No one likes to openly admit that they just wasted their money.
Aug 15 - 06:17 PM
Or because audience knows what they expect beforehand while critics go to each movie ready to be challenged intellectually
Aug 17 - 11:42 PM
Why spend money on what you exactly expect? You can sit home and imagine your expectations for free. A good movie should surprise, thrill, have suspense, and, yes, sometimes challenge. If audiences knew what they wanted, they could make their own movies (which I probably wouldn't want to see).
Aug 18 - 05:20 PM
Half the planet is retarded.
Aug 15 - 10:29 PM
Infernal Dude 2.0
Because audiences can pick the films they view. Critics can't.
Aug 16 - 12:32 AM
Absolutely! Great point. I go to see the type of movies I like. And while I'm occasionally disappointed, in general the movie delivers about what I expected. But if I had to see almost EVERYTHING that's released, including movies I personally would likely never see if it wasn't my job, I'd likely be irritated from the start and unless they won me over in a big way, I'd be rating them poorly too.
Aug 16 - 06:13 AM
Thats a pretty interesting point of view. Ive never thought of it that way before
Aug 16 - 12:08 PM
There's a lot of truth to what you're saying but Ebert seemed to like movies many critics didn't like!
Aug 16 - 09:30 PM
Apparently he was the only one who liked Speed 2.
Aug 18 - 07:56 AM
Aug 18 - 08:38 PM
I think critics are just more aware and perceptive of the inner workings that makes filmmaking works. Average car drivers will be happy if their cars can get them to places they want to go, but a true automotive expert appreciates and understands what's going on under the hood.
Aug 16 - 07:07 AM
Jesse Leon Rodgers Jr
Aug 19 - 10:12 AM
Simple, critics have watched literally thousands of films more than the average viewer and are much better at pointing out the cliches and contrived plot points as well as much less forgiving of them.
Audiences have to actually be interested in a film to pay money to see it and chances are, they'll be more forgiving 'cuz they're fave actor is in it or the action scenes were good.
Critics are wine tasters and audiences just wanna get drunk.
Aug 16 - 08:36 AM
I can see the realistic point you're making, but it sounds as if the entire audience is dumb. Plenty of the public make clear analyses.
Not that I'm dismissing your entire point, but the audience likes to escape as much as they do to understand it.
Aug 18 - 08:01 AM
Critics are there to critique the film. The regular audience is there to escape. I still can't believe the critics gave Man of Steel a rotten score. They got that one wrong!
Aug 16 - 08:46 AM
No they didn't. But more power to you for enjoying it.
Aug 17 - 04:03 PM
Not all the time. There are a bunch of art films that critics rate higher than audiences.
Aug 16 - 10:03 AM
Don't Tase Me Bro
There's a good reason for that too. Critics are far less wowed by spectacle over story, uber A-listers over unknowns. A good film with a solid story and fascinating characters is like a pretty face. If the pretty face needs gobs of make-up, then it's probably 'making up' for what's not there. And it rightly irritates critics because most audiences prefer spectacle over story... This was the year that the critics effectively struck back against the big tentpole, spectacle, A-lister films...
Aug 17 - 05:04 PM
They didn't strike much against Avatar. I hope the critics are far less wowed by the sequels.
Aug 18 - 08:03 AM
They struck back against them because mostly they weren't very good, not just because they were blockbusters.
Aug 18 - 04:26 PM
Almost all of those movies were flat. I think superman was a special case because most critics were too in love with the Donner version and alot of the critics were pretty closed minded in that regard. The movie was ok at best and definitely had issues.
Aug 19 - 06:27 AM
Seems to me that this is pretty self-explanatory. When a couch potato such as myself watches a gymnastics routine I think "Wow, look at all the difficult stuff that guy can do!" Even if the gymnast has completely blown the routine, I'm not going to know any better. Someone that has spent their life studying gymnastics, on the other hand, will be able to pick out flaws that I didn't even know were there.
Aug 16 - 11:54 AM
because the masses are stupid.
Aug 17 - 04:02 PM
If a movie gets under 50 % tomato score, i usually wait till DVD to see it. Every time a lousy film does well at the box office, i usually chalk it up to good promoting and a lot of people that just dont have high standards of what they want to watch.
Aug 17 - 06:55 PM
The way I feel about it is this. Critics are professionals. They look at a film much deeper than general audiences. I will admit before I started actually paying attention to everything about a film i loved movies that were critically despised. But now that I pay attentionto itall films I would have liked before I now cant stant
Aug 17 - 08:22 PM
Because it's widely known that RT audience scores are made by non-RT-registered Facebookers and spammed by studio votebots.
Aug 17 - 10:11 PM
Yes, as surprising as many seem to think. Studios do have employees who spend their time online pimping their movies. There are many here in fact. I am proudly not one, but you'll notice that familiar faces will always want to see films from the same studio.
Aug 18 - 05:25 PM
Another reason could be the age of the average moviegoer, which I'm guessing is young compared to most critics. If something like "Disturbia" (which I liked, by the way) comes out and a 20-year-old sees it, he or she might well be wowed. The critic, on the other hand, will be very familiar with its inspiration, "Rear Window," and might find the newer film lacking by comparison. Young audiences simply have a more limited frame of reference.
Aug 18 - 04:31 AM
Not to counter anyone's point, but it feels like we're insulting ourselves.
Aug 18 - 08:02 AM
Professionals are always tougher critics then non-professionals. That goes with any field. I thought this was obvious, and don't know why there needs to be any "studying" involved in it. I'm not gonna judge art the way an artist judges art, and it'll probably be much easier to please me.
Aug 18 - 09:17 AM
This is a really interesting study insofar as it raises more questions than it answers. Rather than simply thinking (as I do or did) that the average American entertainment-goer has a relatively low level of sophistication or intelligence and that a majority of film critic reviews are coming from someone who may genuinely dislike the genre of the movie they're reviewing, there are so many interesting variables. Ultimately, of course, I think the only time anyone really pays attention to critics or even audience review scores (unless they're fanboys or people who want to incite arguments) is when they are truly unsure of a film. I don't care how many people adore a romantic comedy: I'm not going. I also don't care who hates the Marvel movies: I'm going. The only time critics and audience scores come into play are things like, well, last year's HITCHCOCK: I wanted to see it based on cast and subject matter, but not so much that I would waste money on it if it was bad.
Aug 19 - 12:23 AM
I have observationaly seen many critics review films based on some arbitrary line in the sand, versus looking at the film based on it's own reality and sense. You cannot review There Will Be Blood and Grown Ups 2 by the same bar, you should do reviews by how dies the merits of the film lend to the overall story, does it work within it's own world.
Aug 19 - 10:35 AM
It helps if you pick a good comedy for comparison.
Aug 19 - 11:04 AM
Fast & Furious 6 and Doctor...
New animation from studio Laika
The season's movies ranked
Gallery of early Oscar favorites