It's not often we agree, but in this case, we do.

At the very least, I'd respect critics more if they were more open about the fact that they are only stating opinions.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

It's not often we agree, but in this case, we do.

At the very least, I'd respect critics more if they were more open about the fact that they are only stating opinions.

---

Agreed.

It seems that the same people that say that most voters/members of the public are idiots are the same ones that then say that critics are elitist snobs when they praise a movie that isn't appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Only an elitist lib would use so many words

The Debt said:

---

Unplanned

Critics 48%
Audience 92%

Forbes critic "Perhaps the most bipartisan thing I can say is that if you like Trump rallies, especially the ones featuring Mike Pence, this is probably the movie for you. I don't say it as a compliment, but I suspect all involved may take it as one."


The Passion of the Christ
Critics 49%
Audience 80%

Chicago critic "If I were a Christian, I'd be appalled to have this primitive and pornographic bloodbath presume to speak for me."

---

Truth be told, This critics review of passion is too positive.

These threads crack me up. There are dozens of movies that are made each year that have both incredibly high audience scores and are raved by critics. But then we get those few movies that seem divide critics and audiences, and we get crap like critics are just elitist film snobs. This board can be incredibly bipolar. John Wick has a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes........yea!!!!!! Godzilla has a 50%.........boooo!!! Critics are snobs!!! Seriously, how can a group that raves over John Wick and Deadpool be considered elitist?

TCTTS said:

---

Because, again, a lot of the time there's truth in so much of your views of Hollywood, critics, etc. But some of you end up coming off like the guy shouting from a megaphone on the corner, who then turns around, sticks his ass in the megaphone, and follows it up with a fart. It's just the most crass, strawman, stereotypical, lowest common denominator bullsh*t ever. Just repeating mindless "Hollywood" drivel that, if not expressed with so much cliche - but with a little more nuance - would be infinitely more agreeable. Which is a shame, because if some of you didn't express yourself with such transparent contempt, and weren't filled with so much righteous hate for "the other," people might actually listen to you. And we could bond over our opinions instead of having to roll our eyes at how flat-out insane those of you sound who come to an Entertainment board to ***** about Hollywood day after day after day.

---

I read this paragraph in my Sylvester Stallone, Rocky IV voice.

The Debt said:

---

Unplanned

Critics 48%
Audience 92%

Forbes critic "Perhaps the most bipartisan thing I can say is that if you like Trump rallies, especially the ones featuring Mike Pence, this is probably the movie for you. I don't say it as a compliment, but I suspect all involved may take it as one."


The Passion of the Christ
Critics 49%
Audience 80%

Chicago critic "If I were a Christian, I'd be appalled to have this primitive and pornographic bloodbath presume to speak for me."

---

Yeah but see those are completely in line with what I would expect.

WHO is going to see those movies - only people really interested in them and therefore a high audience review is not surprising.

And many critics are gonna dislike them just on the basis of what they are and what they represent.

A film like that I don't even take into account (jaded, liberal, more likely atheistic) critics scores. But I also take the audience score with a grain of salt. Average moviegoers are not seeing those movies.

Context matters.

Typically, I do two things for movies.

1. I take a quick look at the RT score. I don't read individual reviews, but just the RT summary, and maybe scan a few.

2. I watch reviews on Youtube from some non-critic channels that are my go-to's. (ie. Collider, Tyrone Magnus, Jeremy Jahns, etc.)

I find that those Youtube reviews, for the most part, are more in line with my tastes when I end up seeing the movie. Most of these are just movie fans like me.

aggiebq03+ said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

This is kind of like asking, "Why are doctors' diagnoses the opposite of people who diagnose themselves using WebMD?"

---

No, it's not like that at all.

I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post below this.

My take is that if critics hate a movie, it might be bad.
If critics universally love a movie, it will be terrible.

---

I bet I can provide a list of hundreds of movies that you and almost all critics love.

maverick2076 said:

---

The attitudes displayed in your post are pretty good examples of why most Americans don't like the Hollywood elite and feel that Hollywood is out of touch. Even when you are trying to not be outright insulting, you come across as arrogant and condescending.

---

I have to disagree. I get the point of most of these posts (except my gif), but I really do feel like TCTTS is consistently humble and cordial in most of his activity on this site. Even when there are clearly polar opposite viewpoints and ideologies, he seems to acknowledge and listen to whomever is speaking.

