Forums - Movies Discussion - Gravity Proves Why Movie Critics Are Trash.

bugrimmar said:
pokoko said:
What I disagreed with was the childish way you insulted an entire segement of people because you disagreed with some of them.  Generalizations like that, to me, are a hell of a lot worse than a difference of opinion over a movie.  But let's not fight.

It bugs you that professional movie critics like different things than you, while it bugs me that someone would call someone else "trash" over something as trivial as that.  Let's just agree to disagree.


I'm calling them trash because they're irresponsibly leading people toward things that aren't as good as they claim it to be. I feel that as journalists, they should hold themselves to higher standards than just "artsy expressions" and be more connected to the general public that will see the movie anyway. I mean, if they're reviewing the film solely by themselves, they aren't fit to be reviewers. The majority of the film viewing universe doesn't really care about what they like to emphasize on so much while their function is supposed to be to guide viewers to good films. It's an moronic waste of space and time.

And how are they supposed to review anyway? What is being "connected to the general public"? Something like "Wow, Transformers is GOAT, Shia LaBeouf the new Marlon Brando confirmed!"? Obviously they will rate what they like higher.



Around the Network

I agree with the OP.
GTAV should be the best film of the year.



I feel like the OP is completely misinterpreting the point of Movie Critics.



Average review score is 9.1 not 9.6. But that's still unusually high. I'm gonna see it tonight so I'll actually have an opinion on this soon. I almost never give movies 9/10 so I'd be surprised if I agree with the average review scores. But seriously, griping about the review scores between your own score of 7.5/10 and the review average of 9.1/10 seems overly critical to me. From the thread title I was thinking you were going to call it a PoS and not worth watching.

I'm glad Sandra Bullock got to do a good movie again. The comedies she seems to sign up for a lot are normally attrocious, and she almost always plays the same type of personality. But she does really well in drama and gets a good variety of character roles.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

bugrimmar said:
pokoko said:
What I disagreed with was the childish way you insulted an entire segement of people because you disagreed with some of them.  Generalizations like that, to me, are a hell of a lot worse than a difference of opinion over a movie.  But let's not fight.

It bugs you that professional movie critics like different things than you, while it bugs me that someone would call someone else "trash" over something as trivial as that.  Let's just agree to disagree.


I'm calling them trash because they're irresponsibly leading people toward things that aren't as good as they claim it to be. I feel that as journalists, they should hold themselves to higher standards than just "artsy expressions" and be more connected to the general public that will see the movie anyway. I mean, if they're reviewing the film solely by themselves, they aren't fit to be reviewers. The majority of the film viewing universe doesn't really care about what they like to emphasize on so much while their function is supposed to be to guide viewers to good films. It's an moronic waste of space and time.

Professional reviewers are usually people that are very passionate about the art of film (as is the general audiance for such reviews). And they rate bassed on their own aquired tastes which will naturally be different from your average moviegoer. There is however nothing wrong with that, and using agrigate scores is in general rather silly for a subjective medium. You wouldn't expect someone who reviews horror movies to try and rate movies bassed on what they think the general public who isn't into horror movies would like them would you? Reviews have to reflect the oppinions of the reviewer trying to guess what the average joe would think of a movie would be a moronic exercise in futility. Ignore agrigate scores and find reviewers who share your taste in movies (rather than expecting all reviewers to reflect your taste in movies), you will be much happier for it.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
zarx said:
bugrimmar said:
pokoko said:
What I disagreed with was the childish way you insulted an entire segement of people because you disagreed with some of them.  Generalizations like that, to me, are a hell of a lot worse than a difference of opinion over a movie.  But let's not fight.

It bugs you that professional movie critics like different things than you, while it bugs me that someone would call someone else "trash" over something as trivial as that.  Let's just agree to disagree.


I'm calling them trash because they're irresponsibly leading people toward things that aren't as good as they claim it to be. I feel that as journalists, they should hold themselves to higher standards than just "artsy expressions" and be more connected to the general public that will see the movie anyway. I mean, if they're reviewing the film solely by themselves, they aren't fit to be reviewers. The majority of the film viewing universe doesn't really care about what they like to emphasize on so much while their function is supposed to be to guide viewers to good films. It's an moronic waste of space and time.

Professional reviewers are usually people that are very passionate about the art of film (as is the general audiance for such reviews). And they rate bassed on their own aquired tastes which will naturally be different from your average moviegoer. There is however nothing wrong with that, and using agrigate scores is in general rather silly for a subjective medium. You wouldn't expect someone who reviews horror movies to try and rate movies bassed on what they think the general public who isn't into horror movies would like them would you? Reviews have to reflect the oppinions of the reviewer trying to guess what the average joe would think of a movie would be a moronic exercise in futility. Ignore agrigate scores and find reviewers who share your taste in movies (rather than expecting all reviewers to reflect your taste in movies), you will be much happier for it.


This, essentially. I used to follow Roger Ebert quite a bit in terms of my personal movie tastes... I've yet to find a new go-to reviewer. 



Necromunda said:
This, essentially. I used to follow Roger Ebert quite a bit in terms of my personal movie tastes... I've yet to find a new go-to reviewer. 

Hey same here. Loved reading his take on the movies even after i've already seen them. He's pointed me towards some really good gems which i would have ignored if i sticked to mainstream reviewers. 

OT: OP you seem to have bad taste in Cinema and you should feel bad about it. Okay maybe not but you should feel bad about making this topic. Just expressing my opinion here like the reviewers and your ramblings in this thread. 



Something called "opinions". They are just stating THEIR opinion.



I often agree with critics. Maybe because I can appreciate more about films than simple fun



Agree with the conclusion, tough not with all of your rant.

The movie was good, no doubt, but there where obvious sacrifices made so the masses can eat it up. It was one of the better tragedy/sci-fi movies of the past years, tough there where plenty smaller ones that were superior, but the media completely ignored it (Europa Report anyone?).

Never the less, the acting was believable, the suspense was there and visually it was stunning, even by not making it an overkill. Solid flick, and it made me look into the directors older works.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!