.

Orville was generally shit though. It's literally TBBT set in Star Trek.

Discovery got good after the Groundhog's Day episode.

Critics are smarter than your average layman. Who knew?

Paid reviews

HEY BETER

I'm not denying that there's a disparity but comparing TLJ and Bright is dumb.

Honestly, all the controversy Rotten Tomatoes generates is purely based on its flawed as fuck rating system based on aggregate scores that reduce individual ratings to +1/-1. A barely passable 6/10 in that aggregate is weighed the same as a 10/10. That sort of dichotomy puts an enjoyable but divisve movie on the same level as unwatchable trash. The psychological effects of looking at all these polarized 90% vs 20% scores is whipping people into a frenzy.

Nothing benefits more from this score system as inoffensive but ultimately mediocre things that manage to accrue few completely negative scores, leading to an inflated RT rating. Like all those garbage live action Disney movies. Does anyone in the world REALLY think The Jungle Book live action movie deserves a 98%? Fucking really?

This is the biggest issue with RT. They need to switch to weighted scores. It would literally fix the whole damn thing, and you could write the algorithm in 5 minutes.

your thinking is limited. They are shills, but whether the review is positive or not doesn't matter. Point is to generate interest

>I don't think they are paid

then you're an idiot.

The issue obviously isn't just HERE MONEY GIB GUD REVIEW, but its impossible to be critical of the entities that support you. Studios aren't going to advertise on your shitty site if you're shitting on them, studios aren't going invite critics that shit on them to pre-screenings or kick them screeners. So the early access and ad revenue a blogger needs to make a career out of blogging is utterly dependent on how much corporate cock they suck.

Its the exact issue that gamergate was supposed to be about before it was hijacked.

>Discovery got good after the Groundhog's Day episode.

Christ, you are retarded.

Discovery started bad, and got worse and worse all the way through. I used to watch it every week just to have ammo to troll the STD thread but it got so fucking awful I couldn't even keep doing that. Never had that happen before.

The scores are already weighted somewhat. Go against the tomato too often and you're dropped from the site.

I thought normies choose one or two reviewers and that's it, they're isolated bubble is formed. But when it's every review everywhere it's suspicious, there's no dissent anywhere anymore except on fringes

He's offensive to feminists. So obviously it deserves it's 18% rating

Seems low.

surprised libtard critics rating mcfarlane trash so lowly

Comedy doesn't pretend to be sublime, so critics disdain it because they are pretentious.

I actually really like Discovery so far and hate how many people went in dead set on hating it because it's the trendy thing to do after the JJ movies and all.It's like nobody remember how terrible the first TNG season was - Discovery is a fucking masterpriece compared to the ooga booga planet episode.

Why do defenses of STD always boil down to whataboutism?

is it because STD is indefensible?