I get get pretty irritated with certain posters on a certain forum, and feel like I could truly hate them in real life, but TCTTS seems to portray a fairly level-headed approach to a lot of the animosity and trolling that we bring out anonymously on the internet. His input and contributions to this board are fairly substantial.

(no homo)

It is sometimes fun to fan some flames and push some buttons, but this board generally speaking is more of an escape and calm-down diversion.

I honestly can't remember the last time I went to a movie based on a review of any kind. I usually end up seeing a movie based on if the trailer and subject matter pique my interest.

I'm sure some of this stems from my grandparents always watching Siskell and Ebert. My grandparents laughed at how haughty they sounded and never went to a movie that was highly reviewed.

80s Guy said:

---

I honestly can't remember the last time I went to a movie based on a review of any kind. I usually end up seeing a movie based on if the trailer and subject matter pique my interest.

I'm sure some of this stems from my grandparents always watching Siskell and Ebert. My grandparents laughed at how haughty they sounded and never went to a movie that was highly reviewed.

---

Sounds like you have a brain and are capable of thinking for yourself. Know that you are special in today's society.

Ironically, I remember Siskel & Ebert would occasionally mention a movie would enjoyable without being "good".

TCTTS said:

---

This is kind of like asking, "Why are doctors' diagnoses the opposite of people who diagnose themselves using WebMD?"

Are certain critics elitist? Snobs? Bleeding liberals? Absolutely. But so many more of them are...

A) more often than not also incredibly smart people - literal experts in the field - and simply understand or are disappointed by certain movies on a level that you could not care less about. That doesn't make them assh*le Debbie Downers or you dumb. They're just seeing these movies through a different lens, and can diagnose certain "ailments" that you, again, either don't care as much about or don't have the proper "training" for (for lack of a better word).

- and -

B) genuinely good people who simply love movies and want nothing more than for each and every one they see to be great. When they don't get a return on that investment, it can sometimes be more crushing than for those of you who see one movie every six weeks, if that, and treat them as nothing more than pure entertainment as opposed to those who treat them as something more (neither approach being better than the other). To that end, the frequency factor is a very real thing as well, as has already been touched upon in this thread, where in most of these critics have to watch and write about sometimes three or four movies a week - it's literally their job - and my patience would wear just as thin if I had to endure nearly every single major and minor release. I love movies, but I'm pretty sure I'd go insane if I had to watch and write about that many out of pure obligation.

Outside of all of that, good gosh, a couple of you are truly, embarrassingly bad at expressing your viewpoints / hate for who you think these people represent. Further, I think I'm finally realizing that it's not so much your opinions themselves that make me cringe, but the utterly cliched ways in which some of you hold and express those opinions. A lot of the time I don't disagree with you. Hollywood DOES suck. I live it everyday and so much of it drives me mad. Similarly, critics CAN suck. There are plenty who I roll my eyes at week after week. It's BECAUSE I agree with you guys that I cringe and come off sounding like a "Hollywood liberal" if only because your framing is just so incredibly lazy and cliched. I just wish you would argue better. Ironically, if you could, we wouldn't get in so many damn arguments over this crap.

Because, again, a lot of the time there's truth in so much of your views of Hollywood, critics, etc. But some of you end up coming off like the guy shouting from a megaphone on the corner, who then turns around, sticks his ass in the megaphone, and follows it up with a fart. It's just the most crass, strawman, stereotypical, lowest common denominator bullsh*t ever. Just repeating mindless "Hollywood" drivel that, if not expressed with so much cliche - but with a little more nuance - would be infinitely more agreeable. Which is a shame, because if some of you didn't express yourself with such transparent contempt, and weren't filled with so much righteous hate for "the other," people might actually listen to you. And we could bond over our opinions instead of having to roll our eyes at how flat-out insane those of you sound who come to an Entertainment board to ***** about Hollywood day after day after day.

---

Perfectly stated. I really never understood why a piece of art has to adhere to your viewpoint in order for it to be considered "good." I grew up pretty conservative and religious, and I loved to discuss and analyze films like Last Temptation of Christ, JFK, Dogma, Brokeback Mountain and other controversial films because I find the ideas and debate fascinating. I get getting annoyed with the messages, but not even engaging it or outright dismissing something that you disagree with is the worst type of snowflake behavior. IN many ways, engaging with a piece of art that you disagree with is healthy, because it causes you to re-evaluate your views on the world. Living in an echo chamber of ideas is my idea of hell.

