I hope you found this one useful! If you'd like to join my Discord server where we chat about our writing projects, workshop ideas, and generally discuss the movies/shows we love, here's a link you can use to join. My Discord: discord.com/invite/aJpYPQX Keep writing! - Henry
In my eyes the problem with this example is not the most accurate. Indeed the SMBMovie is not the most outstanding film ever and it relays on tropes to convey it's objective: be entertaining to most and very entertaining for it's target audience. Movie critics get their senses dulled since they oversaturate themselves with the formulas and get bored since they see once and again the same thing. Now, in this time we are now, the critics are not critics for the most part. Specially Rotten Tomatoes. You only need to look at the content of the reviews to note that most of the critics have a checklist of things it has to had (specially political in nature) and were completely ignored, so they did not liked the movie. It's not a critic making the work it is intended to do, but an activist putting it's hot take on it. Another take entirely are other sites that are part of a production company giving themselves a pat in the back or trying to undermine the competition in the opinion of masses, which is most of the time quite obvious and gets called quite fast. That's why most of critics nowadays are not trusted: they are clearly people whos opinion can be rapidly discarded without much deliberation.
I would argue the mario movie was innovative in itself since, even if its plot was generic, a lot of people were eager to see a mario movie that was just like the games themselves, regardless of plot and this could explain why it made so much money at the box office
@@LuisSierra42 How is pandering to a pre-built fandom innovative in any way, shape or form? That's basic safe financial investment. "regardless of plot"... the bar couldn't be any lower.
@@cormano64 innovative in the sense that there has never been a mario movie that actually felt like a mario movie. It's like, even if the first spiderman movie had a weak plot, if it had the most basic elements that would allow spiderman fans to recognize it as such, it would have been successful as well
The validity of a critic doesn’t lie in his opinion on a certain piece of art but in the consistency of his voice. I watch a lot of critics on multiple art forms online, some of which I almost never agree with but they’re credible reviewers for me because I’ve looked into and understand what THEY want and look out for when experiencing a certain piece of art. When looking at it with that perspective you can see why someone with that specific point of view would like or dislike something and applying to how much you differ or align with that you can use that review as (nothing more than) an advice on the question “is this art piece worth for me to invest in?”
Exactly. I've been watching zero punctuation for a long time now, not just because they're entertaining but because Yahtzee is the only game critic I trust to communicate effectively what is and is not good game design while also letting me know what he considers a fun game and why. He's also not in anyone's pocket (a much more blatant problem in games journalism than conventional media journalism) and I 100% trust that what he says is his experience with a game is his experience and not what he hoped his experience would be. Like, it's actually kind of fun to watch him rip apart something you love because all his critiques are actually accurate and cleverly delivered
Absolutely agree! I've watched Jeremy Jahns for years and when he said independece day 2 was not worth seeing, by the way he described it, I knew i would have a good time.
I haven’t seen the Mario movie, but from everything I’ve heard, it did exactly what it needed to do. Namely, it placated the Nintendo executives who kept the IP locked away from Hollywood for decades and proved that the film industry could do it justice.
@yao483 Well if the critics could just admit it's good mario movie but not a good movie. Most of this would be fine. The mario movie was obviously meant for game fans and children and not the be a new oscar winner.
@@blobmarley1064 I would wager a lot of critics were aware that it was a fine fun movie for Mario fans. But 1. you kind of need to be a Mario fan to really gauge "how good" it is as a Mario film, 2. review scores aren't compatible with such nuances, and 3. applying different weights to different movies based on their target audience is not only difficult to balance because of my first point, but also introduces a bias of its own. At the end of the day, reviews are products of the reviewer. You shouldn't ask critics to review things a certain way any more than a critic should convince you to not like a movie that you very much did.
I agree but I think it’s still important to recognize when something is bad yk? You can like the worst show ever but don’t pretend it’s anything but that lol
Like as long as something is entertaining to watch,no matter how good or bad the product is,i will be watching it,good bad films are often more entertaining than good good films ngl
I saw someone online discuss the Mario movie and put it simply. It’s not a very _good_ movie technically speaking, but it’s 90 minutes of straight fun and nostalgia. This is why the critics hated it but fans loved it. As she continued to say, it’s the best 6/10 movie she’s ever seen.
That last sentence. It's strange that the most important problem with the system wasn't mentioned in the video; every single review could be 6/10 and the rating would be 100% fresh. It's not a rating translated into a percentage, it's a percentage of ratings that are first translated into binary, with an arbitrary threshold. That's the real problem, not the obvious one of selection bias in the fan rating. It's a system specifically designed to be manipulable. It can be gamed in a ridiculous number of ways, many of them very, very subtle. It's always been absurd, lazy and deceitful.
Wanna bet that the same movie, juat with a Girl Boss Peach that beats DK and Bouser without any help wouldve gotten a 90 % Critics Score on Rotten? Chill Media and Corporate Media critics are political and social driven. Diversity and Feminism... good review, if not... bad review!
Battleship is arguably a bad movie. That said, it's as entertaining, as it is mindless. A critic's 5/10 is probably a super movie, but you're simply not pretentious and sophisticated enough to understand the rating.
As a plumber myself the Super Mario Bros movie presented in insanely accurate depiction of a plumbers line of work, I myself on multiple occasions have stomped on turtles and tossed giant godzilla like creatures named gay bowser, good work illumination!
I watched the Mario movie with my nerdy group of friends. We have been playing through Mario games together for years, and we had an absolute blast. We all agree it was definitely not a masterpiece, but it was fun, and that’s what mattered.
I'm not even a fan of Mario and I loved it. It was exactly what it set out to be, FUN! I loved watching it and even better, it didn't overstay it's welcome with an extra hour of unnecessary scenes or plot twists.
It was, but somehow it was worse than both the latest Indiana Jones movie and the Barbie movie. Mario took basically no risks and did the bare minimum necessary to do the requisite reference checks.
I do agree with a lot that is said in the video but I just wanna warn people that if you only listen to people who agree with you, you have to take a step back when facing something or someone you don't agree with. They are not necessarily wrong, and you are not necessarily right either, you just don't agree and that is fine. Keep in mind that the world is complex and full of nuances. Not agreeing can be the starting point of one of the most interesting and stimulating conversation of your life.
YESS!! Why can’t people understand that differing opinions can lead to thoughtful and interesting conversations? Why are people getting mad at other people for not being an exact copy of themselves? Of course you’re going to disagree with people. Can you imagine how boring life would be if everyone had the same opinions? You are your own person with your own set of values and tastes and so is everyone else and conversations on art opinions can be a great way to explore those values and tastes of someone else!
@@thijmen5295 Sadly, some people tend to take disagreements as a personal aggression for some reason. The phenomenon is prevalent on Twitter for example.
It’s a lot like what’s happening right now with the Fnaf movie, with critics calling it shallow and going off on tangents, but most of the fans absolutely loving it because the movie was made for them.
The most useful reviews, in my mind, are those that say "You'll probably enjoy this if you are or can get into X, Y and Z". Or alternatively, reviews that describe the movie in a manner that you can set your expectations going in, or know it's not for you. The perfect example, for me, was "The Expendables", which one review described along the lines of "consists of nothing more than adrenaline, gunpowder and testosterone". I went in with exactly that expectation and was NOT disappointed. Had I expected something with even a little depth, I would have gotten far less enjoyment out of it, but I went in knowing what I'd get. Same thing, on the other end of the spectrum, was "Dune", which I knew beforehand was complex, a slow burn and not action heavy. Went into the movie with those expectations, and enjoyed it throughout.
@@lokhimtam7933 Not in terms of youtube, unfortunately, as I can not remember where the "Expendables" review even came from (the description just stuck), and the "Dune" review came from a newspaper of all places. And neither of them was in English.
I find IMDB to be very accurate. There are a lot of online reviewers but I don't always agree with them so it's good to find someone where you know where yours and their tastes align and diverge. I'd recommend Fish Jelly, Chris Stuckman, and Flick Connection @@lokhimtam7933
This is one of the reasons I almost roll my eyes when someone praises a film because “it has a bit of something for everyone”. I don’t want a film that’s going to try and please everyone, I’d rather a film cater to its strengths and go all in on appealing to certain people.
As someone who enjoys all types of movies from all genres, I love watching movies with a little bit of everything. So while I don't think that pleasing everyone should be the end goal for a movie, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing several different genres to the film.
@@M_k-zi3tnI mean a hard-core gore filled horor film isn't going to appeal to the people who hate gore. A slow paced murder mystery will many twists and turns isn't going to work for people who want fast paced action movies. People have many different tastes and preferences. It isn't about excluding people, it is about pleasing the target audience by telling the story you want to tell. If we use food as a metaphor, then it's trying to make a good spicy curry. If you want it to be nice and spicy, you can't appeal to the people who hate spicy food. People have different tastes, and not everyone likes every thing.
Yes, if everybody is the audience, then nobody is the audience. Any movie that broad is not going to be very interesting. Even Shakespeare, the plays that are often considered some of the best ever, certainly some of the most long-lived, aren't for everybody, even if you fix the language and references to make them more accessible.
@@M_k-zi3tn It's not about alienating people, it's about the fact that people want contradictory things. You have people that want things that are family friendly and you want people who want topics that are only suitable for more mature audiences. You can sort of balance that out with bimodal writing, but each element like that which you have to balance, the more watered down it gets and the less interesting it gets. You can probably get away with accommodating 2 or 3 groups like that, but you will wind up with something less interesting beyond that and at a certain point it will be crap.
I find the Rotten Tomatoes scores very helpful. If there's a big discrepancy between the critics and the users, then that tells you something about the movie. If they both like it, then it's almost certainly going to be worth watching. If the critics love it and the users hate it, it's probably an artsy movie that will only appeal to certain types of people. The target audience explanation doesn't explain it all because critics rate kids movies highly all the time.
I think that's because reviewers (generally) don't hold children in contempt. What I mean is, it is not just that they don't have the same tastes as the audience of a Mario movie; it is more that they dislike the people who would enjoy a Mario movie, so are less willing to attempt to view the movie from the point of view of the potential audience. They don't hate kids in the same way, so they are willing to look at the movie from the standpoint of (or, at least, their imagined version of the standpoint of) a child.
@@alakaniYeah this is my attitude too haha. The only critic I listen to is myself 🤣🤣 The only real exception is if I hear nothing but bad news about a film. Then I won’t watch it. But that’s pretty rare, usually I hear a mixture of opinions.
@@alakani: With that approach, though, you could spend all your time watching the VAST majority of movies that are known turkeys. You have to have some discernment prior to watching them and Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and Metacritic give you at least an idea of what you're getting into. I have known people who seem to enjoy movies that almost everyone else would consider awful, so I guess if you're one of them, then your approach is logical. I will watch a movie that has lower ratings if it's something I'm interested in and I've sometimes been surprised by a poorly rated movie, but if a film gets a 35/40 on Rotten Tomatoes, the chances of me liking that is practically nil. Experience is the best teacher. I've always thought it would be interesting to rate movies and then have your ratings compared to critics and other users to find people who seem to agree with you. Wouldn't it be cool to discover that some random girl in Winoka or a critic for a free paper in Plainsville was your movie-rating doppelganger? Better yet, if you found a group with similar tastes, you could share your finds and develop a mini-community.
I disagree. You shouldn't look to an aggregate score of a bunch of critics' opinions as a barometer for why a movie is good or bad. Especially before you even watch it for yourself. Your mind is incredibly strong. If you see an aggregate, Holy Score beforehand your mind is going to be made up before you watch it. You'll just look for reasons why the movie is "fresh" or "rotten" as opposed to actually watching it.
Roger Ebert was my go-to critic. His approach was simple: Does the movie do what it set out to do, and does it do it well? That's how a movie like "Booty Call" got a three-star review.
Same for me. After he passes away, I only look at the imdb score, because I found out that score mostly reflects what I would think about a movie. I think critics were useful before the Internet became a thing. Now that you can see what the audience thinks, critics have become obsolete.
I really liked Ebert as a critic but sometimes he had some really bad takes. Unfortunately, he fell into some bad habits when it came to embracing new types of art as he got older. Which was especially sad considering he wrote one of the weirdest, most subversive movies around in his younger years. He went from embracing strange new things that the old guard didn't understand to becoming the old guard who didn't understand. His weird hatred for video games made him feel more and more out of touch as movies began to borrow from this newer medium that had itself borrowed from movies. He also missed the point of a movie on occasion and mixed up the presentation vs theme. I always remember his Fight Club review being 2 stars because he thought it was an excuse for the heroes to be ridiculous, idealised action movie versions of men. But he missed the point entirely - they weren't the heroes.
Yep. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert decades ago. They were reviewing some silly action movie, your 80's-90's action film sort. They both gave it a great score, but not because it was compelling cinema. They openly admitted it was like so much other stuff. But it did what it set out to do perfectly and in an entertaining way. It gave an audience that was looking for two hours of explosions and one-liners everything they were looking for.
I read about how he gave a big dumb action film a higher score than a romantic film simply because the action film succeeded at what it was trying to be; i.e.: big dumb action.
I feel SO validated that Hot Fuzz was your B-roll while talking about how “…a film can be-objectively speaking-a bloody masterpiece that is perfectly made.” It’s been my favorite movie of all time since I saw it, and I watch it every year around my birthday. I haven’t met anyone who feels remotely the same about Hot Fuzz; I typically get “huh? never heard of that one” or “really? It was alright, but I’m surprised it’s anyone’s ‘favorite of all time.’” It’s the best thing ever put to filmstock (in my personal subjective opinion). 🤩
Yes!!! Totally agree, it’s bloody brilliant and I loved every second of it, Edgar Wright just has a supreme talent for utilising bathos to captivate and enrich his narratives. Him and Simon Pegg are just so cool.
I feel like a person who is surprised at Hot Fuzz being someone's favourite film, or who thinks it's only alright, is a person who wasn't really paying attention when they saw the film. IF they saw the film.
It's easily my favourite comedy. What I like so much isn't just that pretty much every joke lands, which is rare for a comedy, but just how tight, and lean it is as a film. it has such effective plotting, and I especially adore how it gives you so much forshadowing which makes a rewatch all the more enjoyable.
Not to mention that most people think that the percentage is the average score given by critics (WHICH ITS NOT). It is an approval rating. If it has a 65%, it means that 65% of critics gave it a passing score, and 35% didn't. Out of that 65%, maybe half of them are 10/10, and most people won't even know.
@@ompatel5570 first of all, there was clearly more effort put in compared to say "Sing". The animation is much more creative and detailed, there are many varied jokes and not just poop and farts, the characters are not just stereotypes... It's like a 6/10 if you're not a Mario fan. I don't blame most critics for not liking this movie, because there's not that much to like for them.
@@gasterthemaster6490 In what way is the animation better? This is a genuine question cause most of these modern 3d animations are blurring together. The backgrounds are so basic with those ugly skies. Maybe Puss in Boots and Spiderverse increased my expectations for animation, but I could not tell the difference in Animation style with this and Minions
@@ompatel5570 it's much more cartooney and round, the characters are way less stiff and skinny, and while it's no Spiderverse it captured the Mario style perfectly.
I disagree that you should stop listening to people you don't agree with. It's like what they say about outside art. Listening to people you don't agree with and understanding their opinions helps you gain a new appreciation for pieces of art you don't like, and help you cherish the art that you do like, all the more.
listening to people does nothing; it is pointless to listen to people you agree with and also to people you disagree with. Your own experience tops everything
After watching a movie, this is absolutely true. One should try to learn more about other people's opinions. However, allowing the opinion of a critic that you normally disagree with to influence your decision to watch a movie or not is just plain stupidity.
There's a time and place to listen to people you disagree with, like in a debate about how good a movie was to you. The thing is, you shouldn't overdo it or your perspective on things you do like can be skewed to be far more critical of them, which can cause you to lose enjoyment for them. There are definitely games out there that once I began to understand their ins & outs, that I began to like them less than I used to.
I think another issue that often gets ignored is whether a movie is going to be fun for kids. There are a LOT of parents out there who want to share fun, clean movies with their children, but most of the "good" movies according to critics are either inappropriate or would just go over kids' heads. The Mario movie was perfect for kids. I took mine twice, then bought it on Prime the day it came out.
