I think the biggest contributing factor is that they are so disconnected because they’re doing things the average joe is not, by seeing almost every film. The average person may see 3-4 new films a year while the critic sees like 50. That will naturally lead to changes and biases. After seeing the same trope 60 times, you will probably get bored and see it as uninspired, whereas to someone else it feels fresh and new due to their lack of exposure. Especially with the Mario movie as an example, it’s a fun adventure that says nothing in the grand scheme of things. And since they see TONS of movies that are just there for fun, it’s easy to write it off. You want something that’s gonna grab your attention and be more than the 2 dozen movies you’ve watched this year. General audiences don’t have quite that level of fatigue. (Although give streaming a few more years, we could get there easily)
2 years ago | 91
I personally think it has more to do with audiences being more forgiving of a movie's flaws as long as its entertaining while those flaws might stand out more for a critic who has seen dozens of other films with similar premises.
2 years ago | 776
I feel that some critics have stopped attempting to emotionally connect with films and often enter theaters with the desire to be impressed by "art" rather than experience the joy of seeing art. As someone who's going to film school in the fall, it's really sad. I want to write screenplays for others to enjoy, not for critics to praise.
2 years ago | 5
I think what the mass audiences search for and what critics search for in a movie are two different things, and I feel that IS a good thing.
2 years ago | 389
This is a massive generalisation, but mostly critics want art, whereas audiences want entertainment, so they aren’t necessarily ‘out of touch’, they just want something different to the average movie-goer. Edit: The critics think nostalgia is cheap ad manipulative, which is why they disliked the Mario movie. I believe that adding nostalgia to your film is like adding something sweet or fatty to a dish unnecessarily, its not healthy or challenging, but it does feel good, which ties into my previous point about critics wanting something more artist rather than entertaining.
2 years ago (edited) | 43
What I’ve realized in my short time of writing at a higher level is that so many people don’t look at something at the basic level. They’re trying to dig under concrete to find a deeper meaning when some works are just simple ones. It’s happened so many times in my writing classes it’s ridiculous
2 years ago | 117
I think where the critics got it wrong was where they misunderstood the intention and understanding of the property itself. Judge a film on it wants to be and especially the Mario movie understand the adapted property and what audiences expect and want from a film adaptation. Anyway love the videos their always a great resource 👍
2 years ago | 7
Critics care about the quality of a film, general audiences care about the enjoyability of a film.
1 year ago | 1
I voted for originality but i guess it's a bit more nuanced. When you see movies as a job you end having a bigger pool of reference for basically every plot point a movie can throw at you, so some end up being less emotionally effective on crotocs than the general public
2 years ago | 29
I think it's a matter of exposure. The average viewer sees less films than a film critic, so not everything has to be a masterpiece to stand out, whereas a critic sees dozens of films a month and isn't going to be impressed by a film that doesn't stand out from all the other works they've seen in the span of a couple weeks
2 years ago | 64
They experience way too much entertainment compared to an average moviegoer. Of course they would have higher standards, they've seen way more movies than someone like me and they know a lot more about film language than someone who doesn't watch movies for a living
2 years ago | 59
I don't think it's a critic's job to be "in touch" with what audiences whant. I think their job is to analise a piece of media and create a compelling analisis of said media. I don't look at critic's rivies to learn wether I wabt to watch a movie or not. I look at the, after the fact, to see what themes I might have missed or what Ideas I might have not picked up on. To understand furtger why I did or didn't enjoy a piece of media. To me, websites like Rotten tomatoes that reduce film concensus to a number are the problem. Film criticism shouldn't be forced to be the length of a tweet.
2 years ago | 1
I think it's usually a combination of the second and third option. Critics care a lot about themes, messaging, and originality. They also seem to care a lot more about filmmaking (I.e. Cinematography, production design, score, editing, etc.) than most moviegoers. Most people go to the theater a couple times per year, whereas critics are there multiple times each week. So I think movies that most people find entertaining can become stale to critics who watch so many movies
2 years ago | 11
I think that the audience more readily suspends their disbelief when watching a movie, and often casual viewers just want to enjoy themselves. Critics are more educated and informed about movies, and so they just have a different set of parameters on what they consider a "good" film.
2 years ago | 478
''In many ways the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoyed a position over those who offer up their work, and their selves, to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.'' Anthony Ego, from the movie Ratatoullie.
2 years ago | 35
Most critics have never been fans of the franchises they are critiquing, so they have no clue what the fan base actually likes. Most fans can't even articulate that when you ask them, because it has more to do with the emotion the content evokes in the fans rather than a neatly tied box of plot devices, themes and symbolism...although those often help get the true message across in enormous ways.
2 years ago (edited) | 71
I tend to find that the reason is rather simple; once you keep seeing things on the job, like the same tropes, lines and plots you get overexposure and become numb and annoyed or indifferent instead. It's chasing the next high, cinematically speaking.
2 years ago | 3
I actually like the two perspectives on film. It’s important to value the deeper more artistic aspects of a movie but it’s equally as important to value the fun/entertainment value the movie brings which is where audiences/critics usually differ
2 years ago | 3
Honestly, I think its really that they watch watch a high number of films a week, where the vast majority of the audience don't, so I say that their quality expections are higher the casual movie viewer, so while they might see something as derivitive/tired, the casual would be happy enough with it Edit: grammer
2 years ago (edited) | 12
The Closer Look
Why do you think critics are so out of touch with what audiences want to see?
I'm making a video on the Mario movie, and why critics get it wrong so often. I'd love to know your thoughts on this!
Below are some common criticisms people make I made a poll out of. Let me know if you think the issue isn't listed below by leaving a comment.
2 years ago | [YT] | 875