80s Guy said:

---

I honestly can't remember the last time I went to a movie based on a review of any kind. I usually end up seeing a movie based on if the trailer and subject matter pique my interest.

I'm sure some of this stems from my grandparents always watching Siskell and Ebert. My grandparents laughed at how haughty they sounded and never went to a movie that was highly reviewed.

---

See this kind of hyperbole is just dumb.

There may be many artsy movies they liked but there were plenty of great films they also loved.

So your parents decided to never see these that made both of their top 25 all-time or Top 10 of that decade.

The Godfather
The Right Stuff
Goodfellas
Schindler's List
Fargo
Raging Bull
Do the Right Thing
Saving Private Ryan
LA Confidential
Apollo 13
Pulp Fiction
The Fugitive

They missed some really great movies.


And these 80s movies made their top 10 in their year - I used the 80s because of your username assuming these would have been in your wheelhouse:

Raiders of the Lost Ark
ET
Terms of Endearment
Risky Business
Purple Rain
Say Anything
Born on the 4th of July

these 1 or the other had in top 10
The Empire Strikes Back
The Big Chill
Back to the Future
Purple Rain
Lethal Weapon
Full Metal Jacket
Bull Durham
A Fish Called Wanda

death of expertise

TCTTS said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Sometimes is niche audiences. Critics represent a certain class of snob that dont understand why a subculture-Y would like film-Y.

Then you have critics that draw a paycheck. Disney owned movies, no matter how disjointed will always get a level of treatment better than they deserve

Thor 2 was absolute shtt and critics gave it 66%. Suicide Squad was given 27% by critics, which was much more rewatchable and entertaining than Thor 2. (Im solidly in the Marvel club and loathe DC characters.) The chasm there doesnt make sense until you realize critics draw paychecks.

---

Please tell me you're not insinuating that Disney actually pays off certain critics. This one of the DUMBEST arguments out there, based on nothing more than conspiracy theory bullsh*t. Seriously, this is like Twitter-bot-level trash that has been mocked for years.

---

Pays off? Absolutely not. You do realize the difference between a paycheck and an envelope under the table?

Newspapers and magazines are not independent entities. They are owned by media companies. General Electric owns NBC and its affiliates. Do you honestly believe they would air an investigative piece on GE's weapons being sold directly to Boko Haram? You think that would ever make it into the editors hands much less being filmed?

Critics are paid writers. They have bosses. Their bosses have owners. For someone so smart, you sure dont act like it sometimes. You know full well that Unplanned wouldnt get made by a traditional, established studio. This is where you say "it's a business decision" It grossed $18M on a $6M budget. Financially it's a good investment, churning out shtt. The Passion was the highest grossing rated R movie in history. But we are meant to believe business men have no interest in making money? They have their agendas and their biases and it would be a cold day in Hell before a Christian movie gets made by these studios which are owned by these conglomerates. You know full well certain movies wouldnt get greenlit by higher ups, but you deny the same mechanism exists in news media...

But you're right, the public ought not know how the sausage is made.

General audiences seek entertainment in a film, critics seek excellence. For better or worse, critics are often up their own butts about what defines excellence in film.

I do appreciate being accused of cherry picking films.

Me: assertion
You: wtf man?! we need examples!

Or

Me: assertion with examples
You: wtf man?! You're cherrypicking!

I bring obvious and indisputable examples to a discussion and you marginalize it because they ACTUALLY fit my argument. "How dare you use examples that support your position?!"


But I do find it amusing that I'm being accused of cherry picking when Hollywood does precisely that. White Boy Rick was an indictment on federal drug sentencing. Making a movie about his sentencing is cherry picking at its finest. Maybe I should just speak through films, then some of you can appreciate it.

To me it's like being a hardcore football fan or a casual one.

A hardcore fan who watches every game is more likely to enjoy defensive battles, analyzing line play and schemes, following the draft, the combine, recruiting, coaching hires, contract situations, etc. A casual fan who only watches a few games wants to see tons of scoring, long bombs, fast paced action, etc., and doesn't really care how the sausage is made so long as they're entertained for a couple of hours once a week or so. The hardcore fan gets mad when the rules get changed to favor the casual fan's preferred way of watching, and the casual fan gets bored and tunes out when the game favors the hardcore fan's preferred style.