It's really not for kids, well at the very least not intellegent or dignified kids. The Super Princess Peach schlock was a dishonest and unfaithful adaptation, while it was just inexcusably stupid and bad in general while doing so. This Trojan Horse didn't not break the "Video-game Movie Curse" a single bit. It's for just about the same reasons why most other Hollywood video-games adaptations are bad in addition for commiting all the cinema sins all of Illumination's. The target audience for The Super Princess Peach Movie was really just normies, super casual fans, newcomers, and outsiders who wanted to be interested in Mario, I.E. people who don’t actual know the series' lore, while actual hardcore Mario fans will tell you that this movie adds nothing of value for the series and has no real part of the series established lore, which was the real reason as to why it was financially successful, along with Illumination's masterful marketing. I know this because I actually went out of my way and talked to them about this during this movie's release. They'll tell you this movie disrespected and misrepresents the series lore and characters. It's practically a Western Reboot that panders to modern audiences and a bait-and-switch with the main character and female supporting lead, for the sake of social activism and to pander to the ego of a feminist voice actress. It's a Happy Meal Commercial for the Mario games which is targeted primarily towards Modern (woke) Western audiences, not actual dedicated Mario fans, and nothing more.
@@rustyshackelford4224 Lol, try explaining any of that to a 6-year-old. You just described why the movie isn't aimed at hardcore long-time Mario fans, not children.
@@rustyshackelford4224Ah, so you're one of those people who has become so paranoid about every new piece of cinema that you can't watch anything from a normal lens. Try reading the Nintendo Power Mario comics from the 90s. A lot of ideas that went into the new Mario movie had their origins there, an official Mario comic in Nintendo's official magazine.
I think Mario did a thing that no movie ever did before: it adapted a game and kept true to its original source, rewarding its fanbase instead of a studio being pretentious enough to think they need to "fix it" doing their own thing
That’s one of the biggest issues with Hollywood. They can’t just make something without thinking they need a message or fixing some outdated ideas or what is considered politically incorrect now
And that is something some people and critics seems to not understand. The hole movie plays in a world, that works on videogame logic and that is the fun about it. Watching a fun adventure of the Mario Brothers trapped in a fantasy world, with a story, that does not have to make a lot of logical sense in the real world. I enjoyed it, because i was the target audience, who grew up with those games.
Nice to hear a more elaborate take on this problem. I stopped caring about score reviews a while ago. What I want to know from a review is both "What does this creative work try to do?" and "How well does it actually do it?", and that's basically all of it. Even when score reviews evaluate a thing on different standardised metrics (sound/visuals/story,...), it doesn't tell me anything about what is that core idea that might make me love that thing.
The easiest way to fix rotten tomatoes critics seems to be to just simply speciate them, and let them watch movies of genres _they like,_ rather than forcing them to watch movies they don't care about and predictably leading to them bashing it into the dirt.
This exactly! I feel like reviewers who enjoy a certain type/genre of media will appreciate said media more and give interesting perspective to people not familiar with the subject matter. Recently I've been watching this guy called Maximilian Dood, a guy really into fighting games. I know nothing about the genre but getting his perspective on what makes a fighting game good or bad makes me appreciate things that I would've never even considered before. Recently got Mortal Kombat on discount because he piqued my interest, and I absolutely love it!
Why though. Just look at the audience score then. I think it's helpful for film buffs to have reviews from other film buffs available. Like, I did not like the Mario movie because it's plot was too thin and Peach's arc as a lost human baby is just totally ignored after it is introduced. I think it's good that I can get a vibe check from similarly minded people, to separate the Mario movies from say, the Spiderverse movies which critics and audiences love.
I mean, no-one is forcing them to be movie critics.. but, ya know what they say.. "those that can't create, critique" .. yah, nah, that's what they say..
That's a stupid idea though. That's how you then end up with critics giving everything they watch high scores because they only review the things they like. Look at IGN. No one respects IGN's video game scores because they give Call of Duty 9 and 10 out of 10s. But it's like with movies, people want exactly that.
I think the problem is two fold. One, critics have been proven to get benefits from overpraising films that don’t deserve it, or at least mitigate consequences for themselves, after all, companies are likely to invite you to early screenings if you’d likely say it’s the best movie of the year. The other case I often find is sheer ego. Whether it’s overpraising a film that appeals to their political sensibilities, over criticizing a film that isn’t what they wanted it to be, or being intensely bias against a type of film due to preconceived notions *cough cough animation* . The idea of just meeting a film on its own terms seems alien to most of them. What doesn’t help the matter is that general knowledge on story structure and critique is more common, thereby creating a bunch of “film critics” who frankly have no idea what they’re doing and are too stuck up to see it. Additionally it also means that we can see a lot of these subpar critics for what they are, and the audience who isn’t so educated on film structure and such puts vastly less weight on film critics, simply due both to supply and demand and the increasing amount of hack film critics means there’s less faith put in them as a whole. Edit: the animation disrespect is more so for the snobs behind big award shows, the big example is the Oscars
You're wasting your time, this Closed Eyes guy refuses to even acknowledge these simple facts and instead goes on an endless rant about "muh art this, hur dur art that", every mfer these days wants to call themselves an "artist".
I mean, critics lovex Pixar, and they love the Spiderverse movies. The fact that critics have standards for animation roughly equal to that of any other movie, while audiences expect slop for kids, reflects well on critics' respect for animation as a medium.
@@bopete3204Admittedly the disrespect for animation is less on general critics and more so the snobs behind a lot of award shows, ie the Oscars and such
This makes me think about how reader scores for subsequent books in a series tend to get better scores than the original. This is because only people who really liked the first book will take the time to read the next books. The people who would give the sequels bad reviews remove themselves from the pool of reviewers.
I must be one of the few who can't escape the nagging feeling to finish the entire series. I often feel bad about critiquing the first book in a series because sometimes it needs time to find its footing. Usually, I try to read another book by the author. Maybe that one bad book wasn't my cup of tea, and they have something better on their shelves.
Your advice about finding the right critic for you really reminds me of another piece of advice I heard once. I'm an aspiring author, so I've heard almost exactly the same thing about - at least where self-publishing is concerned - how you have to find the right editor for the kind of story you're trying to tell, or the changes they're going to suggest are going to do more harm than good.
Critics and audience members do have different perspectives on films of course. But sometimes you have to wonder if you even saw the same film as the critics when you see some of the reviews.
@@claytonrios1 Yup it was a flash in a pan story about the Marysue(no surprise) and WaPo. We have Polygon,Gawker,IGN doing the same with Videogames its a growing trend it seems. Best was Polygons" we dont have the time" response. @corman64 hi harrasment bot havent seen you in 3 seconds.
@@snintendog ... what? I was genuinely asking for a source because I couldn't find anything about it. I thought being polite about it would be enough to differentiate me from whatever you thought I was, but clearly the paranoia got the better of you.
The problem with Rotten Tomatoes, was that it turns out companies really WERE buying off professional critics for positive reviews and ratings. In other words, never trust a positive rating on any review site, Rotten Tomatoes especially.
Isn't it a like or dislike system? A system like this makes sure mediocrity gets 100% and politics force many professional reviewers to likes. A 0 to 10 system would reveal actual quality through the distribution curve, especially if it included age and sex. Difficult films have certain distribution curves that distinguish them from averqge films. Controversial films also get certain curves.
I agree. I don't see him as a critic at all, though he's quite insightful with his critiques. The way I see it, he uses the media he critiques in order to teach us, the audience, lessons on how to write, by pointing out the work's assets and/or flaws. Though he's quite good at both, the critique is secondary to the writing advice given.
She is so bad at criticizing, makes it seem like she doesn't watch the movies. Sometimes it feels like she reads tweets about a movie and then writes the scripts for her videos.
In one of the last seasons of Barry, there was a plot point about Rotten Tomatoes scores. The girl had made a TV show that initially got a 100% on RT so she thought it would definitely end up being a hit. But then it was immediately canceled. When she asked why, they basically told her only one person had watched it. And that person happened to give it a 100% score when they reviewed it for Rotten Tomatoes.
Rotten Tomatoes brings out the worst in people by aggregating scores into a vague averages percentage. People see that percentage and then disregard every single critic as they're all the same individual, even though anything aside from a 0% or a 100% means that a lot of those individuals have differing opinions about the movie. It's kind of frustrating to witness it happen time and time again.
It’s both to an extent. You need to review a film based on quality as a critic, not preference. And has a public viewer, you’re allowed to be dishonest and review purely on preference.
It’s both to an extent. You need to review a film based on quality as a critic, not preference. And has a public viewer, you’re allowed to be dishonest and review purely on preference.
Another aspect to keep in mind is what aspect of the movie a person focuses on. Critics are more likely to judge more aspects of a movie than an average watcher. For example, a comedy will mostly be judged on its comedic quality by an average watcher, but on more aspects by a critic. This is also a part of why there can be a big difference.
I can’t agree with this. The point of critics is to see how a given movie compares to all other movies. It’s not about whether they like it or not, just whether it has substance in terms of cinema. Which, Mario doesn’t. It’s not a movie for people who see movies to see movies. It’s a movie for people who like Mario. Critic ratings are right, more often than not, because how movies are received just doesn’t have anything to do with success towards a target audience. That’s like saying snuff films are art because they deeply move disturbing people who love it-obviously that shouldn’t be the case. Audience rating is just “how much did people who liked this movie like it?” Versus the critic rating being “how well does this movie push cinema forward?” So of course Iron Man 1 got good rates for both. It did push the envelope by being a good superhero movie, and the first of the “theme park” flicks by the modern definition. Of course superhero movies of the same quality but made today get worse scores-they aren’t pushing the envelope because it already happened and they haven’t built upon it. These theme park flicks aren’t doing anything in terms of being movies, so of course they should get lower critic ratings. Shouldn’t it be obvious that critic ratings aren’t going to reflect anything about your tastes? It’s not about you, it’s about how relevant the piece is. The Mario movie just, isnt. It’s literally just another theme park flick for a different set of people, people who more or less like games instead of comics. Whether or not it did well for its target audience has *nothing* to do with how relevant the movie is in terms of movies. I need a metric for that. So, critic ratings have greater importance to me. Besides-when it comes to the technique and construction of a given film, *and not its subject matter or substance*, I expect most critics to agree on the same things for all films. If Mario did some new technical trick or some new camera angle in the digital space, that should be a hypothetical point all critics would agree upon, how that would be a good thing for the film. It doesn’t matter whether those critics like the choice stylistically or anything, just whether or not it’s a new/relevant thing for movies. I need an indicator for how “well built” a movie is. I don’t care how well received a thing is by it’s audience because, you’re right, everyone has different tastes, and since no individual can claim to be part of the common man, what the common man likes or doesn’t isn’t relevant to anyone. To use your example of a movie being either a 5/10 that’s remembered deeply by people or a 6/10 that’s mediocre-if the mediocre movie *did something to make critics like it*, meaning it had to have done something new or technically interesting, then *that* is the better film. Quality over substance. I don’t want one critic who reflects my tastes best. I want ten critics who all know what makes a good movie good and a bad movie bad, no matter what the differences between these ten people’s tastes are. Whether any of those critics were touched by the film or not *should absolutely not* be reflected in their scores. If they hated Mario for the Mario part, but liked it for the parts that were new or innovative or interesting-I expect them to give the movie a higher rating than they would if they were recommending it to someone. if there’s a critic who loves Mario, I expect them to give the Mario movie a bad score, because it’s a bad film. It’s good eye candy but that’s it. Conversely, I expect critics who hate movies they see to give those movies higher scores if they push the envelope. Say there’s a critic who hates, and I mean *hates*, irrationally, non-English films. I still expect that guy to give Parasite a high score because that’s the critics job. It’s not about what they feel, it’s what they know. And let’s be real-no public audience knows a good or bad movie when they see one. They just see colors and hear voices and feel feelings. Your average audience doesn’t notice what the camera is doing, they only feel the product of the movement. What they think is irrelevant because they don’t know better. Tl;dr: the critic’s score is how good a movie is if you aren’t familiar with its subject matter, versus the audience score being how good a movie is if you are. The critic scores for Mario and similar theme park movies are correct, because those movies aren’t doing anything in the name of cinema, which is what the critic score represents. Is Mario a good movie? Only if you like Mario. It’s not a good movie if you like movies. The critic rating should never even touch upon whether or not an audience likes the film or not. It’s a reflection upon how well built a movie is, and not its given substance. Because of this, I care more about critic ratings, and more often than not, these scores are accurate. You did nothing to disprove the value of the critic rating to me, nothing to point out how it could be wrong. That critic who never has played a video game but *had* to see Mario gave that movie the correct score, because what that critic thinks about what’s going on in the movie *should have absolutely nothing to do* with anything technical about the movie. It’s not the critics job to tell anyone if the story is good or not. Just the quality. Don’t pretend the metric for what makes a movie good or not is how well the audience receives it. That can never be the case.
You said it all, but I would like to add two points: - Of course innovation and how much cinema is carried forward is important, but it's not the only factor that leads to good or bad reviews. A film like The Irishman, for example, hasn't particularly brought the history of cinema forward, but it has been acclaimed by the critics (apart from some defects in the special effects which have instead been criticized) because the way it is built is almost perfect: its camera movements are perfect, the simple and impactful editing of the Hoffa murder is perfect,... Or, let's take Iron Man for a more "mainstream" example: it's a well-structured film in the writing, intelligent in the choice of flash-forward, with good direction, excellent character writing and a desire to tell an interesting theme. Eternals, on the other hand, has received worse reviews not so much because it is no longer new, but because it is a worse and more pretentious film; -One of the biggest problems given by the "culture of fandome" and the indifference of the public towards cinema is that people are so blinded by their fanboysm (or by their desire to only watch a scene where two characters fight each other with tamarra music in the background studied at the table) who begin to underestimate the mistakes, saying "alright, even if there are no mistakes, the film is still fun". This way of reasoning means not understanding a fundamental discourse: an error is not such because, I don't know, it is inserted in a "list of errors" but in fact if it exists or it doesn't exist, nothing changes; a mistake is such because it damages the narrative and makes the vision worse. Let me give you a trivial example: in my opinion, Black Adam's rhythm is a flaw that damages the film, but it isn't such because there is a written rule that says "every film with this type of rhythm sucks" (that would be wrong , because he would forget a fundamental thing about when he goes to do an analysis, i.e. the context) and therefore in practice nothing changes; it's a mistake because with that kind of pace I can't get involved in the characters and their stories (which should be the aim of the film), I end up pulling myself out of the vision and I'm bored to death. -the most interesting thing about critics (and by this term I'm certainly not talking about Grace Randolph, but about a true scholar of cinema), at least from my cinephile point of view, is hearing their witty reflections on a work, which often lead to analysis of a filmography, a technique or a trend: in a nutshell, when I read an article by David Bordwell or listen to a video by Enrico Ghezzi, I know that I am about to hear stimulating reflections on cinema. Then obviously there are also many young snob critics just out of the Film Academy who write a lot of bullshit trying to imitate the older ones and appear to be experts by writing only bullshit, but even those I wouldn't call them critics;
@gabrielesegapeli4053 Except Quality and Substance go hand in hand. The Mario movie had _neither,_ even when you're grading it as an adaptation of the Mario mythology on the big screen. Illumination just sees Mario as a cash grab to milk money.
I remember some 15 years ago a friend of mine who was really into music. He hated popular music, the catchy rhythms and big label production sound, it all was terrible to him. At the time I thought he was just being weird. Later on I understood that it was a matter of taste. Masses enjoy eating at MickeyD's but a food critic probably won't be too fond of the cuisine available there. My friend had a refined taste in music and if it wasn't technical and fast and challenging and unique, it wasn't worth listening to. Same applies to pretty much everything. Once you refine your taste enough through time, the regular stuff that is perfectly fine for most people, ceases to satisfy. Having seen thousands of movies I'm looking at things like lighting and editing and complex characterisation etc. That's what hooks me in nowadays more than having a fun two hours with my brain turned off, it is the interesting stuff that entertains me and not the formula mass consumers are satisfied by. The darker side of all of that is that a large quantity of the regular folk who like their McD's don't just like it, but prefer it over a high quality meal.
