schmendeler said:

---

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

---

Sound of Music (unless you are a Nazi)
Wizard of Oz
Top Gun
Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

Top Gun was ahead of its time in promoting the LGBTQ+$ movement

The more I skim through these comments the more I think some of y'all should watch that 15 minute video I posted on page 1

cbr said:

---

Critics are rich kids who don't have to work and take themselves way too seriously. They are all forced to eat and **** leftist ideology and they can't get published if they have common sense and real American values as all media outlets are bought leftist anti American garbage.

Therefore they like their bs propaganda

Americans still actually exist, in some real numbers, and they vote differently than these ****ing *******s.

That's why the difference.

---

Wait, who's taking who too seriously??

Nah they would use Jaden Smith, he already proved he can replace Ralph Macchio.

Btw, only in new hollywood would a remake of karate kid divorce itself from karate to appease the chicomms.

tk for tu juan said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

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

---

Sound of Music (unless you are a Nazi)
Wizard of Oz
Top Gun
Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

---

you misspelt Mary Poppins

It's kinda like asking why do Katy Perry and Ariana Grande top the charts constantly. It's because the casual listener doesn't give a **** about quality over connectivity. The music may be crap or cut and paste if you sit down and analyze it for what it actually is, but for someone who has other things on their brain (or nothing on their brain), it's easy for them to connect with it on a very casual level.

Same concept translates to film.

Critics actually analyze movies on so many levels that the casual audience member isn't there for in the first place. The average person just wants to spend $10 on an hour and a half worth of getting out of the house and getting away from reality. For critics the movies are their reality. They literally make their living off of what they see in the content of the movie. Critics spend their time studying why movies are great so that they can write about why they stand out or disappoint. 90% of the audience doesn't care enough to see past a movies top layer. They are going to connect more with movies that they feel familiar with or are easier to digest.

This is why you rarely see Oscar Winners have the success that the action movies have. They just don't appeal to the majority of the audiences who are there for recreation rather than analyzation.

Now, I do want to clarify that media is always subjective and it doesn't mean that the critic is correct over the casual movie goer. I'm normally on the side of critic reviews as I'm a pretty critical person, but I realize just because I appreciate different aspects of something doesn't mean it should always be that way. For instance, when it comes to comedy most critics focus on the plot development rather than if the movie is funny or not. Comedies are always overanalyzed rather than being asked the question "does this movie fulfill it's purpose of making me laugh and entertain me?" This is often my biggest gripe with critics of the genre.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

"Why are doctors' diagnoses the opposite of people who diagnose themselves using WebMD?"

---

I do have to push back on this, though.

Sounds awfully close to saying critics are right and audiences are wrong.

---

Apologies. It was three in the morning, and I can now see how this comes across. The analogy was meant to be more about the fact that they're trained experts, not that they deal in absolute rights or wrongs.

This post is way more along the lines of how I meant that analogy to come across. Very well said.

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.

---

Oh, I'm fully aware of how arrogant and condescending the post as a whole comes across. When combating the likes of cbr and his mind numbing drivel, I'm simply fighting fire with fire.

Very much appreciated. I do genuinely try to be as nice and level-headed as I can, save for when I do what I do, re: the post above for the reasons stated above.

TCTTS said:

---

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.

---

Oh, I'm fully aware of how arrogant and condescending the post as a whole comes across. When combating the likes of cbr and his mind numbing drivel, I'm simply fighting fire with fire.

---

It might e arrogant, but its NOT WRONG. Expertise matters, and there are a huge amount of Americans today who think that their opinion is just as informed when its not. Film is subjective, and people watch for different things, but that doesn't mean that I know as much as a film critic who has stupid movies to a far greater degree than I ever will.

Oh, no doubt. And well put. More often than not, lately, it feels like we're increasingly hurtling toward a future where "expertise" is regarded as nothing more than "elitism" or "agenda driven."

In other words, this feels more and more prescient...

aggiebq03+ said:

---

If critics universally love a movie, it will be terrible.

---

You hated Toy Story that much?

Quote:

---

Critics actually analyze movies on so many levels that the casual audience member isn't there for in the first place. The average person just wants to spend $10 on an hour and a half worth of getting out of the house and getting away from reality. For critics the movies are their reality. They literally make their living off of what they see in the content of the movie. Critics spend their time studying why movies are great so that they can write about why they stand out or disappoint. 90% of the audience doesn't care enough to see past a movies top layer. They are going to connect more with movies that they feel familiar with or are easier to digest.

---

The moral of the story is.. if every single one of them disappeared from the planet, the planet would literally lose nothing of value.

mazag08 said:

---

Quote:

---

Critics actually analyze movies on so many levels that the casual audience member isn't there for in the first place. The average person just wants to spend $10 on an hour and a half worth of getting out of the house and getting away from reality. For critics the movies are their reality. They literally make their living off of what they see in the content of the movie. Critics spend their time studying why movies are great so that they can write about why they stand out or disappoint. 90% of the audience doesn't care enough to see past a movies top layer. They are going to connect more with movies that they feel familiar with or are easier to digest.

