3 ms·
Huh, have critics ever been in sync with audiences? For my whole life, I've learned and then observed that critics evaluate primarily the cinematic quality of
by yason 5y ago
Huh, have critics ever been in sync with audiences?
For my whole life, I've learned and then observed that critics evaluate primarily the cinematic quality of a film, i.e. does the film as a piece of art work as a whole when considering acting, directing, screenwriting... This is generally a different axis from entertainment which is what people often care about when looking for something to see.
If a critic likes a film it's because it is good cinema. If you're in the film-watching mood you would likely appreciate that film if it has high critical scores. But if you want something easy or you want to see a guaranteed uplifting film with your friends before going out to a pub round, you want entertainment and then you don't want to look at the critics scores.
You might want to infer something from the review text because often critics do tell you if the film is entertaining and a good watch. The film still got 1 star out of 5 because it was not good cinema.
- AdamJacobMuller 5y ago> have critics ever been in sync with audiences? I think there was a smaller gap in a few respects. Firstly I think the film industry as a whole has polarized into "art" and "entertainment" films with too little crossover. Films can and should be artful and entertaining. Secondly I think critics have become too polarized to criticize films as being "low-effort" or "low-value" entertainment films. There's a reason why people go see blockbusters, they enjoy them! Finally, I think unfortunately some audiences too quickly dismiss some films as "too artsy" or "too intelligent" or "not wanting to think." There's a lot of fun movies out there which don't fit into normal boxes! Sadly I don't really see that gap closing. I agree with someone in another thread which said that there's much better and more varied content on "TV" (streaming/etc) in medium-form series. Give me a great limited-run series like the queen's gambit any day! it's the perfect intersection of artsy and fun and high brow and low brow!
- wolverine876 5y ago> I've learned and then observed that critics evaluate primarily the cinematic quality of a film, i.e. does the film as a piece of art work as a whole when considering acting, directing, screenwriting... This is generally a different axis from entertainment which is what people often care about when looking for something to see. IME and IMHO, the former has a great effect on the latter; that's why people, including critics, care about it. The qualities are what make the movie engaging, moving, exciting, etc. In UX, users may not understand how it is done but the UX design still impacts them significantly; UX designers can tell you what is making that impact and how.