13:10 I feel like watching and reading only critics that agree with you would create a microcosm filled with the same opinions that complement each other and hence maybe would prevent genuine criticism and discourage people from discovering new things. From personal experience, some of the best movies and shows I found were because I started following critics I didn't necessarily agree with. A good critic will help you understand why something is good or bad and would help you discover new things or revisit old things that you maybe didn't like or understand the first time round.
I think it's best just to find one with similar taste in genre and such. I'm not gonna go to a Nintendo fanboy reviewer who doesn't usually play horror games for a Resident Evil review, because that person is unlikely to give a nuanced look because they're unfamiliar with the genre. Doesn't really have anything to do with whether they like it or not, or if I agree or not. And hell, they might actually make the most deep, nuanced review I've seen. But with millions of reviewers and thousands of games a year, it's hard to convince someone to take a chance they're feeling shaky about when they know of something more reliable already.
yes and no... If you want to find new things, of course following someone with similar tastes to yours isn't gonna cut it But if all you want is "would I like this movie or is there a better way to spend my only free evening of the month?" then that approach is the best Who cares about discovering new things you might like when you haven't even watched stuff you know you will? It boils down to how much time and money you have to throw at it
@@goosewithagibusI agree with your comment, it’s just funny that you used that specific example because there IS a Nintendo fanboy reviewer out there who LOVES Resident Evil and generally makes really great reviews (ArloStuff).
@@goosewithagibusyou say that but sometimes an outsider's perspective can be quite telling, because in the event that they do love something that they normally wouldn't then it can say something about the elements of the film they were drawn to
13:55 Everything you said here boils down to "Surround yourself in an echo chamber". I'm sure this works for other people, but this is the exact opposite advice I'd ever give to anyone, ever, period.
Gotta say, I’m very pleased to see someone grasp the power of marketing so well. Well known marketing does not = popularity; most people watch or buy things because of recommendations from people they know than because of ads. But what marketing does that you laid out so well is it picks its target audience. I’ve always believed that the best reviewed stories are always simply the ones that hit their target audiences so well. For every person that gave a 10/10 score, there is another that simply cannot be bothered to experience the story no matter what. To all writers out there, I think that this philosophy of target audience is something to be very conscientious of. You sometimes have to start with the most negative aspect of your story to push away those who wouldn’t enjoy it anyways, and then cater well later to those who are willing to enjoy the lowest part. Though this is one strategy, I’m personally trying a new strategy of balance: I want to write in a way that neither appeals to any group nor pushes away another group. I want the appeal to be neither positive nor negative, but instead simply intriguing. For I believe unbiased intrigue is a very powerful way to attract a large chunk of the audience, avoiding personal preferences that people may have. Also, always be confident in your appeal 👍🏾
If critics are unable to review a movie with the intended audience in mind, then they provide absolutely no added value to anything and are, in fact, completely useless.
Agree. The way i see it, critics are just people outside of the demographic, unwelcomed and think highly of themselves because they believe their opinion is the only valid one when they don’t even know the source material
Great video, very well said. I've realized a similar thing with gaming. So many highly rated AAA video games come out that don't appeal to me very much even if they're technically good, it's all a matter of taste.
The crazy thing is, if you ignore the scores and just read the reviews themselves… critics and general audiences actually broadly agree on a lot of the same points (it had super fun animation and sequences, a great score, and lots of references, but it also had crazy rushed pacing, a paper-thin plot, and seriously underbaked character arcs). The difference comes in how much value each aspect holds to a specific reviewer or audience. For most Mario fans, the animation, sequences, and callbacks were SO fun that the lack of any real story just wasn’t an issue. But most critics got very little out of all that stuff, even if they acknowledge those as strengths, and so all they were left with was a very lackluster story. Critics only seem “out of touch with reality” because scores are still (perhaps erroneously) seen as some kind of “objective measurement.” So when a review score doesn’t line up with the general public, a lot of people don’t see, “this critic personally enjoyed the movie this much,” they see, “this critic’s OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT of the movie’s quality is different from mine, and since I’m a rational human being, disagreeing with me means THEY’RE irrational and dumb!” Especially since critics are held to this standard of being as objective as possible, when imo we should really hold them to being CORRECT about the details thing of the thing they review, not on their opinion of that thing. Criticism is an analysis of the internal moving parts to see how it works and what it’s trying to accomplish. Critics then use that analysis to ultimately support their opinion on a piece of work, but that opinion is still an opinion, even if it’s more detailed, nuanced, and informative than anything user “JohnSmith720NoScopeXD” can write. But “it’s just your opinion” doesn’t have to be the end of the discussion, as it gives people the opportunity to discuss individual points. Even within the target demographic, there are some Mario fans that were seriously underwhelmed by the movie at best and HATED it at worst, to the point where they prefer the 1993 movie! Instead of saying “that’s your opinion” as a statement, we should use it as a question, and answer it ourselves. Like, “that’s your opinion? Well, I disagree on points X,Y, and Z that you brought up, and here’s why.” Also, not entirely sure I agree that people should ONLY listen to critics who’s tastes align with them. While people who have different tastes might not be a good way to judge if you yourself like a thing, there’s still valuable discussion to be had with those people, and they might be able to see some things you yourself missed. Also, many modern cartoons like Amphibia and The Owl House have grown larger followings amongst older audiences (who were probably NOT the intended audience, or at least Disney the company’s intended audience), and may find different levels of success amongst that demographic. Hecc, ignoring the demographic that DID like it is part of what killed the cult classic Invader Zim, and supporting them is arguably why My Little Pony Gen 4 was as massive as it was. All around good video, although slight nitpick: although the description with the “50% love it vs hate” part was basically how Rotten Tomatoes works, it’s not technically an “average score,” mathematically speaking.
A critic can be "out of touch" even if you don't assume a review is objective. If what a reviewer values is disconnected with what the readers value, then that person's reviews lose value for those readers. When that reviewer is working for a large publication and the tastes of that reviewer do not match the tastes of the general type of person who reads that publication, then they might not be a good match for that publication ("publication' being used liberally here to mean things like websites, etc.) When people accusing them of being out of touch, they are often pointing out that some reviewers (based on their tastes) should probably be working for a hyper-specialized 'zine with a circulation of 23 1/2.
This is why individual reviews read one-by-one are a much better barometer for film criticism. Grouping everybody's individual and unique and nuanced view on a film into a collective defeats the purpose of making movies. When you watch a movie, you're viewing it through the prism of your singular mind, your own unique perspective informed by your own personal experiences that are different from anybody else's. When you try to group these together into an aggregate, Holy Score, you lose all of the nuance. And people use that score as a judge for a movie's quality. The dumbing down of society.
Excellent points. I will say that I am old enough to remember a time when there seemed to be no critics that liked nerdy movies; superhero, sci-fi, etc. I wonder if it might help current critics to list a variety of movies they've seen and liked, so readers of that critic can make a decision much like you suggested.
Even moreso, it's not 98% of the audience who loved it, but 98% of the audience who are also Rotten Tomatoes reviewers. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction, a very small sample size, and yet they treat it like it's 98% of EVERYONE who saw it, and that's just completely unrepresentative. It's kind of like, how by calling low-fat milk 1% and 2%, the implication is that whole milk must be 100% when in reality it's just between 3% and 5%
Because critics are mostly full of sh..prejudice :) When was the last time some critic online said something useful, especially on any mass platform like rotten tomatoes or so. As far as I know most of them are corrupt, when comes to a mediocre product from a big companies they give 10/10 .
I would argue that critics should review things from the lens of the target audience. If I’m bald and bought a comb from Amazon, I’m not going to give it a 1 star review because it did nothing for me.
I agree that having similar tastes to a critic is important in determining whether or not you should listen to them, but I do also think it's valuable to listen to perspectives different from your own. If you watched a movie and you thought it stunk, hearing someone else describe why it connected with them might warm you to it. Conversely, Hearing someone's criticisms of something you may have enjoyed may compell you to defend it, forcing you to explain why it worked for you, reinforcing your love for it, or it can force you to look at what you watch more critically. Either way, listening to different perspectives on the art can help serve to sharpen your critical thinking when it comes to art and art criticism. That's my 2 cents anyway
@@chrisosborn6401I agree that art is often graded in dumb ways in school. However, I disagree with the deconstructionist notion that objective beauty doesn’t exist and it’s logical conclusion that any piece of art *can’t* be bad.
@@Gingermaas art isn't entirely subjective, aye. You can judge the skill and execution of techniques. The point I was making was art classes have strangled in the cradle many a promising talent with their bull shit. I witnessed an abstract piece that someone had slaved for passionate hours over, and the teach slapped it with an F.
Perfect analysis in my opinion. I have been using RT in this way. If it is a genre that I like, I use the audience score. If it is a genre that I'm less keen on I use the critic score. This tends to give me reasonably satisfactory results when viewing the film.
You can't trust either scores tbh. Both critic scores and audience scores are routinely manipulated and inflated by bias and other factors. Nothing is trustworthy anymore. You can have critics that give a bad movie a pass because of favoritism with the studio that made it (i.e., Disney) or bash a good movie because of their own stuck-up prejudices, or you can have audiences that flood a movie with positive or negative reviews simply to spite the critics or for politically motivated reasons. Nothing is honest, nothing is genuine, and broader review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should all honestly just be ignored from here on out. The only way to approach movies reliably in this day and age is to just watch the trailer and decide for yourself if you want to see it, or find a small group of critics or reviewers whose opinions (and motives) you have good reason to trust and with whom you generally agree.
There was one huge thing audiences haven't seen near enough. The Mario movie delivered what it said on the tin. The audiences' expectations were met. I have a difficult time expressing just how important this really is. It's like ordering a bacon cheeseburger and getting tofu soup. I couldn't care one whit less how incredible of tofu it might be, i was really looking forward to that bacon cheeseburger.
I'm not sure I'd choose "bacon cheeseburger" and "tofu soup" as analogy here, but I do agree with your base idea. I'd call the expected Mario movie "an amazing meal". And critics complaining that it was mere "medial junk food" with no nutritional value (good storytelling) when it could have both been an amazing meal _and_ nutritious.
@@LinkEX Sometimes it's pretty much that bad. That far removed from what was "On the tin". Look at the 1st Mario movie for example. If like most people, you wanted to see 'The Mario movie' like it is today, when you got the old one. It wasn't what you wanted. You got something entirely different. "Southland Tales" is another example. The trailer for "Southland Tales", looks like a good movie. (Heck, the trailer for Southland Tales IS a good movie). The actual movie turned out to be almost nothing like the trailer.
I mean, I expected Luigi being trapped in a mansion to be a significant plot point, but instead the movie spent a bunch of time on DK who I had no interest in.
@@bopete3204 Fair point. Exactly what i'm saying. When your expectations aren't met you feel unfulfilled and let down. You went to see one thing and got another. Not the best business plan for the makers of the movie.
@@bopete3204 Explain why do you think Luigi wasn't an important plot point at-all despite this movie's fans telling you otherwise and why didn't you care about Seth Rogan as DK?
Definitely disagree. Dont surround yourself with 'critics' whose opinion you like, it is not the job of the critic to please you. It is the critics job to challenge your opinion.
The role of the critic in two words "Accurate specificity". Speak only the objective truth and understand your goal in your criticism. There are judges for contests, reviewers to filter out sensitive/graphic topics, communicators giving productive feedback for the artist(or artists in the same field), and a few other specific types of critics. You must not only be completely truthful in your given criticism.....you must be truthful to yourself. Don't put yourself in the role of critic if you do not understand the medium you're examining. It also means you must be mature in how you view, how you reflect, how you critic, and how you receive feedback(both positive/negative equally) regarding the subject of your criticism.
There’s a certain amount of subjectivity that’s going to go into a review as it is an examination of art. How the individual feels about the movie is going to be the ultimate factor in the review. Reviewers often will say things like “if you’re into this type of movie you may like it but I didn’t”. This sentiment is negated when you are looking at a simple raw collection of mass thumbs-up or thumbs-down reviews. This is why I agree with his conclusion that you need to find individual critics who have similar tastes to you.
@@humphreygobo6576 precisely. A single ratio of "thumbs up/ thumbs down" is lying by omission. It would work better if there was a greater scale to the both the ratio and the depth of the reviewers. Like a 5 star system with specific tags (comedy, action, mind teaser, etc)
This is how I felt about Babylon. I was speechless for 2 hours after watching it. And I looked at the rotten tomatoes score of it and just felt like the critics didn't understand what was being shown to them. They didn't pay it the attention it deserved. From there on I didn't care about Rotten tomatoes
I am not sure I entirely agree. You make some good points but you also omit some. I also disagree with part of the premise. Yes, a movie has a target audience but, in my opinion, a fantastic movie manages to entertain while maintaining a deeper layer. Not a movie, but I think the Simpsons did a good job at that. Also, a lot of the old Disney movies reiterated classic themes like the heroes journey without being goofy or cliché, while entertaining 6 year olds. Moreover there is something like bad writing, meaning plot holes, annoying messaging, catering to ``target audiences" in an incompetent way. There is something like a well-written shallow action movie. What they usually have in common is an interesting villain that makes you think after you left the movie theatre. And no, the solution can not be to just listen to critics that keep you in your bubble. That would make life so dull, don't you agree? I will omit listing the point that you omitted. This would get political.
If a godsdamned critic cannot put their ego down for 2 hours to do their job as based as possible, then that critic should choose another job. Its called "professionalism".
That's a very good point. Good critics do mention the caveat that they aren't the kind of person it was made for. Even still, the fact that critic didn't enjoy it will seep through in their review. It's a very rare day I see a critic say "I hate it, but I'm giving it a good review because some things in it were well done."
Yeah I truly wish they could give their unbiased opinion on products. But that isn't always a bad thing, if a critic is known for disliking a certain product and consistently write bad reviews even when it's good, but one day writes a good review, that merits looking at in my opinion.
I think the “if you disagree with what a critic says, stop listening to what they have to say” is a flawed statement. The point you were making about finding an individual critic that your tastes are similar to is very valid, but it’s *highly* unlikely that your personal tastes as a consumer are going to be perfectly aligned to *anyone*, much less a critic. In this, I’d say if you have a critic that you mostly agree with barring a few exceptions, the situations in which you disagree are times where you should hear them out about and consider their perspective. Honestly, that’s the kind of review I want to see from a critic I follow the most, I want to hear what they got out of something that I didn’t, and vice versa. It’s a good way of broadening your perspective and considering things you hadn’t thought of before.
This is a good take. Painting with broad strokes here, but I think a plurality of people are able to find a great deal of similarity in most things. I think the differences, for the most part, lie at the extremes, e.g. love, hate. Critics seem to just magnify those extremes and make them feel objective.
You know, I don't blame Rotten Tomatoes at all for this. Its 100% the critics fault in this particular case. Revolutionary idea, but... If you cannot review a genre with an objective eye, yet choose to review movies of that genre anyway you've failed as a critic. The problem here is not Rotten Tomatoes aggregating the critic scores. The problem is how many critics make the choice to review a movie that they are utterly unqualified to judge and then give that movie a bad score based not on if the movie did a good job at what it set out to do, but based on what the critic wishes the movie had done *instead*.
14:15 is a huge point, one that I've noticed in many maturing media. Whether it is TV, Movies or Video Games, it feels like they've settled into "big business" mode. When you involve massive amounts of money moving around, you can bet there's either something shady sneaking it's way in (money laundering, fraud, corruption, etc), or investors demanding far more control over the creative process to "ensure their return". It becomes less about telling a good story or creating an engaging experience, and more about "how do we make sure to make back our $200 million dollars?" This is why I get excited when I hear of technological advancements in cinematic and gaming tools, like Blender or Unreal updates. Things that put what used to take hundreds of people, and millions of dollars, into the hands of a small team or even a single dedicated person. Because while the risk is VERY high that that single dedicated person might fail, or make something only a handful of people care about.. It is precisely what Art is supposed to be about. Those handful of people may have their lives changed. And the risk of trying untested things is how innovation happens, and how new genres are created and we can become excited about things again.
