How to explain increasing discrepancy between taste of audience and taste of critics?

How to explain increasing discrepancy between taste of audience and taste of critics?
Who is pleb and whom is patrish?

Other urls found in this thread:

rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>patrish
You're the pleb.

Cult bias or paid reviews. Possibly both.

Doesn't matter who's patrician or who's pleb.

Critic opinions aren't real. They're based on whether a film meets x amount of factors: enough female actors, diversity, deals with social issues or liberal ideas.

Therefore the only real opinion, is the audience, because they aren't under any rules when giving a review.

>increasing discrepancy between taste of audience and taste of critics

I believe the man to ask in this case would be The Rock

STD is fucking cancer and Orville is GOAT. Critics are bandwagon shills.

pretty much anyone could make and account on RT to rate something they feel strongly about.
On the other hand the critics are a specific type of person. They have passable writing skill, spend a lot of time on social sites and usually don't have much else to offer society. They're typically late 20's to early 30's and they're just happy to earn 17 bucks to turn out a 500 word article.

Americans are still watching the Simpsons and Family Guy. No wonder they enjoyed that "humour". Orville would had been a million times better with that cringy humour.

both are unwatchable shit

The only patrish opinion is that both series are turds, as is Star Trek as a whole.

I remember when I was younger someone saying "why should I care what some reviewer thinks of a movie?"

I didn't have an answer because there is no answer. You can consult a tax expert on taxes. But movies are a subjective experience.

It has to be political bias. Not so much left v right though that is a factor but just typical Hollywood politics, it's been cool to hate Seth. The hivemind also say The Orville as a step backwards, where the loud noises and seizure inducing lense flair of STD made it MODERN.

Both have SJW plot lines but Seth's show isn't as ham-fisted and insufferable as STD, and lead pipe delivery of you political message is the style today.

Another SJW trend: ugly actresses. Look at the hotties in The Orville compared to STD. I think attractive women is a big red flag to this generation of critics. The uglier the wonen, the more IMPORTANT the movie/TV show is.

Or the critics are on the take and some outfits pay them off while others don't.

They're both pleb, for different reasons.

Audiences LITERALLY want to turn their brain off and watch cartoony trash developed exclusively for sub-60 IQ brainlets, like Justice League.

Critics see themselves as the gatekeepers of culture and are the living emodimemt of the tfw too smart meme, but they're not truly intelligent because of they were they wouldn't be writing for buzzfeed et al (the age of classically trained critics is long over, the nerds xD are no was running the show).

It has to have some humor so it can be deemed satirical. Without that the show would be sued into oblivion.

That's true - the critique which reviews movies like smartphones, or dishwashers truly are pointless, since the absolute majority of films which get a wide release are competently made, even the ones which would have a general audience/critic consensus of being shit. The only reviews worth reading are the ones which put a movie in some kind of historical/cultural context.

Both shows are crap but I will continue watching DISCO because I love star trek. Not its parody.
>dude but its more trek than this trek! its like tng!
except its absolutly stupid
>just turn your brain of and set phasers to nostalgia haha

critics understand the medium better, majority of people are brainlets. Easy.

russians

reviewers are people who get paid to go to free early screenings and Hollywood parties in exchange for their """""unbiased""""" opinions

people are just people who saw the film

make your own distinction

>tfw when it falls so fast the memes can't keep up

Different people have different opinions. I like Discovery. I don't take the time to review bomb stuff I don't like.
Also, maybe just don't look at review aggregates if you just want to complain about the numbers.

dude tardigrades lmao

>subjective experience
That's the thing, critics are objectively wrong. There's a harrowing new trend now where they're serving up dog shit and calling it filet mignon, while at the same time decrying anything that "panders to the fans" as the second coming of Hitler.

"Film critics" are just failed journalist who never studied cinema at the university level
Plus they are paid off

Audiences basically like stuff if the product if it was accurately advertised.
>hey new Star Trek
>it's not anything like Star Trek
>therefore it's bad
(Also it's actually just bad on its own anyway)

>Justice League
>not the 500 MCU movies or most recently Star Wars
Interesting pick, DisneyShill

We have again arrived to a point in entertainment, where the tastes of the critics and tastes of the audiences don't meet. It'll take a moment for them to line up again and the it happens again.

The falling standards surrounding the teaching of English at universities. There's no time taken to appreciate art, it's just the usual marxist gibberish.
I study English because I'm a low functioning retard and thought I'd get to read and think about great books. The books can be okay sometimes, but actually thinking gets in the way of a good grade.

I don't see how professional critics can be expected to be anything other than shit, given the state of their education.
Plus, you wouldn't want to give Star Wars a poor review: you'll look like you don't know what you're talking about since all the shills have beaten you to the punch.