Does the hardcore fan get rewarded for his time and investment into understanding the game with a more engrossing experience? In my experience, yes.

Is the hardcore fan an elitist jerk if he berates the casual fan? Definitely.

Is the casual fan justified in just wanting a few simple hours of entertainment where he can escape the world and "turn his brain off"? Absolutely, everyone needs this at the end of a tough week.

Is the casual fan missing out on some really cool experiences by not diving into the nuances of the game? Yes.

Quote:

---

This is kind of like asking, "Why are doctors' diagnoses the opposite of people who diagnose themselves using WebMD?"

---

Sort of.

But doctors/patients are both trying to determine a diagnosis for the same reason.

I think the simple explanation is that in a many cases, the public audience and movie critics watch the movies for different reasons.

I'm now mid 40's and have seen a lot of movies, but still not nearly as many as someone who is a professional movie critic. I know my biggest pet peeve is just seeing something I've felt like I've seen a hundred times before, I imagine that might get to the reviewers as well. Even if somewhat well made, if not original it most likely gets lower reviews. And it is very hard to be original at this point. I think some movies that are not exceptionally well acted or well crafted, but are very original and even bizarre, might skew higher with the critics because they are thankful to see something new and also that someone is at least trying to be inventive in their line of work - a professional tip of the cap with a good review. Whereas paying customers, for the most part, just want some escapeism and to be entertained. Do some write pompous reviews, sure - but pompous blowhard reviews are more common on Yelp.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

aggiebq03+ said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

This is kind of like asking, "Why are doctors' diagnoses the opposite of people who diagnose themselves using WebMD?"

---

No, it's not like that at all.

I don't disagree with most of the rest of your post below this.

My take is that if critics hate a movie, it might be bad.
If critics universally love a movie, it will be terrible.

---

I bet I can provide a list of hundreds of movies that you and almost all critics love.

---

I bet what I actually wrote and what you read aren't the same thing.

Hint: "almost all" =/= "universally love"

But I do love a good list.

is there a move in existence that is literally "universally loved"? I bet not.

schmendeler said:

---

is there a move in existence that is literally "universally loved"? I bet not.

---

If universally loved = 100%, then no. There are probably some artsy movies that had less than 30 reviews that has a 100%, the closest a major movie has gotten to a 100% was Toy Story 3 that was sitting at a 100 until Armond White gave it a negative review.

schmendeler said:

---

is there a move in existence that is literally "universally loved"? I bet not.

---

Back To The Future

Drop Dead Fred was universally loved I believe, as was Son in Law

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

is there a move in existence that is literally "universally loved"? I bet not.

---

Back To The Future

---

Ken Hanke disagrees.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/back_to_the_future/reviews?page=7

schmendeler said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

is there a move in existence that is literally "universally loved"? I bet not.

---

Back To The Future

---

Ken Hanke disagrees.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/back_to_the_future/reviews?page=7

---

so does Ant-Man

Could you imagine BTTF being made today?

Marty would have to be black or hispanic.
The terrorists would have to be white.
Doc would have to be female to promote intelligent capable women in STEM fields.
Biff, of course, stays white, male, maybe even churchgoing.

The Debt said:

---

Could you imagine BTTF being made today?

Marty would have to be black or hispanic.
The terrorists would have to be white.
Doc would have to be female to promote intelligent capable women in STEM fields.
Biff, of course, stays white, male, maybe even churchgoing.

---

Wow a black or hispanic Marty? The world is truly a scary place.

MBAR said:

---

The Debt said:

---

Could you imagine BTTF being made today?

Marty would have to be black or hispanic.
The terrorists would have to be white.
Doc would have to be female to promote intelligent capable women in STEM fields.
Biff, of course, stays white, male, maybe even churchgoing.

---

Wow a black or hispanic Marty? The world is truly a scary place.

---

Martin Lawrence could star as Marty.

The Debt said:

---

Could you imagine BTTF being made today?

Marty would have to be black or hispanic.
The terrorists would have to be white.
Doc would have to be female to promote intelligent capable women in STEM fields.
Biff, of course, stays white, male, maybe even churchgoing.

---

Nah they'd be super edgy and remake it with Eric stoltz