When it comes to movies; I tend to approach them with multiple personalities:- 1. The Intellect- this is when I want to watch movies that get me to think whether it's themes, symbolism, philosophies etc (Werner Herzog, Andrei Tarkovski etc) 2. The Goofy- these are the movies I like to watch I know are silly but GODDAMMIT they're dumb fun (ID4, Battleship, Michael Bay etc) 3. The Fanboy- these movies are for the franchises out there I personally wish to see (MCU, MonsterVerse wtc) 4. The Childhood Throwbacker- Movies I watched as a kid & comeback from time to time to see to appreciate (Ray Harryhausen movies, The Goonies, Tron etc) 5. Action Aficionado- when you love to watch things explode including bad guys (Terminator, Robocop, Die Hard etc) This is how movies work for me
@snintendog There's an easy, simple solution to those types of movies:- DON'T. WATCH. THEM! Or if you're aware they're enforcing a message without sincerity, honestly & with genuine purpose:- DON'T. WATCH. THEM!
Terminator, Robocop, Die Hard... all these films rise above and beyond the mere action flicks that are just about things exploding including the bad guys, though.
@@Metalisalearning77 It would be great to know about them before i spend money on them like oh i dont know a critic to tell me that they are of this category. Too bad those dont exists and as Closer says the Audience should never be allowed to critique they lack the "refined tastes" for She hulk and Captain marvel.
@@cormano64 of course! They're a rare breed of beast! Badass action movies that have genuine smartness that can get you to think but they're genius is they're not explicitly shown to you. Instead they tell a story that's captivating & has the themes on display but not put on a show! It's akin to Schrodingers Cat; the themes are not there but simultaneously they're always there
Thank you for verbalized my convictions about the useless blanket term "art is subjective", "art is super individual" is a far more accurate statement.
Agreed. I think the way people often interpret that saying is as "the QUALITY of art is subjective", which I think is a much more problematic statement than "the APPEAL of art is subjective"? As our narrator notes here, a piece if media can still garner an enthusiastic niche audience even if it's made in a very trite & lazy way (what we might judge as being bad from a technical standpoint).
Thanks for the video. I have never understood how "Rotten Tomatoes" has become the gold standard for if a movie is good or not? Now I understand that the scores are going by a "target audience." Thanks for explaining it and expanding on this.
I myself that the Mario Movie was ok, but I never thought it was amazing. I think most people just adored the movie because they like Mario, and nothing more.
If I listened to any official reviews by critics of Little Mermaid I would have gone to the movie. But thankfully I did not and I saved myself from ever seeing this crap.
@@DearAphrodite Some movies you dont need to see. The Jangling Key movies like Mermaid and Avatar are those movies you can write off as bad without Deep analysis.
I agree that media should be framed around who it is for. But that is also why i think critics as they are, are completely useless. Because usually they don't try in the slightest to make a point of who they think will enjoy a given movie/book/game/song, but try to make a "objective" statement about it instead. Number rating systems are a symptom of this philosophy, and rotten tomatoes is far from beeing the only offender. I think Criticism should be about finding where the enjoyment lies and telling what kind of people will most likely experience said enjoyment. If a critic is unable to find enjoyment in something that a broader mass can find enjoyment in... that's useless in my book. "Objective quality" surely should be a part of criticism, but not nearly as big as critics like to make it out to be. The less a critic tries to be objective, the better. Because humans are not made to be objective, and critics are still human, even if most seemingly think they are something higher. And I don't buy into "they just have higher tastes because they just watch so many movies". Beeing very familiar with music industry, beeing even more familiar with game industry, I know that these kinds of perspective are usually just elitistic bs, and I would be very surprised if this is different for movies. Yes, consuming a lot of a specific type of media broadens your horizon and makes you see thinks normal consumers wouldn't see. But beeing a critic means not having the luxury to mistake a broader horizon for the right to talk down on average opinion as if you are something better. It should be the opposite. It should be about understanding most average opinions, so you can help them decide what they would also enjoy. Helping others to make decisions on what to consume should in theory be what critics exist for after all. Criticism should be less bad-oriented but more good-oriented. This would reflect into the very culture of consuming media, and make it a more welcoming space for everyone, so noone should be afraid to talk about what they like. (There is a reason most women don't feel very comfortable around nerdy circles after all, and it usually isn't just the lack of hygene)
Mate, you make some very valid points. But I think the last few years have shown us that there is a clear and undeniable bias by critics when a movie does not have an agenda, which has lead to them completely losing their credibility. Two examples of this are The Joker and RoP. The Joker was attacked by critics and they made a huge fuss about it. RoP is the saddest attempt at fanfic but it has an incredibly high critic score. Established critics deserve the flak they are getting. That being said, it is UA-cam critics who people are moving to for in-depth analysis and recommendations. Critics are not dying, only the industry bred ones are.
i've seen so many reviews on youtube as well though of opposite opinions, one person will say a movie is a masterpiece and another that's its bland garbage, i never know what movie to bother seeing anymore, none appeal to me at first sight, and no review makes me feel much more interested
Tbh, the only bad reviews I've ever seen of Joker are the ones cited in youtube videos decrying how bad movie critics are. The reviews I have actually read or seen myself all gave the movie high scores. It's the non-existant Doom Eternal outrage all over again.
The recent phenomenon, or at least one ive only noticed recently, of people, even more so fans of a genre or franchise, reacting negatively to a movie going out of its way to cater to the people who would like a movie, even to the detrement of the movie financialy is insane to me. You are telling me people for years told these studios to stop doing things only for the money, or wishing that they would do this or that because it would be so enjoyable for the fans, and then when, at least in some ways, they decide to do so and now people *COMPLAIN* about that too?! Crazy to me.
When I hear people saying stuff like "the age of the film critics is over", I always associate it with critics in mainstream media, who are either bought and paid for or desperately trying not to upset the industry that provides them with previews. I'll generally listen to anyone who paid for the ticket with their own money, which is why everyday self made content creators are infinitely better than shills from the big established media outlets.
True, but in this video he talks about critics who appear on Rotten Tomatoes, who are almost all bought and paid for shills who write for access media. The UA-cam critic who spends hours dissecting a production in detail and explaining with arguments why it's good or bad or acceptable never appears on that site.
Another issue with Rotten Tomatoes is its scoring formula. A film which gets all 5.5/10 is 100% fresh just like a film which gets all 10/10. They purposely designed the scoring so that it produces big numbers disregarding how the formula affects the usefulness of those numbers. It’s designed to create headlines which is why Rotten Tomateos became more popular than IMDB.
I'd still argue the critics are wrong though. If I were a critic of food and I hated spicy food. I can't just go to every Thai restaurant giving them low scores because the food is too spicy. Movie critics will do that though. They just put their opinions as if it's fact and don't try and step away from themselves. While I hate spicy food, I can generally tell you if a Thai restaurant is good or not for people who do enjoy it.
I feel like secret invasion is an example of how critics can be full of it, sometimes. The mcu has been more comedic, as of late, and the main target audience is mostly kids, and teenagers. When the mcu made a mostly dark and grim tv show, the critics thought it was crap, because the target audience for the mcu has been mostly exposed to comedic films, so doom and gloom isn’t what they want from their marvel shows.
Interesting. Are you arguing that Secret Invasion was poorly reviewed because it was too dark? I have no idea if that is true, but we didn't like it very much, and that's not because it was too dark.
@@brianlindsay9097 kind of. I’m saying that since the mcu has been more comedic as of late, the grim tone isn’t what a lot of people are used to form these movies.
So many critics only selectively understand the notion of target audience. They go watch a kids movie, and are able to say "your kids will enjoy this". Then they see a series like "Twilight", made for teenage girls, and say "I didn't like this".
All good points you raise but I have a few points. 1) professional movie critics should be capable of getting outside of their own preferences and biases to review the movies. If they aren’t capable of doing this then they are nothing more than an idiot with an opinion. 2) most people are able to figure out how to use the rotten tomatoes site. Step 1, find a movie that you think you may like (it’s in your preference areas); Step 2, look at the audience score; Step 3, read the reviews; Step 4, make an informed decision.
Maybe, just maybe, some critics are corrupt and are getting money and favors to attack or praise certain films, shows and games... Or they simply do it for free, entirely for political reasons.
Yes, I was going to bring this up. While I agree that critics scores are not a good metric to general audience as argued in the video, even if they come up with a smarter way and more useful way of suggest the right movie for the right audience, there's still the matter of how much you trust the critics. People always have had problems with critics but, at least until some years ago, they were seen as professionals honestly trying to deliver a judgement without bias.
There is something to be said about having movie critics with similar taste to your own. There used to be this podcast I really liked and when it ended I kind of felt I had a hard time finding who I could trust. One downside to some reviews critics give is that they may downplay how bleak a particular movie or aspect of a movie may be, because that bleakness was enough to make them feel something after being so jaded from seeing so many different movies. Whereas that bleakness may be a bit much for the average viewer.
This is the equivalent to game developers listening to hardcore players and esports professionals on what needs to change in their game, sure it may be from a professional viewpoint, but the change will most likely lead to what will eventually become a boring experience for everyone else, a strict experience isn't always the best option.
agreed, wish more developers and studio's listened to the general audience and fanbase than whoever they are getting their advise from, look at the dark pictures franchise and the quarry, those games just got worse and worse, whoever they listened to certainly wasn't the people playing those games for good characters and story
overwatch is a great example of this, I actually liked 2 cp, atleast on the genji/hanzo map, but instead of keeping it in, they decided to remove it and replace it with push, when they could have added push while keeping 2 cp in. Atleast some of the 2 cp maps.
I have a question that I would like you to answer. How do you think you could fix “bad” writing tropes? Stuff like narration, time skips, time travel, multiverse hopping, etc. We’ve seen all of these tropes done “good” before, but what separates the good versions from the bad ones? Like what’s the difference and why is the connotation of these tropes seen as negative?
i dislike how he is so casual to critics.. they rate things based upon trying to get points for the next film. That he never even addressed that is dishonest. Critics are not even close to representing a fair and unbiased review. It's only and ever about access media.
The conclusion here is exactly what I've been telling people to do for years. I've got a series of movie critics I follow that share my tastes, I've got a set of video game reviewers I follow who share my taste. I should probably find some book reviewers as well. You should do it for all forms of art that you're into. I also use the RT viewer scores as a (very) rough gauge as well. And if both critics and viewers overwhelmingly love it, then it's probably a pretty special movie regardless of being outside of my typical preferences and worth another consideration.
I'm a horror fan and I can't tell you know how many times I've seen horror films get bad reviews for being "too violent", then I see them, and they are absolute masterpieces. Then I hear things like "The Menu" is a masterpiece, so I see them and I fall asleep.
What you're describing is critics being bad at their jobs. But I'd generally disagree - a critics job is to judge how good a movie is. The mario movie is bad. But its target audience liked it. Both things can be true, and that's fine. Same with the new daily wire movie. It's objectively bad, but its target audience loves it. That's fine.
LOL! Why do you say the Mario Movie was a bad movie please? Explain for the fanboys. I thought the movie was very subpar even on the lens of a Mario Movie…
Don't forget that so-called journalists who aren't in fandoms cam never truly understand yhe importance and/or significance of medias like this and video games, mainly because A, they almost never do their due diligence and only review the surface, and B, they're reviewing content that wasn't made for them, since they're not the target audience--shocking, I know. I just get tired of all these so-called journalists shitting over media they're not a part of, or are trying to break into without preparation or an open mind; reminds me of the people who couldn't follow instructions and move past Cuphead's tutorial 🙄
I like RT as a collection of professional reviews of a certain films. The main problems in my view are the following: 1) Certifying critical but not completely condemning reviews. Many of these are certified as fresh, even though they are highly critical of the movie. 2) Cultural bias. As most critics featured on RT are Americans, you can often note that they just don't get non-American films - not even British ones! My favourite example is the original Johnny English, one of my most beloved comedies that I find absolutely hilarious (I'm not British myself). Well, many American critics didn't get the humor at all, giving it rather mediocre reviews. Also, many Americans often don't understand black humor, confusing it with misanthropic cynicism.
Well, just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's great or beautiful. I see RT the same way I do art critics. You don't pick which poster you wanna put on your wall based upon their notion of impressionist vs realist, but it's nice to read their educated thought about it.
I'm relieved to read at least one comment like yours here. It's kinda blatant how many comments are already here who seemed to not have payed attention to the video. I love to know more about movies and appreciate a critic's review when it seems they actually took the time to pay attention and give the movie a chance before forming their opinion (and yes, Grace Randolph is really consistently dumb in her takes even being aware of her film industry knowledge). I feel I can learn something even (or especially) when I disagree with said critic, which happens quite often with Roger Ebert's views, sincere and accessible as he was on his work.
@@cormano64Thank you very much, I agree one hundred percent. I watch critique videos or video analysis to learn something, not to get my opinions validated or to hear "this movie is good/this movie is bad".
I hope you found this one useful!
If you'd like to join my Discord server where we chat about our writing projects, workshop ideas, and generally discuss the movies/shows we love, here's a link you can use to join.
My Discord: discord.com/invite/aJpYPQX
Keep writing!
- Henry
In my eyes the problem with this example is not the most accurate. Indeed the SMBMovie is not the most outstanding film ever and it relays on tropes to convey it's objective: be entertaining to most and very entertaining for it's target audience. Movie critics get their senses dulled since they oversaturate themselves with the formulas and get bored since they see once and again the same thing.
Now, in this time we are now, the critics are not critics for the most part. Specially Rotten Tomatoes. You only need to look at the content of the reviews to note that most of the critics have a checklist of things it has to had (specially political in nature) and were completely ignored, so they did not liked the movie. It's not a critic making the work it is intended to do, but an activist putting it's hot take on it. Another take entirely are other sites that are part of a production company giving themselves a pat in the back or trying to undermine the competition in the opinion of masses, which is most of the time quite obvious and gets called quite fast.
That's why most of critics nowadays are not trusted: they are clearly people whos opinion can be rapidly discarded without much deliberation.
I would argue the mario movie was innovative in itself since, even if its plot was generic, a lot of people were eager to see a mario movie that was just like the games themselves, regardless of plot and this could explain why it made so much money at the box office
@@LuisSierra42 How is pandering to a pre-built fandom innovative in any way, shape or form? That's basic safe financial investment.
"regardless of plot"... the bar couldn't be any lower.
Isnt your advice at the end of the video getting us all even more stuck into our own little echo chambers?
@@cormano64 innovative in the sense that there has never been a mario movie that actually felt like a mario movie. It's like, even if the first spiderman movie had a weak plot, if it had the most basic elements that would allow spiderman fans to recognize it as such, it would have been successful as well
The validity of a critic doesn’t lie in his opinion on a certain piece of art but in the consistency of his voice. I watch a lot of critics on multiple art forms online, some of which I almost never agree with but they’re credible reviewers for me because I’ve looked into and understand what THEY want and look out for when experiencing a certain piece of art. When looking at it with that perspective you can see why someone with that specific point of view would like or dislike something and applying to how much you differ or align with that you can use that review as (nothing more than) an advice on the question “is this art piece worth for me to invest in?”
Exactly. I've been watching zero punctuation for a long time now, not just because they're entertaining but because Yahtzee is the only game critic I trust to communicate effectively what is and is not good game design while also letting me know what he considers a fun game and why. He's also not in anyone's pocket (a much more blatant problem in games journalism than conventional media journalism) and I 100% trust that what he says is his experience with a game is his experience and not what he hoped his experience would be. Like, it's actually kind of fun to watch him rip apart something you love because all his critiques are actually accurate and cleverly delivered
Yeah but in this case, nothing Hollywood produces is art and actors aren't artists.
@@MeltonCrest actors are artists and I will die on this hill
@@madeliner1682100% agreed
Absolutely agree! I've watched Jeremy Jahns for years and when he said independece day 2 was not worth seeing, by the way he described it, I knew i would have a good time.
I haven’t seen the Mario movie, but from everything I’ve heard, it did exactly what it needed to do. Namely, it placated the Nintendo executives who kept the IP locked away from Hollywood for decades and proved that the film industry could do it justice.
after the First Hollywood movie They were right to put a huge amount of restrictions on this movie and "play it safe".
Agreed. Also havent seen
@@snintendog
Now it's time for them to take things to the next level (hehe) if they want all their IP's to succeed on the big screen.
@yao483 Well if the critics could just admit it's good mario movie but not a good movie. Most of this would be fine. The mario movie was obviously meant for game fans and children and not the be a new oscar winner.
@@blobmarley1064 I would wager a lot of critics were aware that it was a fine fun movie for Mario fans.