The only people who talk about critics I see here.

Never once has anyone I know looked at a movie review or rating before going to watch it.

This is their job now, make opposite reviews so fans ramble and create more media buzz and shilling on sites like here.

Not really, you can study film like anything else, and be a legit expert.
The problem is that there's nothing saying you have to be a legit expert to be a critic.

>traditionally “nerdy” media tries to shoehorn women or elements that are not a part of its core audience
>critics have to heap praise to avoid being seen as “racist” or “sexist”
>the new entry is hated by the core audience that made it popular in the first place because it alienates them and abandons what made the franchise good in the first place

It’s not hard...producers still can’t comprehend that if they just sell the movie or show to its fans it will succeed. Turning it into some failed hyper liberal social experiment always makes it hated by who it’s supposed to appeal to. I thought they’d learn this lesson with Ghostbusters but apparently not.

The audience reviews are also going to be biased in favor of whoever feels passionate about the work
Literally the only people who would bother paying attention to orville's RT rating are the retards that think seth mcfarlane is capable of humor, just like how the only people whod care about the new star trek's RT rating are, well, autists who took all the memeposting about black women seriously

The audience reviews are fucking useless because they're inherently biased

It's down to 50% now.
rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi

who makes these gay ass threads and who keeps replying

The audience is the free market; The critics are corporate mouthpieces

One is an organic grassroots effect, the other is forced as fuck, and it's all a symptom of the old guard of entertainment trying to hold onto power in the ave of the stream. Hollywood is dying, theaters are dying, they just don't know it yet. The future is the stream. And the future is now.

The shift from the studio-theater system to streaming doesn't change anything. Films will still be made for profit by capitalist companies. The only thing that changes is the customer experience. The Disney school of filmmaking isn't going anywhere.

If you don't pay off the critics or don't have a studio that can threaten critics then you're shit out of luck.

>he thinks the (((producers))) just don't understand
lol

It's 2018. Everyone's a fucking critic.
Everyone is so fucking good at telling everyone else why their shit sucks but nobody is going to do anything better.
I don't know how to fucking pave a road but that doesn't stop me from telling the guy who paves the road that he's doing a shit job.

Russians hackers.

Then maybe the STD audience should step up their shit and spam user scores until it's 90%.

Face it, critic reviews don't mean much anymore when some random blogger also counts as a professional critic.

I feel like I can't really trust the opinion of anyone who'd take time to write out a review on some random movie. Just imagine the kind of person that'd do that. Unless it's on tv ofcourse, then its fine.

Im not sarcastic

>How to explain increasing discrepancy between taste of audience and taste of critics?

Serious answer:
It used to be the primary paycheck for critics were the audience. You could actually have a career in movie criticism, people would have regular readers of their columns.

With the internet, the value of what they do has plummeted beneath toilet paper. I'm not saying studio influence was non-existent before, but after internet critics blew established ones out of the water, the only currency critics have is with the studios they "review". It's the same incestuous situation we saw in the vidya industry (although there it's always existed).

The only alternative to being a corporate puppet is making people read your criticism by injecting as much political garbage as possible. The biggest seller, because it gets both those who agree and those who hate you, is SJW/feminism. Roger Ebert actually began this trend of injecting political bullshit in reviews.

Tv reviews on rt are almost always based entirely on the first episode of the season.

As for movies, modern critics fear being black listed

"Critics" these days are just millennial fucktards, it's not a serious endeavour any more

This. It's lost any semblance of mystique it ever had.

The critics are patrician and if you doubt this you're the pleb.

Star Trek Discovery takes Star Trek in a bold new modern direction. The Orville is nostalgia pandering for fanboys, but more importantly it's quite problematic.

Same thing goes for the insipid The Last Jedi vs. Bright argument.

Why is it problematic? I want to listen and believe

>Star Trek Discovery
>The Orville
>The Last Jedi
>Bright

Literally all shit. If you rate any of them more than one star, you have no taste

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

STD Pros:
>Taken seriously
>Great production
>Part of Star Trek cannon

Orville Pros:
>Fun
>Nostalgia

STD Cons:
>Diversity propaganda
>Slow to start
>Stylistically incongruent with classic Trek

Orville Cons:
>Seth McFarlane
>Not part of existing universe
>Recycled plots

Overall I like STD better, but that's mainly just because I like expanding the Trek universe

It all started with BvS.

What kind of meme is this?

Why is it problematic?
Bright I can understand because they named the but the Orville also criticizes religion too and tackles transgender issues?

a shitty one

this but unironically

It's always been like this. It's just never been easier to see how bad it really is.