---

The moral of the story is.. if every single one of them disappeared from the planet, the planet would literally lose nothing of value.

---

You can say that about 99.9% of the world's population

Funnily enough, I don't ever really read any critic reviews of movies. I've yet to find one that really mirrors my tastes. However I give far more weight to the RT Critic overall score than the fan score because 95% of the time, it is right there with my own tastes. Fans scores are pointless to me. Fans are some of the most ignorant, boring, easily entertained dunces, and there is a ****ton of them.

mazag08 said:

---

Quote:

---

Critics actually analyze movies on so many levels that the casual audience member isn't there for in the first place. The average person just wants to spend $10 on an hour and a half worth of getting out of the house and getting away from reality. For critics the movies are their reality. They literally make their living off of what they see in the content of the movie. Critics spend their time studying why movies are great so that they can write about why they stand out or disappoint. 90% of the audience doesn't care enough to see past a movies top layer. They are going to connect more with movies that they feel familiar with or are easier to digest.

---

The moral of the story is.. if every single one of them disappeared from the planet, the planet would literally lose nothing of value.

---

Hey, at least they are putting out real analysis under their real name instead of being critical of their opinion on an anonymous message board.

OldShadeOfBlue said:

---

cbr said:

---

Critics are rich kids who don't have to work and take themselves way too seriously. They are all forced to eat and **** leftist ideology and they can't get published if they have common sense and real American values as all media outlets are bought leftist anti American garbage.

Therefore they like their bs propaganda

Americans still actually exist, in some real numbers, and they vote differently than these ****ing *******s.

That's why the difference.

---

Wait, who's taking who too seriously??

---

Lol, certainly not me. Im basically joking and look at all the screeching.

But lets run this down -

point one - rich kids - how many 'critics' are true professionals with experience that earn enough money from their critiqing alone, not because they grew up as 'part of the hollywood club' to live comfortably in la or ny or whatever? Dying to know.

Point two - taking themselves too seriously is sort of a given for a 'professional critic'

Point three - how many critics are viewed from a solid constitutionalist conservative media outlet? How many critics complain of sjw bull**** in modern shows?


How many reveal obvious leftist leanings?


Finally how many real Americans outside the 'hollywood/broadway' club actually lick up that socialist pc authoritarian bull**** in real life?


Versus how many critics by percentage?

I invite anyone to prove any of these assumptions wrong.

Or you can just screeech more and insult more.

It's pretty easy to point out that movie critics are all over the country, not just LA or NY.

schmendeler said:

---

It's pretty easy to point out that movie critics are all over the country, not just LA or NY.

---

It's pretty easy to point out that there are homosexuals in Nebraska, not just San Francisco and Key West.

The Debt said:

---

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...

---

1) GE hasn't owned NBC since 2011.
2) Affiliate channels are not owned by the broadcasting partner so not sure what you're alluding to. NBC owns only ~14 local market channels. CBS has ~18, ABC has ~8. Most local stations are owned by independent broadcasting groups (e.g. Hearst, Nexstar, Sinclair)
2) You can not compare box office gross to production budgets to calculate profitability. You're missing distribution costs, marketing expenses, taxes, participations & residuals, etc., etc.

Maybe read up a bit on how the industry actually works before going all conspiracy theory (a movie which coincidentally has pretty even critic & audience ratings )

mazag08 said:

---

Quote:

---

Critics actually analyze movies on so many levels that the casual audience member isn't there for in the first place. The average person just wants to spend $10 on an hour and a half worth of getting out of the house and getting away from reality. For critics the movies are their reality. They literally make their living off of what they see in the content of the movie. Critics spend their time studying why movies are great so that they can write about why they stand out or disappoint. 90% of the audience doesn't care enough to see past a movies top layer. They are going to connect more with movies that they feel familiar with or are easier to digest.

---

The moral of the story is.. if every single one of them disappeared from the planet, the planet would literally lose nothing of value.

---

Very curious to hear what it is you do for work and what value it brings to the planet

When reacting to critics, "right" and "wrong" are words we shouldn't use. What the critic writes is that person's opinion. He can't force you to see a movie; he can't stop you from seeing it. And remember that if a critic goes to see a movie it's because that's his job. If I go to see a movie, it's because I want to see it.

Case in point: the Tyler Perry's Madea movies. Critics generally loathe them. But the sizeable number of people who want to see them will set aside a block of time in their day, drive to the theater, and pay money for tickets.

No website will tell you whether you will or will not enjoy a given movie. I put way more faith in Cinemascore than in Rotten Tomatoes, but neither one is a sure thing.