But 1. you kind of need to be a Mario fan to really gauge "how good" it is as a Mario film,
2. review scores aren't compatible with such nuances, and
3. applying different weights to different movies based on their target audience is not only difficult to balance because of my first point, but also introduces a bias of its own.
At the end of the day, reviews are products of the reviewer. You shouldn't ask critics to review things a certain way any more than a critic should convince you to not like a movie that you very much did.
I’ve had a hard time convincing people that it’s simultaneously ok to like bad movies, and also to not like good ones.
This!! Some of my favorite movies and shows are absolutely trash and I love it that way.
I agree but I think it’s still important to recognize when something is bad yk? You can like the worst show ever but don’t pretend it’s anything but that lol
has nothing to do with good or bad movies or objectivity. The media machine hates this movies because it doesnt push the woke western agenda.
what you're describing is cognitive dissonance, and quite a few people struggle understanding that
Like as long as something is entertaining to watch,no matter how good or bad the product is,i will be watching it,good bad films are often more entertaining than good good films ngl
I saw someone online discuss the Mario movie and put it simply. It’s not a very _good_ movie technically speaking, but it’s 90 minutes of straight fun and nostalgia. This is why the critics hated it but fans loved it. As she continued to say, it’s the best 6/10 movie she’s ever seen.
That last sentence. It's strange that the most important problem with the system wasn't mentioned in the video; every single review could be 6/10 and the rating would be 100% fresh. It's not a rating translated into a percentage, it's a percentage of ratings that are first translated into binary, with an arbitrary threshold. That's the real problem, not the obvious one of selection bias in the fan rating. It's a system specifically designed to be manipulable. It can be gamed in a ridiculous number of ways, many of them very, very subtle. It's always been absurd, lazy and deceitful.
Wanna bet that the same movie, juat with a Girl Boss Peach that beats DK and Bouser without any help wouldve gotten a 90 % Critics Score on Rotten?
Chill Media and Corporate Media critics are political and social driven. Diversity and Feminism... good review, if not... bad review!
Been a long time Mario fan, but still didnt like the movie at all.
If you really like super mario, JUST PLAY THE FUKKING MARIO GAMES
Battleship is arguably a bad movie. That said, it's as entertaining, as it is mindless. A critic's 5/10 is probably a super movie, but you're simply not pretentious and sophisticated enough to understand the rating.
Let’s go another Closer Look video
Let's take a closer look to it
LESGOOOOO
WHA-HOO!
where are we going
As a plumber myself the Super Mario Bros movie presented in insanely accurate depiction of a plumbers line of work, I myself on multiple occasions have stomped on turtles and tossed giant godzilla like creatures named gay bowser, good work illumination!
Are you a plumber IRL, though? How hard is that job?
@@rustyshackelford4224you have to stomp turtles so it's pretty hard
*There are 0 people in the U.S named gay bowser*
@@lalordpheonix106 He didn't say people, he said creatures.
“So long gay bowser”
I watched the Mario movie with my nerdy group of friends. We have been playing through Mario games together for years, and we had an absolute blast. We all agree it was definitely not a masterpiece, but it was fun, and that’s what mattered.
Eh, I have to side with The Little Platoon on it.
Bunch of brainless consoomers
I'm not even a fan of Mario and I loved it. It was exactly what it set out to be, FUN! I loved watching it and even better, it didn't overstay it's welcome with an extra hour of unnecessary scenes or plot twists.
It was, but somehow it was worse than both the latest Indiana Jones movie and the Barbie movie. Mario took basically no risks and did the bare minimum necessary to do the requisite reference checks.
Loved it as well and have never played mario, all I knew was through pop culture osmosis and now the movie is a comfort movie for me
I do agree with a lot that is said in the video but I just wanna warn people that if you only listen to people who agree with you, you have to take a step back when facing something or someone you don't agree with. They are not necessarily wrong, and you are not necessarily right either, you just don't agree and that is fine. Keep in mind that the world is complex and full of nuances. Not agreeing can be the starting point of one of the most interesting and stimulating conversation of your life.
YESS!! Why can’t people understand that differing opinions can lead to thoughtful and interesting conversations? Why are people getting mad at other people for not being an exact copy of themselves? Of course you’re going to disagree with people. Can you imagine how boring life would be if everyone had the same opinions? You are your own person with your own set of values and tastes and so is everyone else and conversations on art opinions can be a great way to explore those values and tastes of someone else!
@@thijmen5295 Sadly, some people tend to take disagreements as a personal aggression for some reason. The phenomenon is prevalent on Twitter for example.
@@Lord_Ian Twitter is a giant cooking pool of toxic, nuclear waste that I refuse to use and try to avoid as much as possible for those exact reasons
@@Lord_Ian True, but such a person probably should not read any review - or if he is a reviewer, should not write any.
@@Lord_Ian Not if they ever bothered to grow up.
It’s a lot like what’s happening right now with the Fnaf movie, with critics calling it shallow and going off on tangents, but most of the fans absolutely loving it because the movie was made for them.
ikr! just wsnted to say that
Im a fan... and I did not like the film.
I am a fan and I didnt like the movie
@@CircleOfInevitability same, the film itself was trying to find it own identity but its kinda out of the place.
Im a fnaf fan and when I heard about the movie it honestly felt very fanservicy maybe that's why some fans don't like it
The most useful reviews, in my mind, are those that say "You'll probably enjoy this if you are or can get into X, Y and Z".
Or alternatively, reviews that describe the movie in a manner that you can set your expectations going in, or know it's not for you.
The perfect example, for me, was "The Expendables", which one review described along the lines of "consists of nothing more than adrenaline, gunpowder and testosterone".
I went in with exactly that expectation and was NOT disappointed. Had I expected something with even a little depth, I would have gotten far less enjoyment out of it, but I went in knowing what I'd get.
Same thing, on the other end of the spectrum, was "Dune", which I knew beforehand was complex, a slow burn and not action heavy.
Went into the movie with those expectations, and enjoyed it throughout.
Could you recommend some of those?
@@lokhimtam7933 Not in terms of youtube, unfortunately, as I can not remember where the "Expendables" review even came from (the description just stuck), and the "Dune" review came from a newspaper of all places.
And neither of them was in English.
For this, I find that reviews might miss the mark but the synopsis is more accurate
I find IMDB to be very accurate. There are a lot of online reviewers but I don't always agree with them so it's good to find someone where you know where yours and their tastes align and diverge. I'd recommend Fish Jelly, Chris Stuckman, and Flick Connection @@lokhimtam7933
This is one of the reasons I almost roll my eyes when someone praises a film because “it has a bit of something for everyone”. I don’t want a film that’s going to try and please everyone, I’d rather a film cater to its strengths and go all in on appealing to certain people.
As someone who enjoys all types of movies from all genres, I love watching movies with a little bit of everything. So while I don't think that pleasing everyone should be the end goal for a movie, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing several different genres to the film.
I disagree, I don't think movies should alienate certain audience members
@@M_k-zi3tnI mean a hard-core gore filled horor film isn't going to appeal to the people who hate gore. A slow paced murder mystery will many twists and turns isn't going to work for people who want fast paced action movies. People have many different tastes and preferences. It isn't about excluding people, it is about pleasing the target audience by telling the story you want to tell.
If we use food as a metaphor, then it's trying to make a good spicy curry. If you want it to be nice and spicy, you can't appeal to the people who hate spicy food. People have different tastes, and not everyone likes every thing.
Yes, if everybody is the audience, then nobody is the audience. Any movie that broad is not going to be very interesting. Even Shakespeare, the plays that are often considered some of the best ever, certainly some of the most long-lived, aren't for everybody, even if you fix the language and references to make them more accessible.
@@M_k-zi3tn It's not about alienating people, it's about the fact that people want contradictory things. You have people that want things that are family friendly and you want people who want topics that are only suitable for more mature audiences. You can sort of balance that out with bimodal writing, but each element like that which you have to balance, the more watered down it gets and the less interesting it gets. You can probably get away with accommodating 2 or 3 groups like that, but you will wind up with something less interesting beyond that and at a certain point it will be crap.
I find the Rotten Tomatoes scores very helpful. If there's a big discrepancy between the critics and the users, then that tells you something about the movie. If they both like it, then it's almost certainly going to be worth watching. If the critics love it and the users hate it, it's probably an artsy movie that will only appeal to certain types of people. The target audience explanation doesn't explain it all because critics rate kids movies highly all the time.
I think that's because reviewers (generally) don't hold children in contempt. What I mean is, it is not just that they don't have the same tastes as the audience of a Mario movie; it is more that they dislike the people who would enjoy a Mario movie, so are less willing to attempt to view the movie from the point of view of the potential audience. They don't hate kids in the same way, so they are willing to look at the movie from the standpoint of (or, at least, their imagined version of the standpoint of) a child.
In my experience, critics don't know what fun is and audiences don't know what smart is :p So I just have to watch movies to see if I like them
@@alakaniYeah this is my attitude too haha. The only critic I listen to is myself 🤣🤣
The only real exception is if I hear nothing but bad news about a film. Then I won’t watch it. But that’s pretty rare, usually I hear a mixture of opinions.
@@alakani: With that approach, though, you could spend all your time watching the VAST majority of movies that are known turkeys. You have to have some discernment prior to watching them and Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and Metacritic give you at least an idea of what you're getting into. I have known people who seem to enjoy movies that almost everyone else would consider awful, so I guess if you're one of them, then your approach is logical. I will watch a movie that has lower ratings if it's something I'm interested in and I've sometimes been surprised by a poorly rated movie, but if a film gets a 35/40 on Rotten Tomatoes, the chances of me liking that is practically nil. Experience is the best teacher. I've always thought it would be interesting to rate movies and then have your ratings compared to critics and other users to find people who seem to agree with you. Wouldn't it be cool to discover that some random girl in Winoka or a critic for a free paper in Plainsville was your movie-rating doppelganger? Better yet, if you found a group with similar tastes, you could share your finds and develop a mini-community.
I disagree. You shouldn't look to an aggregate score of a bunch of critics' opinions as a barometer for why a movie is good or bad. Especially before you even watch it for yourself. Your mind is incredibly strong. If you see an aggregate, Holy Score beforehand your mind is going to be made up before you watch it. You'll just look for reasons why the movie is "fresh" or "rotten" as opposed to actually watching it.
Roger Ebert was my go-to critic. His approach was simple: Does the movie do what it set out to do, and does it do it well? That's how a movie like "Booty Call" got a three-star review.
Same for me. After he passes away, I only look at the imdb score, because I found out that score mostly reflects what I would think about a movie.
I think critics were useful before the Internet became a thing. Now that you can see what the audience thinks, critics have become obsolete.
I really liked Ebert as a critic but sometimes he had some really bad takes. Unfortunately, he fell into some bad habits when it came to embracing new types of art as he got older. Which was especially sad considering he wrote one of the weirdest, most subversive movies around in his younger years. He went from embracing strange new things that the old guard didn't understand to becoming the old guard who didn't understand. His weird hatred for video games made him feel more and more out of touch as movies began to borrow from this newer medium that had itself borrowed from movies.
He also missed the point of a movie on occasion and mixed up the presentation vs theme. I always remember his Fight Club review being 2 stars because he thought it was an excuse for the heroes to be ridiculous, idealised action movie versions of men. But he missed the point entirely - they weren't the heroes.
Yep. I remember watching Siskel & Ebert decades ago. They were reviewing some silly action movie, your 80's-90's action film sort. They both gave it a great score, but not because it was compelling cinema. They openly admitted it was like so much other stuff. But it did what it set out to do perfectly and in an entertaining way. It gave an audience that was looking for two hours of explosions and one-liners everything they were looking for.
He was honest and fair critic. He was a true fan of film and judged a film entirely based on the content given.
I read about how he gave a big dumb action film a higher score than a romantic film simply because the action film succeeded at what it was trying to be; i.e.: big dumb action.
I feel SO validated that Hot Fuzz was your B-roll while talking about how “…a film can be-objectively speaking-a bloody masterpiece that is perfectly made.” It’s been my favorite movie of all time since I saw it, and I watch it every year around my birthday. I haven’t met anyone who feels remotely the same about Hot Fuzz; I typically get “huh? never heard of that one” or “really? It was alright, but I’m surprised it’s anyone’s ‘favorite of all time.’”
It’s the best thing ever put to filmstock (in my personal subjective opinion). 🤩
Yes!!! Totally agree, it’s bloody brilliant and I loved every second of it, Edgar Wright just has a supreme talent for utilising bathos to captivate and enrich his narratives. Him and Simon Pegg are just so cool.
I feel like a person who is surprised at Hot Fuzz being someone's favourite film, or who thinks it's only alright, is a person who wasn't really paying attention when they saw the film. IF they saw the film.
I think I prefer it to Shaun of the Dead.
It's easily my favourite comedy. What I like so much isn't just that pretty much every joke lands, which is rare for a comedy, but just how tight, and lean it is as a film. it has such effective plotting, and I especially adore how it gives you so much forshadowing which makes a rewatch all the more enjoyable.
I would class Tropic Thunder as a close second. I could watch it over and over.
Not to mention that most people think that the percentage is the average score given by critics (WHICH ITS NOT). It is an approval rating. If it has a 65%, it means that 65% of critics gave it a passing score, and 35% didn't. Out of that 65%, maybe half of them are 10/10, and most people won't even know.
The Mario games were my entire childhood and i was smiling/laughing throughout the entire movie. It was an incredible experience to me.
Same.
It was the very first franchise I actually studied throughout when I was 7.
That first third of the statement is exactly why critics did not like this movie. If you are not Mario fan this is just a typical Illumination film
@@ompatel5570 first of all, there was clearly more effort put in compared to say "Sing".
The animation is much more creative and detailed, there are many varied jokes and not just poop and farts, the characters are not just stereotypes...
It's like a 6/10 if you're not a Mario fan.
I don't blame most critics for not liking this movie, because there's not that much to like for them.
@@gasterthemaster6490 In what way is the animation better? This is a genuine question cause most of these modern 3d animations are blurring together. The backgrounds are so basic with those ugly skies. Maybe Puss in Boots and Spiderverse increased my expectations for animation, but I could not tell the difference in Animation style with this and Minions
@@ompatel5570 it's much more cartooney and round, the characters are way less stiff and skinny, and while it's no Spiderverse it captured the Mario style perfectly.
I disagree that you should stop listening to people you don't agree with.
It's like what they say about outside art. Listening to people you don't agree with and understanding their opinions helps you gain a new appreciation for pieces of art you don't like, and help you cherish the art that you do like, all the more.
listening to people does nothing; it is pointless to listen to people you agree with and also to people you disagree with. Your own experience tops everything
Sometimes it does, but often times it doesn't.
After watching a movie, this is absolutely true. One should try to learn more about other people's opinions. However, allowing the opinion of a critic that you normally disagree with to influence your decision to watch a movie or not is just plain stupidity.
There's a time and place to listen to people you disagree with, like in a debate about how good a movie was to you. The thing is, you shouldn't overdo it or your perspective on things you do like can be skewed to be far more critical of them, which can cause you to lose enjoyment for them.
There are definitely games out there that once I began to understand their ins & outs, that I began to like them less than I used to.
When you are looking at reviews, you do need to be selective of who reviews you listen to. Review are a research tool and should be seen that way.
I think another issue that often gets ignored is whether a movie is going to be fun for kids. There are a LOT of parents out there who want to share fun, clean movies with their children, but most of the "good" movies according to critics are either inappropriate or would just go over kids' heads. The Mario movie was perfect for kids. I took mine twice, then bought it on Prime the day it came out.
It's really not for kids, well at the very least not intellegent or dignified kids. The Super Princess Peach schlock was a dishonest and unfaithful adaptation, while it was just inexcusably stupid and bad in general while doing so. This Trojan Horse didn't not break the "Video-game Movie Curse" a single bit. It's for just about the same reasons why most other Hollywood video-games adaptations are bad in addition for commiting all the cinema sins all of Illumination's. The target audience for The Super Princess Peach Movie was really just normies, super casual fans, newcomers, and outsiders who wanted to be interested in Mario, I.E. people who don’t actual know the series' lore, while actual hardcore Mario fans will tell you that this movie adds nothing of value for the series and has no real part of the series established lore, which was the real reason as to why it was financially successful, along with Illumination's masterful marketing. I know this because I actually went out of my way and talked to them about this during this movie's release. They'll tell you this movie disrespected and misrepresents the series lore and characters. It's practically a Western Reboot that panders to modern audiences and a bait-and-switch with the main character and female supporting lead, for the sake of social activism and to pander to the ego of a feminist voice actress. It's a Happy Meal Commercial for the Mario games which is targeted primarily towards Modern (woke) Western audiences, not actual dedicated Mario fans, and nothing more.
