3 ms·

There's times when I want to know the inside-baseball angle of a film, that can be really interesting, but those times are rare for me (and most people, I'd wag

There's times when I want to know the inside-baseball angle of a film, that can be really interesting, but those times are rare for me (and most people, I'd wager). When critics diverge so far from the role of answering the question "what's a movie I would enjoy" then no, they're not doing their job. I'm not sure exactly what job they're doing now, but I'd say by and large they aren't doing anything I'm interested in. That's like having a tourist blog that only talks about places that other tourist blogs like to blog about but not places people want to visit! Not useful for the (assumed) intended audience.

CrispinS 5y ago
> When critics diverge so far from the role of answering the question "what's a movie I would enjoy" then no, they're not doing their job. There's no critic that can predict what you'll like, since tastes in films differ so much. I have a friend I don't discuss movies with much, because we disagree on pretty much every single one we've both seen; it's literally impossible for a single critic to directly tell us both what we'd like.
- switchbak 5y ago
  Critics can most certainly put themselves in the position of relating to common folks, and that was a big part of what Siskel and Ebert both did. Just cause someone might not know my specific tastes isn't a reason that everyone should have to be recommended videos that most people will predictably not enjoy. That's like saying since there's no way I'd know what music you might like, then you should listen to King Crimson since it's highly respected in prog Rock circles. Yes, sure, and most people would hate it.