@@rustyshackelford4224oh my gawd man you need to calm down
@@Plexplay My comment wasn't even that long.
@@rustyshackelford4224 Lol, try explaining any of that to a 6-year-old. You just described why the movie isn't aimed at hardcore long-time Mario fans, not children.
@@rustyshackelford4224Ah, so you're one of those people who has become so paranoid about every new piece of cinema that you can't watch anything from a normal lens. Try reading the Nintendo Power Mario comics from the 90s. A lot of ideas that went into the new Mario movie had their origins there, an official Mario comic in Nintendo's official magazine.
I think Mario did a thing that no movie ever did before: it adapted a game and kept true to its original source, rewarding its fanbase instead of a studio being pretentious enough to think they need to "fix it" doing their own thing
You took the words out of my mouth.👍🏻
That’s one of the biggest issues with Hollywood. They can’t just make something without thinking they need a message or fixing some outdated ideas or what is considered politically incorrect now
Absolutely, unlike Disney and the Woke remakes these days.
@@TheTraveler980 Don't cry about minorities challenge (impossible)
And that is something some people and critics seems to not understand. The hole movie plays in a world, that works on videogame logic and that is the fun about it. Watching a fun adventure of the Mario Brothers trapped in a fantasy world, with a story, that does not have to make a lot of logical sense in the real world. I enjoyed it, because i was the target audience, who grew up with those games.
Nice to hear a more elaborate take on this problem. I stopped caring about score reviews a while ago. What I want to know from a review is both "What does this creative work try to do?" and "How well does it actually do it?", and that's basically all of it. Even when score reviews evaluate a thing on different standardised metrics (sound/visuals/story,...), it doesn't tell me anything about what is that core idea that might make me love that thing.
I love how poetic it is that you basically take the role of the critic, not only of the movies you watch but also of the critics you read/listen to
The easiest way to fix rotten tomatoes critics seems to be to just simply speciate them, and let them watch movies of genres _they like,_ rather than forcing them to watch movies they don't care about and predictably leading to them bashing it into the dirt.
This exactly! I feel like reviewers who enjoy a certain type/genre of media will appreciate said media more and give interesting perspective to people not familiar with the subject matter.
Recently I've been watching this guy called Maximilian Dood, a guy really into fighting games. I know nothing about the genre but getting his perspective on what makes a fighting game good or bad makes me appreciate things that I would've never even considered before. Recently got Mortal Kombat on discount because he piqued my interest, and I absolutely love it!
Why though. Just look at the audience score then.
I think it's helpful for film buffs to have reviews from other film buffs available. Like, I did not like the Mario movie because it's plot was too thin and Peach's arc as a lost human baby is just totally ignored after it is introduced.
I think it's good that I can get a vibe check from similarly minded people, to separate the Mario movies from say, the Spiderverse movies which critics and audiences love.
I mean, no-one is forcing them to be movie critics.. but, ya know what they say.. "those that can't create, critique" .. yah, nah, that's what they say..
That's a stupid idea though. That's how you then end up with critics giving everything they watch high scores because they only review the things they like. Look at IGN. No one respects IGN's video game scores because they give Call of Duty 9 and 10 out of 10s. But it's like with movies, people want exactly that.
You say this like rotten tomatoes controls the critics on the site when it's just an aggregate of critics from different sites.
I think the problem is two fold. One, critics have been proven to get benefits from overpraising films that don’t deserve it, or at least mitigate consequences for themselves, after all, companies are likely to invite you to early screenings if you’d likely say it’s the best movie of the year.
The other case I often find is sheer ego. Whether it’s overpraising a film that appeals to their political sensibilities, over criticizing a film that isn’t what they wanted it to be, or being intensely bias against a type of film due to preconceived notions *cough cough animation* . The idea of just meeting a film on its own terms seems alien to most of them. What doesn’t help the matter is that general knowledge on story structure and critique is more common, thereby creating a bunch of “film critics” who frankly have no idea what they’re doing and are too stuck up to see it. Additionally it also means that we can see a lot of these subpar critics for what they are, and the audience who isn’t so educated on film structure and such puts vastly less weight on film critics, simply due both to supply and demand and the increasing amount of hack film critics means there’s less faith put in them as a whole.
Edit: the animation disrespect is more so for the snobs behind big award shows, the big example is the Oscars
You're wasting your time, this Closed Eyes guy refuses to even acknowledge these simple facts and instead goes on an endless rant about "muh art this, hur dur art that", every mfer these days wants to call themselves an "artist".
Amen, Cod.
I mean, critics lovex Pixar, and they love the Spiderverse movies.
The fact that critics have standards for animation roughly equal to that of any other movie, while audiences expect slop for kids, reflects well on critics' respect for animation as a medium.
@@bopete3204Admittedly the disrespect for animation is less on general critics and more so the snobs behind a lot of award shows, ie the Oscars and such
you forgot to mention that they have never heard of fun
This makes me think about how reader scores for subsequent books in a series tend to get better scores than the original. This is because only people who really liked the first book will take the time to read the next books. The people who would give the sequels bad reviews remove themselves from the pool of reviewers.
I must be one of the few who can't escape the nagging feeling to finish the entire series. I often feel bad about critiquing the first book in a series because sometimes it needs time to find its footing. Usually, I try to read another book by the author. Maybe that one bad book wasn't my cup of tea, and they have something better on their shelves.
Your advice about finding the right critic for you really reminds me of another piece of advice I heard once. I'm an aspiring author, so I've heard almost exactly the same thing about - at least where self-publishing is concerned - how you have to find the right editor for the kind of story you're trying to tell, or the changes they're going to suggest are going to do more harm than good.
Critics and audience members do have different perspectives on films of course. But sometimes you have to wonder if you even saw the same film as the critics when you see some of the reviews.
We have had whistle blowers come out and say they watch the trailer and rate it off of that on some sites.
@@snintendog That's a terrible way to do it! A two minute trailer for a two or more hour movie is not a good way to judge the end product at all!
@@snintendog I googled about this, but couldn't come up with anything. Could you point me in the right direction to read more about this story?
@@claytonrios1 Yup it was a flash in a pan story about the Marysue(no surprise) and WaPo. We have Polygon,Gawker,IGN doing the same with Videogames its a growing trend it seems. Best was Polygons" we dont have the time" response. @corman64 hi harrasment bot havent seen you in 3 seconds.
@@snintendog ... what? I was genuinely asking for a source because I couldn't find anything about it.
I thought being polite about it would be enough to differentiate me from whatever you thought I was, but clearly the paranoia got the better of you.
The problem with Rotten Tomatoes, was that it turns out companies really WERE buying off professional critics for positive reviews and ratings.
In other words, never trust a positive rating on any review site, Rotten Tomatoes especially.
Isn't it a like or dislike system? A system like this makes sure mediocrity gets 100% and politics force many professional reviewers to likes. A 0 to 10 system would reveal actual quality through the distribution curve, especially if it included age and sex. Difficult films have certain distribution curves that distinguish them from averqge films. Controversial films also get certain curves.
0 to 10 systems dont work either.
You are far more than a critic, you're a teacher and in a totally different league.
I agree. I don't see him as a critic at all, though he's quite insightful with his critiques. The way I see it, he uses the media he critiques in order to teach us, the audience, lessons on how to write, by pointing out the work's assets and/or flaws. Though he's quite good at both, the critique is secondary to the writing advice given.
Wish I could triple thumbs up this 🎉
6:47 to be fair to other movie critics, Grace has pretty bad takes most of the time anyway.
How does she have career while having such ludicrous takes?🤣
She is so bad at criticizing, makes it seem like she doesn't watch the movies. Sometimes it feels like she reads tweets about a movie and then writes the scripts for her videos.
In one of the last seasons of Barry, there was a plot point about Rotten Tomatoes scores. The girl had made a TV show that initially got a 100% on RT so she thought it would definitely end up being a hit. But then it was immediately canceled. When she asked why, they basically told her only one person had watched it. And that person happened to give it a 100% score when they reviewed it for Rotten Tomatoes.
Rotten Tomatoes brings out the worst in people by aggregating scores into a vague averages percentage.
People see that percentage and then disregard every single critic as they're all the same individual, even though anything aside from a 0% or a 100% means that a lot of those individuals have differing opinions about the movie.
It's kind of frustrating to witness it happen time and time again.
It's not that the critics are not the target audience. It's that the critics readers are of a particular target audience.
i can see that really being the case, maybe only a certain type of person also makes it to that level of success in the critic industry
It’s both to an extent. You need to review a film based on quality as a critic, not preference. And has a public viewer, you’re allowed to be dishonest and review purely on preference.
It’s both to an extent. You need to review a film based on quality as a critic, not preference. And has a public viewer, you’re allowed to be dishonest and review purely on preference.
Another aspect to keep in mind is what aspect of the movie a person focuses on. Critics are more likely to judge more aspects of a movie than an average watcher. For example, a comedy will mostly be judged on its comedic quality by an average watcher, but on more aspects by a critic. This is also a part of why there can be a big difference.
I can’t agree with this. The point of critics is to see how a given movie compares to all other movies. It’s not about whether they like it or not, just whether it has substance in terms of cinema. Which, Mario doesn’t. It’s not a movie for people who see movies to see movies. It’s a movie for people who like Mario. Critic ratings are right, more often than not, because how movies are received just doesn’t have anything to do with success towards a target audience. That’s like saying snuff films are art because they deeply move disturbing people who love it-obviously that shouldn’t be the case.
Audience rating is just “how much did people who liked this movie like it?” Versus the critic rating being “how well does this movie push cinema forward?”
So of course Iron Man 1 got good rates for both. It did push the envelope by being a good superhero movie, and the first of the “theme park” flicks by the modern definition. Of course superhero movies of the same quality but made today get worse scores-they aren’t pushing the envelope because it already happened and they haven’t built upon it. These theme park flicks aren’t doing anything in terms of being movies, so of course they should get lower critic ratings.
Shouldn’t it be obvious that critic ratings aren’t going to reflect anything about your tastes? It’s not about you, it’s about how relevant the piece is. The Mario movie just, isnt. It’s literally just another theme park flick for a different set of people, people who more or less like games instead of comics. Whether or not it did well for its target audience has *nothing* to do with how relevant the movie is in terms of movies. I need a metric for that. So, critic ratings have greater importance to me.
Besides-when it comes to the technique and construction of a given film, *and not its subject matter or substance*, I expect most critics to agree on the same things for all films.
If Mario did some new technical trick or some new camera angle in the digital space, that should be a hypothetical point all critics would agree upon, how that would be a good thing for the film. It doesn’t matter whether those critics like the choice stylistically or anything, just whether or not it’s a new/relevant thing for movies.
I need an indicator for how “well built” a movie is. I don’t care how well received a thing is by it’s audience because, you’re right, everyone has different tastes, and since no individual can claim to be part of the common man, what the common man likes or doesn’t isn’t relevant to anyone. To use your example of a movie being either a 5/10 that’s remembered deeply by people or a 6/10 that’s mediocre-if the mediocre movie *did something to make critics like it*, meaning it had to have done something new or technically interesting, then *that* is the better film. Quality over substance.
I don’t want one critic who reflects my tastes best. I want ten critics who all know what makes a good movie good and a bad movie bad, no matter what the differences between these ten people’s tastes are. Whether any of those critics were touched by the film or not *should absolutely not* be reflected in their scores. If they hated Mario for the Mario part, but liked it for the parts that were new or innovative or interesting-I expect them to give the movie a higher rating than they would if they were recommending it to someone. if there’s a critic who loves Mario, I expect them to give the Mario movie a bad score, because it’s a bad film. It’s good eye candy but that’s it. Conversely, I expect critics who hate movies they see to give those movies higher scores if they push the envelope. Say there’s a critic who hates, and I mean *hates*, irrationally, non-English films. I still expect that guy to give Parasite a high score because that’s the critics job. It’s not about what they feel, it’s what they know.
And let’s be real-no public audience knows a good or bad movie when they see one. They just see colors and hear voices and feel feelings. Your average audience doesn’t notice what the camera is doing, they only feel the product of the movement. What they think is irrelevant because they don’t know better.
Tl;dr: the critic’s score is how good a movie is if you aren’t familiar with its subject matter, versus the audience score being how good a movie is if you are. The critic scores for Mario and similar theme park movies are correct, because those movies aren’t doing anything in the name of cinema, which is what the critic score represents. Is Mario a good movie? Only if you like Mario. It’s not a good movie if you like movies. The critic rating should never even touch upon whether or not an audience likes the film or not. It’s a reflection upon how well built a movie is, and not its given substance. Because of this, I care more about critic ratings, and more often than not, these scores are accurate. You did nothing to disprove the value of the critic rating to me, nothing to point out how it could be wrong. That critic who never has played a video game but *had* to see Mario gave that movie the correct score, because what that critic thinks about what’s going on in the movie *should have absolutely nothing to do* with anything technical about the movie. It’s not the critics job to tell anyone if the story is good or not. Just the quality. Don’t pretend the metric for what makes a movie good or not is how well the audience receives it. That can never be the case.
You said it all, but I would like to add two points:
- Of course innovation and how much cinema is carried forward is important, but it's not the only factor that leads to good or bad reviews. A film like The Irishman, for example, hasn't particularly brought the history of cinema forward, but it has been acclaimed by the critics (apart from some defects in the special effects which have instead been criticized) because the way it is built is almost perfect: its camera movements are perfect, the simple and impactful editing of the Hoffa murder is perfect,...
Or, let's take Iron Man for a more "mainstream" example: it's a well-structured film in the writing, intelligent in the choice of flash-forward, with good direction, excellent character writing and a desire to tell an interesting theme. Eternals, on the other hand, has received worse reviews not so much because it is no longer new, but because it is a worse and more pretentious film;
-One of the biggest problems given by the "culture of fandome" and the indifference of the public towards cinema is that people are so blinded by their fanboysm (or by their desire to only watch a scene where two characters fight each other with tamarra music in the background studied at the table) who begin to underestimate the mistakes, saying "alright, even if there are no mistakes, the film is still fun". This way of reasoning means not understanding a fundamental discourse: an error is not such because, I don't know, it is inserted in a "list of errors" but in fact if it exists or it doesn't exist, nothing changes; a mistake is such because it damages the narrative and makes the vision worse.
Let me give you a trivial example: in my opinion, Black Adam's rhythm is a flaw that damages the film, but it isn't such because there is a written rule that says "every film with this type of rhythm sucks" (that would be wrong , because he would forget a fundamental thing about when he goes to do an analysis, i.e. the context) and therefore in practice nothing changes; it's a mistake because with that kind of pace I can't get involved in the characters and their stories (which should be the aim of the film), I end up pulling myself out of the vision and I'm bored to death.
-the most interesting thing about critics (and by this term I'm certainly not talking about Grace Randolph, but about a true scholar of cinema), at least from my cinephile point of view, is hearing their witty reflections on a work, which often lead to analysis of a filmography, a technique or a trend: in a nutshell, when I read an article by David Bordwell or listen to a video by Enrico Ghezzi, I know that I am about to hear stimulating reflections on cinema.
Then obviously there are also many young snob critics just out of the Film Academy who write a lot of bullshit trying to imitate the older ones and appear to be experts by writing only bullshit, but even those I wouldn't call them critics;
@gabrielesegapeli4053 Except Quality and Substance go hand in hand. The Mario movie had _neither,_ even when you're grading it as an adaptation of the Mario mythology on the big screen. Illumination just sees Mario as a cash grab to milk money.
Your explanation of what the critic's true role in society is was absolutely spot-on
I remember some 15 years ago a friend of mine who was really into music. He hated popular music, the catchy rhythms and big label production sound, it all was terrible to him. At the time I thought he was just being weird. Later on I understood that it was a matter of taste. Masses enjoy eating at MickeyD's but a food critic probably won't be too fond of the cuisine available there. My friend had a refined taste in music and if it wasn't technical and fast and challenging and unique, it wasn't worth listening to. Same applies to pretty much everything. Once you refine your taste enough through time, the regular stuff that is perfectly fine for most people, ceases to satisfy.
Having seen thousands of movies I'm looking at things like lighting and editing and complex characterisation etc. That's what hooks me in nowadays more than having a fun two hours with my brain turned off, it is the interesting stuff that entertains me and not the formula mass consumers are satisfied by. The darker side of all of that is that a large quantity of the regular folk who like their McD's don't just like it, but prefer it over a high quality meal.
i strongly believe your friend should take his own life 👊
@@vtncmourao For not liking shitty pop music?
Seek assistance.
@@vtncmourao my dude you're mentally ill, go get fixed and stop lurking in the internet
13:10 I feel like watching and reading only critics that agree with you would create a microcosm filled with the same opinions that complement each other and hence maybe would prevent genuine criticism and discourage people from discovering new things. From personal experience, some of the best movies and shows I found were because I started following critics I didn't necessarily agree with. A good critic will help you understand why something is good or bad and would help you discover new things or revisit old things that you maybe didn't like or understand the first time round.
Yeah
I think it's best just to find one with similar taste in genre and such. I'm not gonna go to a Nintendo fanboy reviewer who doesn't usually play horror games for a Resident Evil review, because that person is unlikely to give a nuanced look because they're unfamiliar with the genre. Doesn't really have anything to do with whether they like it or not, or if I agree or not. And hell, they might actually make the most deep, nuanced review I've seen. But with millions of reviewers and thousands of games a year, it's hard to convince someone to take a chance they're feeling shaky about when they know of something more reliable already.
yes and no...
If you want to find new things, of course following someone with similar tastes to yours isn't gonna cut it
But if all you want is "would I like this movie or is there a better way to spend my only free evening of the month?" then that approach is the best
Who cares about discovering new things you might like when you haven't even watched stuff you know you will?
It boils down to how much time and money you have to throw at it
@@goosewithagibusI agree with your comment, it’s just funny that you used that specific example because there IS a Nintendo fanboy reviewer out there who LOVES Resident Evil and generally makes really great reviews (ArloStuff).
@@goosewithagibusyou say that but sometimes an outsider's perspective can be quite telling, because in the event that they do love something that they normally wouldn't then it can say something about the elements of the film they were drawn to
13:55 Everything you said here boils down to "Surround yourself in an echo chamber".
I'm sure this works for other people, but this is the exact opposite advice I'd ever give to anyone, ever, period.
Gotta say, I’m very pleased to see someone grasp the power of marketing so well. Well known marketing does not = popularity; most people watch or buy things because of recommendations from people they know than because of ads. But what marketing does that you laid out so well is it picks its target audience. I’ve always believed that the best reviewed stories are always simply the ones that hit their target audiences so well. For every person that gave a 10/10 score, there is another that simply cannot be bothered to experience the story no matter what. To all writers out there, I think that this philosophy of target audience is something to be very conscientious of. You sometimes have to start with the most negative aspect of your story to push away those who wouldn’t enjoy it anyways, and then cater well later to those who are willing to enjoy the lowest part. Though this is one strategy, I’m personally trying a new strategy of balance: I want to write in a way that neither appeals to any group nor pushes away another group. I want the appeal to be neither positive nor negative, but instead simply intriguing. For I believe unbiased intrigue is a very powerful way to attract a large chunk of the audience, avoiding personal preferences that people may have. Also, always be confident in your appeal 👍🏾
Thanks, glad you appreciate that bit! A lot of writers never really think about target audience, and that undermines their success by quite a bit.
If critics are unable to review a movie with the intended audience in mind, then they provide absolutely no added value to anything and are, in fact, completely useless.
Agree. The way i see it, critics are just people outside of the demographic, unwelcomed and think highly of themselves because they believe their opinion is the only valid one when they don’t even know the source material
This
Great video, very well said. I've realized a similar thing with gaming. So many highly rated AAA video games come out that don't appeal to me very much even if they're technically good, it's all a matter of taste.
Lets be honest, AAA games nowadays aren't even known for being good on the technical side of things
AAA games to mean “high quality games that have it all” are specifically a 2000s thing.
The crazy thing is, if you ignore the scores and just read the reviews themselves… critics and general audiences actually broadly agree on a lot of the same points (it had super fun animation and sequences, a great score, and lots of references, but it also had crazy rushed pacing, a paper-thin plot, and seriously underbaked character arcs). The difference comes in how much value each aspect holds to a specific reviewer or audience.
For most Mario fans, the animation, sequences, and callbacks were SO fun that the lack of any real story just wasn’t an issue. But most critics got very little out of all that stuff, even if they acknowledge those as strengths, and so all they were left with was a very lackluster story.
Critics only seem “out of touch with reality” because scores are still (perhaps erroneously) seen as some kind of “objective measurement.” So when a review score doesn’t line up with the general public, a lot of people don’t see, “this critic personally enjoyed the movie this much,” they see, “this critic’s OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT of the movie’s quality is different from mine, and since I’m a rational human being, disagreeing with me means THEY’RE irrational and dumb!” Especially since critics are held to this standard of being as objective as possible, when imo we should really hold them to being CORRECT about the details thing of the thing they review, not on their opinion of that thing.
Criticism is an analysis of the internal moving parts to see how it works and what it’s trying to accomplish. Critics then use that analysis to ultimately support their opinion on a piece of work, but that opinion is still an opinion, even if it’s more detailed, nuanced, and informative than anything user “JohnSmith720NoScopeXD” can write.
But “it’s just your opinion” doesn’t have to be the end of the discussion, as it gives people the opportunity to discuss individual points. Even within the target demographic, there are some Mario fans that were seriously underwhelmed by the movie at best and HATED it at worst, to the point where they prefer the 1993 movie! Instead of saying “that’s your opinion” as a statement, we should use it as a question, and answer it ourselves. Like, “that’s your opinion? Well, I disagree on points X,Y, and Z that you brought up, and here’s why.”
Also, not entirely sure I agree that people should ONLY listen to critics who’s tastes align with them. While people who have different tastes might not be a good way to judge if you yourself like a thing, there’s still valuable discussion to be had with those people, and they might be able to see some things you yourself missed. Also, many modern cartoons like Amphibia and The Owl House have grown larger followings amongst older audiences (who were probably NOT the intended audience, or at least Disney the company’s intended audience), and may find different levels of success amongst that demographic. Hecc, ignoring the demographic that DID like it is part of what killed the cult classic Invader Zim, and supporting them is arguably why My Little Pony Gen 4 was as massive as it was.
All around good video, although slight nitpick: although the description with the “50% love it vs hate” part was basically how Rotten Tomatoes works, it’s not technically an “average score,” mathematically speaking.
A critic can be "out of touch" even if you don't assume a review is objective. If what a reviewer values is disconnected with what the readers value, then that person's reviews lose value for those readers. When that reviewer is working for a large publication and the tastes of that reviewer do not match the tastes of the general type of person who reads that publication, then they might not be a good match for that publication ("publication' being used liberally here to mean things like websites, etc.) When people accusing them of being out of touch, they are often pointing out that some reviewers (based on their tastes) should probably be working for a hyper-specialized 'zine with a circulation of 23 1/2.
@@ApesAmongUs That’s what out of touch SHOULD mean, but many use it as a shorthand for “this critic disagrees with the majority opinion.”
If she hulks gets a 77% fresh rate on RT, i will never ever again take them seriously. End of story
This is why individual reviews read one-by-one are a much better barometer for film criticism. Grouping everybody's individual and unique and nuanced view on a film into a collective defeats the purpose of making movies. When you watch a movie, you're viewing it through the prism of your singular mind, your own unique perspective informed by your own personal experiences that are different from anybody else's. When you try to group these together into an aggregate, Holy Score, you lose all of the nuance. And people use that score as a judge for a movie's quality. The dumbing down of society.
Makes me laugh when people say 'the movie's good because it made so much money'....no, it means a lot of people went to see it - not the same
Excellent points. I will say that I am old enough to remember a time when there seemed to be no critics that liked nerdy movies; superhero, sci-fi, etc. I wonder if it might help current critics to list a variety of movies they've seen and liked, so readers of that critic can make a decision much like you suggested.
Even moreso, it's not 98% of the audience who loved it, but 98% of the audience who are also Rotten Tomatoes reviewers. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction, a very small sample size, and yet they treat it like it's 98% of EVERYONE who saw it, and that's just completely unrepresentative.
It's kind of like, how by calling low-fat milk 1% and 2%, the implication is that whole milk must be 100% when in reality it's just between 3% and 5%
Really bad analogy, though. Would have been overall better with leaner writing. 😉
Because critics are mostly full of sh..prejudice :) When was the last time some critic online said something useful, especially on any mass platform like rotten tomatoes or so. As far as I know most of them are corrupt, when comes to a mediocre product from a big companies they give 10/10 .
I would argue that critics should review things from the lens of the target audience. If I’m bald and bought a comb from Amazon, I’m not going to give it a 1 star review because it did nothing for me.
I agree that having similar tastes to a critic is important in determining whether or not you should listen to them, but I do also think it's valuable to listen to perspectives different from your own. If you watched a movie and you thought it stunk, hearing someone else describe why it connected with them might warm you to it. Conversely, Hearing someone's criticisms of something you may have enjoyed may compell you to defend it, forcing you to explain why it worked for you, reinforcing your love for it, or it can force you to look at what you watch more critically. Either way, listening to different perspectives on the art can help serve to sharpen your critical thinking when it comes to art and art criticism. That's my 2 cents anyway
"art is not some school test" yeah tell that my art teacher
What they teach is institutionalized and shallow. Art can't be graded fairly, because art is subjective.
@@chrisosborn6401I agree that art is often graded in dumb ways in school. However, I disagree with the deconstructionist notion that objective beauty doesn’t exist and it’s logical conclusion that any piece of art *can’t* be bad.
@@Gingermaas art isn't entirely subjective, aye. You can judge the skill and execution of techniques. The point I was making was art classes have strangled in the cradle many a promising talent with their bull shit. I witnessed an abstract piece that someone had slaved for passionate hours over, and the teach slapped it with an F.
Perfect analysis in my opinion. I have been using RT in this way. If it is a genre that I like, I use the audience score. If it is a genre that I'm less keen on I use the critic score. This tends to give me reasonably satisfactory results when viewing the film.
You can't trust either scores tbh. Both critic scores and audience scores are routinely manipulated and inflated by bias and other factors. Nothing is trustworthy anymore. You can have critics that give a bad movie a pass because of favoritism with the studio that made it (i.e., Disney) or bash a good movie because of their own stuck-up prejudices, or you can have audiences that flood a movie with positive or negative reviews simply to spite the critics or for politically motivated reasons. Nothing is honest, nothing is genuine, and broader review sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should all honestly just be ignored from here on out. The only way to approach movies reliably in this day and age is to just watch the trailer and decide for yourself if you want to see it, or find a small group of critics or reviewers whose opinions (and motives) you have good reason to trust and with whom you generally agree.
There was one huge thing audiences haven't seen near enough.
The Mario movie delivered what it said on the tin.
The audiences' expectations were met.
I have a difficult time expressing just how important this really is.
It's like ordering a bacon cheeseburger and getting tofu soup.
I couldn't care one whit less how incredible of tofu it might be, i was really looking forward to that bacon cheeseburger.
I'm not sure I'd choose "bacon cheeseburger" and "tofu soup" as analogy here, but I do agree with your base idea.
I'd call the expected Mario movie "an amazing meal".
And critics complaining that it was mere "medial junk food" with no nutritional value (good storytelling) when it could have both been an amazing meal _and_ nutritious.
@@LinkEX Sometimes it's pretty much that bad.
That far removed from what was "On the tin".
Look at the 1st Mario movie for example.
If like most people, you wanted to see 'The Mario movie' like it is today, when you got the old one.
It wasn't what you wanted.
You got something entirely different.
"Southland Tales" is another example.
The trailer for "Southland Tales", looks like a good movie. (Heck, the trailer for Southland Tales IS a good movie).
The actual movie turned out to be almost nothing like the trailer.
I mean, I expected Luigi being trapped in a mansion to be a significant plot point, but instead the movie spent a bunch of time on DK who I had no interest in.
@@bopete3204 Fair point.
Exactly what i'm saying.
When your expectations aren't met you feel unfulfilled and let down.
You went to see one thing and got another.
Not the best business plan for the makers of the movie.
@@bopete3204 Explain why do you think Luigi wasn't an important plot point at-all despite this movie's fans telling you otherwise and why didn't you care about Seth Rogan as DK?
Definitely disagree. Dont surround yourself with 'critics' whose opinion you like, it is not the job of the critic to please you. It is the critics job to challenge your opinion.
The role of the critic in two words "Accurate specificity".
Speak only the objective truth and understand your goal in your criticism.
There are judges for contests, reviewers to filter out sensitive/graphic topics, communicators giving productive feedback for the artist(or artists in the same field), and a few other specific types of critics.
You must not only be completely truthful in your given criticism.....you must be truthful to yourself. Don't put yourself in the role of critic if you do not understand the medium you're examining. It also means you must be mature in how you view, how you reflect, how you critic, and how you receive feedback(both positive/negative equally) regarding the subject of your criticism.
There’s a certain amount of subjectivity that’s going to go into a review as it is an examination of art. How the individual feels about the movie is going to be the ultimate factor in the review. Reviewers often will say things like “if you’re into this type of movie you may like it but I didn’t”. This sentiment is negated when you are looking at a simple raw collection of mass thumbs-up or thumbs-down reviews. This is why I agree with his conclusion that you need to find individual critics who have similar tastes to you.
@@humphreygobo6576 precisely. A single ratio of "thumbs up/ thumbs down" is lying by omission.
It would work better if there was a greater scale to the both the ratio and the depth of the reviewers. Like a 5 star system with specific tags (comedy, action, mind teaser, etc)
Petition to get UA-cam to add a “meh” reaction.
This is how I felt about Babylon. I was speechless for 2 hours after watching it. And I looked at the rotten tomatoes score of it and just felt like the critics didn't understand what was being shown to them. They didn't pay it the attention it deserved. From there on I didn't care about Rotten tomatoes
I am not sure I entirely agree. You make some good points but you also omit some. I also disagree with part of the premise. Yes, a movie has a target audience but, in my opinion, a fantastic movie manages to entertain while maintaining a deeper layer. Not a movie, but I think the Simpsons did a good job at that. Also, a lot of the old Disney movies reiterated classic themes like the heroes journey without being goofy or cliché, while entertaining 6 year olds. Moreover there is something like bad writing, meaning plot holes, annoying messaging, catering to ``target audiences" in an incompetent way. There is something like a well-written shallow action movie. What they usually have in common is an interesting villain that makes you think after you left the movie theatre. And no, the solution can not be to just listen to critics that keep you in your bubble. That would make life so dull, don't you agree?
I will omit listing the point that you omitted. This would get political.
If a godsdamned critic cannot put their ego down for 2 hours to do their job as based as possible, then that critic should choose another job.
Its called "professionalism".
That's a very good point. Good critics do mention the caveat that they aren't the kind of person it was made for. Even still, the fact that critic didn't enjoy it will seep through in their review. It's a very rare day I see a critic say "I hate it, but I'm giving it a good review because some things in it were well done."
@@TheCloserLookExactly.
Yeah I truly wish they could give their unbiased opinion on products. But that isn't always a bad thing, if a critic is known for disliking a certain product and consistently write bad reviews even when it's good, but one day writes a good review, that merits looking at in my opinion.
@@Woltawhat you’re asking for is an objective review on a subjective medium. Reviews aren’t supposed to be objective because art isn’t objective.
@@officialbfi01 Lol The close look gave an example of how an Objective review would look like your point doesnt fucking stand.
I think the “if you disagree with what a critic says, stop listening to what they have to say” is a flawed statement. The point you were making about finding an individual critic that your tastes are similar to is very valid, but it’s *highly* unlikely that your personal tastes as a consumer are going to be perfectly aligned to *anyone*, much less a critic. In this, I’d say if you have a critic that you mostly agree with barring a few exceptions, the situations in which you disagree are times where you should hear them out about and consider their perspective. Honestly, that’s the kind of review I want to see from a critic I follow the most, I want to hear what they got out of something that I didn’t, and vice versa. It’s a good way of broadening your perspective and considering things you hadn’t thought of before.
This is a good take. Painting with broad strokes here, but I think a plurality of people are able to find a great deal of similarity in most things. I think the differences, for the most part, lie at the extremes, e.g. love, hate. Critics seem to just magnify those extremes and make them feel objective.
You know, I don't blame Rotten Tomatoes at all for this. Its 100% the critics fault in this particular case.
Revolutionary idea, but... If you cannot review a genre with an objective eye, yet choose to review movies of that genre anyway you've failed as a critic. The problem here is not Rotten Tomatoes aggregating the critic scores. The problem is how many critics make the choice to review a movie that they are utterly unqualified to judge and then give that movie a bad score based not on if the movie did a good job at what it set out to do, but based on what the critic wishes the movie had done *instead*.
14:15 is a huge point, one that I've noticed in many maturing media.
Whether it is TV, Movies or Video Games, it feels like they've settled into "big business" mode.
When you involve massive amounts of money moving around, you can bet there's either something shady sneaking it's way in (money laundering, fraud, corruption, etc), or investors demanding far more control over the creative process to "ensure their return".
It becomes less about telling a good story or creating an engaging experience, and more about "how do we make sure to make back our $200 million dollars?"
This is why I get excited when I hear of technological advancements in cinematic and gaming tools, like Blender or Unreal updates.
Things that put what used to take hundreds of people, and millions of dollars, into the hands of a small team or even a single dedicated person.
Because while the risk is VERY high that that single dedicated person might fail, or make something only a handful of people care about..
It is precisely what Art is supposed to be about. Those handful of people may have their lives changed.
And the risk of trying untested things is how innovation happens, and how new genres are created and we can become excited about things again.
I think one of the biggest reasons people loved it is because Jack Black is a gem and did Bowser.
Dude i love your videos, you have made my interest in literature, movie and writing analysis skyrocket past anything i thought was imaginable.
I'm humbled I've had that much of an effect on you. Thank you for such kind words.
When it comes to movies; I tend to approach them with multiple personalities:-
1. The Intellect- this is when I want to watch movies that get me to think whether it's themes, symbolism, philosophies etc (Werner Herzog, Andrei Tarkovski etc)
2. The Goofy- these are the movies I like to watch I know are silly but GODDAMMIT they're dumb fun (ID4, Battleship, Michael Bay etc)
3. The Fanboy- these movies are for the franchises out there I personally wish to see (MCU, MonsterVerse wtc)
4. The Childhood Throwbacker- Movies I watched as a kid & comeback from time to time to see to appreciate (Ray Harryhausen movies, The Goonies, Tron etc)
5. Action Aficionado- when you love to watch things explode including bad guys (Terminator, Robocop, Die Hard etc)
This is how movies work for me
You forgot THE EMPTY- A dull movie with overblown special effects but no plot no meaningful action and Preachy about Sociopolitical Theme X.
@snintendog There's an easy, simple solution to those types of movies:-
DON'T. WATCH. THEM!
Or if you're aware they're enforcing a message without sincerity, honestly & with genuine purpose:-
DON'T. WATCH. THEM!
Terminator, Robocop, Die Hard... all these films rise above and beyond the mere action flicks that are just about things exploding including the bad guys, though.
@@Metalisalearning77 It would be great to know about them before i spend money on them like oh i dont know a critic to tell me that they are of this category. Too bad those dont exists and as Closer says the Audience should never be allowed to critique they lack the "refined tastes" for She hulk and Captain marvel.
@@cormano64 of course! They're a rare breed of beast!
Badass action movies that have genuine smartness that can get you to think but they're genius is they're not explicitly shown to you.
Instead they tell a story that's captivating & has the themes on display but not put on a show!
It's akin to Schrodingers Cat; the themes are not there but simultaneously they're always there
You're also forgetting Rotten puts its finger on the scale for companies it likes.
Thank you for verbalized my convictions about the useless blanket term "art is subjective", "art is super individual" is a far more accurate statement.
Agreed. I think the way people often interpret that saying is as "the QUALITY of art is subjective", which I think is a much more problematic statement than "the APPEAL of art is subjective"? As our narrator notes here, a piece if media can still garner an enthusiastic niche audience even if it's made in a very trite & lazy way (what we might judge as being bad from a technical standpoint).
Thanks for the video. I have never understood how "Rotten Tomatoes" has become the gold standard for if a movie is good or not? Now I understand that the scores are going by a "target audience." Thanks for explaining it and expanding on this.
There's just one major thing I disagree with. Movies are not "art", they are a product
I myself that the Mario Movie was ok, but I never thought it was amazing. I think most people just adored the movie because they like Mario, and nothing more.
If I listened to any official reviews by critics of Little Mermaid I would have gone to the movie. But thankfully I did not and I saved myself from ever seeing this crap.
@@DearAphrodite Some movies you dont need to see. The Jangling Key movies like Mermaid and Avatar are those movies you can write off as bad without Deep analysis.
I agree that media should be framed around who it is for. But that is also why i think critics as they are, are completely useless. Because usually they don't try in the slightest to make a point of who they think will enjoy a given movie/book/game/song, but try to make a "objective" statement about it instead. Number rating systems are a symptom of this philosophy, and rotten tomatoes is far from beeing the only offender. I think Criticism should be about finding where the enjoyment lies and telling what kind of people will most likely experience said enjoyment. If a critic is unable to find enjoyment in something that a broader mass can find enjoyment in... that's useless in my book. "Objective quality" surely should be a part of criticism, but not nearly as big as critics like to make it out to be. The less a critic tries to be objective, the better. Because humans are not made to be objective, and critics are still human, even if most seemingly think they are something higher.
And I don't buy into "they just have higher tastes because they just watch so many movies". Beeing very familiar with music industry, beeing even more familiar with game industry, I know that these kinds of perspective are usually just elitistic bs, and I would be very surprised if this is different for movies. Yes, consuming a lot of a specific type of media broadens your horizon and makes you see thinks normal consumers wouldn't see. But beeing a critic means not having the luxury to mistake a broader horizon for the right to talk down on average opinion as if you are something better. It should be the opposite. It should be about understanding most average opinions, so you can help them decide what they would also enjoy. Helping others to make decisions on what to consume should in theory be what critics exist for after all.
Criticism should be less bad-oriented but more good-oriented. This would reflect into the very culture of consuming media, and make it a more welcoming space for everyone, so noone should be afraid to talk about what they like. (There is a reason most women don't feel very comfortable around nerdy circles after all, and it usually isn't just the lack of hygene)
Mate, you make some very valid points. But I think the last few years have shown us that there is a clear and undeniable bias by critics when a movie does not have an agenda, which has lead to them completely losing their credibility.
Two examples of this are The Joker and RoP. The Joker was attacked by critics and they made a huge fuss about it. RoP is the saddest attempt at fanfic but it has an incredibly high critic score.
Established critics deserve the flak they are getting.
That being said, it is UA-cam critics who people are moving to for in-depth analysis and recommendations. Critics are not dying, only the industry bred ones are.
i've seen so many reviews on youtube as well though of opposite opinions, one person will say a movie is a masterpiece and another that's its bland garbage, i never know what movie to bother seeing anymore, none appeal to me at first sight, and no review makes me feel much more interested
Tbh, the only bad reviews I've ever seen of Joker are the ones cited in youtube videos decrying how bad movie critics are. The reviews I have actually read or seen myself all gave the movie high scores. It's the non-existant Doom Eternal outrage all over again.
As someone who watched the first 40 minutes of Eternals tonight, I'd have to say I agree with the critics. Blandest film ever.
The recent phenomenon, or at least one ive only noticed recently, of people, even more so fans of a genre or franchise, reacting negatively to a movie going out of its way to cater to the people who would like a movie, even to the detrement of the movie financialy is insane to me. You are telling me people for years told these studios to stop doing things only for the money, or wishing that they would do this or that because it would be so enjoyable for the fans, and then when, at least in some ways, they decide to do so and now people *COMPLAIN* about that too?! Crazy to me.
When I hear people saying stuff like "the age of the film critics is over", I always associate it with critics in mainstream media, who are either bought and paid for or desperately trying not to upset the industry that provides them with previews. I'll generally listen to anyone who paid for the ticket with their own money, which is why everyday self made content creators are infinitely better than shills from the big established media outlets.
You've just described access media.
True, but in this video he talks about critics who appear on Rotten Tomatoes, who are almost all bought and paid for shills who write for access media. The UA-cam critic who spends hours dissecting a production in detail and explaining with arguments why it's good or bad or acceptable never appears on that site.
Another issue with Rotten Tomatoes is its scoring formula. A film which gets all 5.5/10 is 100% fresh just like a film which gets all 10/10. They purposely designed the scoring so that it produces big numbers disregarding how the formula affects the usefulness of those numbers. It’s designed to create headlines which is why Rotten Tomateos became more popular than IMDB.
I'd still argue the critics are wrong though.
If I were a critic of food and I hated spicy food. I can't just go to every Thai restaurant giving them low scores because the food is too spicy. Movie critics will do that though. They just put their opinions as if it's fact and don't try and step away from themselves. While I hate spicy food, I can generally tell you if a Thai restaurant is good or not for people who do enjoy it.
I think some movies have bad critics because they're forced to dislike these movies for an agenda
I feel like secret invasion is an example of how critics can be full of it, sometimes. The mcu has been more comedic, as of late, and the main target audience is mostly kids, and teenagers. When the mcu made a mostly dark and grim tv show, the critics thought it was crap, because the target audience for the mcu has been mostly exposed to comedic films, so doom and gloom isn’t what they want from their marvel shows.
Interesting. Are you arguing that Secret Invasion was poorly reviewed because it was too dark? I have no idea if that is true, but we didn't like it very much, and that's not because it was too dark.
@@brianlindsay9097 kind of. I’m saying that since the mcu has been more comedic as of late, the grim tone isn’t what a lot of people are used to form these movies.
So many critics only selectively understand the notion of target audience. They go watch a kids movie, and are able to say "your kids will enjoy this". Then they see a series like "Twilight", made for teenage girls, and say "I didn't like this".
My algorithm recommended TheCloserLook today. I feel like my YT feed is now sophisticated after finally discovering this amazing channel.
13:50 i disagree with that. That's just an echo chamber.
How and why?
FNAF movie is another example
All good points you raise but I have a few points. 1) professional movie critics should be capable of getting outside of their own preferences and biases to review the movies. If they aren’t capable of doing this then they are nothing more than an idiot with an opinion. 2) most people are able to figure out how to use the rotten tomatoes site. Step 1, find a movie that you think you may like (it’s in your preference areas); Step 2, look at the audience score; Step 3, read the reviews; Step 4, make an informed decision.
Maybe, just maybe, some critics are corrupt and are getting money and favors to attack or praise certain films, shows and games... Or they simply do it for free, entirely for political reasons.
Yes, I was going to bring this up. While I agree that critics scores are not a good metric to general audience as argued in the video, even if they come up with a smarter way and more useful way of suggest the right movie for the right audience, there's still the matter of how much you trust the critics. People always have had problems with critics but, at least until some years ago, they were seen as professionals honestly trying to deliver a judgement without bias.
There is something to be said about having movie critics with similar taste to your own. There used to be this podcast I really liked and when it ended I kind of felt I had a hard time finding who I could trust. One downside to some reviews critics give is that they may downplay how bleak a particular movie or aspect of a movie may be, because that bleakness was enough to make them feel something after being so jaded from seeing so many different movies. Whereas that bleakness may be a bit much for the average viewer.
Difference is critics treat movies as an artform while audience treat it as entertainment.
This is absolutely true
This is the equivalent to game developers listening to hardcore players and esports professionals on what needs to change in their game, sure it may be from a professional viewpoint, but the change will most likely lead to what will eventually become a boring experience for everyone else, a strict experience isn't always the best option.
agreed, wish more developers and studio's listened to the general audience and fanbase than whoever they are getting their advise from, look at the dark pictures franchise and the quarry, those games just got worse and worse, whoever they listened to certainly wasn't the people playing those games for good characters and story
overwatch is a great example of this, I actually liked 2 cp, atleast on the genji/hanzo map, but instead of keeping it in, they decided to remove it and replace it with push, when they could have added push while keeping 2 cp in. Atleast some of the 2 cp maps.
I have a question that I would like you to answer. How do you think you could fix “bad” writing tropes? Stuff like narration, time skips, time travel, multiverse hopping, etc. We’ve seen all of these tropes done “good” before, but what separates the good versions from the bad ones? Like what’s the difference and why is the connotation of these tropes seen as negative?
i dislike how he is so casual to critics.. they rate things based upon trying to get points for the next film. That he never even addressed that is dishonest.
Critics are not even close to representing a fair and unbiased review. It's only and ever about access media.
I agree and I ignore all critics reviews even on imbd because they now too hide reviews.
The conclusion here is exactly what I've been telling people to do for years. I've got a series of movie critics I follow that share my tastes, I've got a set of video game reviewers I follow who share my taste. I should probably find some book reviewers as well. You should do it for all forms of art that you're into.
I also use the RT viewer scores as a (very) rough gauge as well. And if both critics and viewers overwhelmingly love it, then it's probably a pretty special movie regardless of being outside of my typical preferences and worth another consideration.
at least he admitted he has a bias when saying movie critics are useful.
I'm a horror fan and I can't tell you know how many times I've seen horror films get bad reviews for being "too violent", then I see them, and they are absolute masterpieces. Then I hear things like "The Menu" is a masterpiece, so I see them and I fall asleep.
What you're describing is critics being bad at their jobs. But I'd generally disagree - a critics job is to judge how good a movie is. The mario movie is bad. But its target audience liked it. Both things can be true, and that's fine. Same with the new daily wire movie. It's objectively bad, but its target audience loves it. That's fine.
LOL! Why do you say the Mario Movie was a bad movie please? Explain for the fanboys. I thought the movie was very subpar even on the lens of a Mario Movie…
Why is the marko movie always used as an example for critics being wrong, they were dead right on that one
Why do you say the critics are right about the movie?
Don't forget that so-called journalists who aren't in fandoms cam never truly understand yhe importance and/or significance of medias like this and video games, mainly because A, they almost never do their due diligence and only review the surface, and B, they're reviewing content that wasn't made for them, since they're not the target audience--shocking, I know.
I just get tired of all these so-called journalists shitting over media they're not a part of, or are trying to break into without preparation or an open mind; reminds me of the people who couldn't follow instructions and move past Cuphead's tutorial 🙄
Oldboy is indeed a great revenge flick, I just saw it in a theatre recently. I think it's still playing this month
I like RT as a collection of professional reviews of a certain films.
The main problems in my view are the following:
1) Certifying critical but not completely condemning reviews. Many of these are certified as fresh, even though they are highly critical of the movie.
2) Cultural bias. As most critics featured on RT are Americans, you can often note that they just don't get non-American films - not even British ones! My favourite example is the original Johnny English, one of my most beloved comedies that I find absolutely hilarious (I'm not British myself). Well, many American critics didn't get the humor at all, giving it rather mediocre reviews. Also, many Americans often don't understand black humor, confusing it with misanthropic cynicism.
Well, just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's great or beautiful. I see RT the same way I do art critics. You don't pick which poster you wanna put on your wall based upon their notion of impressionist vs realist, but it's nice to read their educated thought about it.
I'm relieved to read at least one comment like yours here. It's kinda blatant how many comments are already here who seemed to not have payed attention to the video.
I love to know more about movies and appreciate a critic's review when it seems they actually took the time to pay attention and give the movie a chance before forming their opinion (and yes, Grace Randolph is really consistently dumb in her takes even being aware of her film industry knowledge).
I feel I can learn something even (or especially) when I disagree with said critic, which happens quite often with Roger Ebert's views, sincere and accessible as he was on his work.
@@cormano64Thank you very much, I agree one hundred percent. I watch critique videos or video analysis to learn something, not to get my opinions validated or to hear "this movie is good/this movie is bad".
@@cormano64 that's funny because Roger Ebert was the only reviewer I trusted. For the past 10 years I've not found a single person like him.