Are critics too harsh on their evaluations of a film? Are they partly to blame for why films are now remakes rather than going for original? What's the best way to look at them if they are talking about your own film?
Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes have hurt more than helped. There was a time where there were a number of respected and relied upon voices reviewing films. Now you need a blog and a RT account and your voice is as powerful as those working in the space for decades.
We never rely on reviews to determine whether or not we'll go see a film or not (basically we don't rely on reviews for anything, we rather experience ourselves), especially not online ones. One of the reasons being that the internet is used by a majority of people to spew their most harsh/judgmental/... critiques out into the world, not necessarily because they're so nuanced (au contraire) but because it's anonymous and behind the safety of a computer screen.
there's always people for or against something and opinions vary greatly, as long as you're happy with the product you ended up with and your partners are happy then a critique is just that. Depending on how constructive it is, it's upto you to decide what to do with it.
I remember when Siskel and Ebert would be on and I would sit and watch that show simply because they would talk about all aspects of the film they were reviewing. It seems now that any person can review a film regardless of their knowledge of the industry. I really don't pay attention to reviews, if it's a good story, I will watch it. It almost seems critics today review movies just so THEY can get the attention because of what they say about the movie...social media is just about me, me, me and how many hits on YouTube or retweets I can get on twitter.
Couldn't agree more, Madeline. But that's also why the selfless rise above on social media. Those who give get noticed. Those who blend in with the noise get lost.
2 people like this
Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes have hurt more than helped. There was a time where there were a number of respected and relied upon voices reviewing films. Now you need a blog and a RT account and your voice is as powerful as those working in the space for decades.
1 person likes this
We never rely on reviews to determine whether or not we'll go see a film or not (basically we don't rely on reviews for anything, we rather experience ourselves), especially not online ones. One of the reasons being that the internet is used by a majority of people to spew their most harsh/judgmental/... critiques out into the world, not necessarily because they're so nuanced (au contraire) but because it's anonymous and behind the safety of a computer screen.
there's always people for or against something and opinions vary greatly, as long as you're happy with the product you ended up with and your partners are happy then a critique is just that. Depending on how constructive it is, it's upto you to decide what to do with it.
1 person likes this
I remember when Siskel and Ebert would be on and I would sit and watch that show simply because they would talk about all aspects of the film they were reviewing. It seems now that any person can review a film regardless of their knowledge of the industry. I really don't pay attention to reviews, if it's a good story, I will watch it. It almost seems critics today review movies just so THEY can get the attention because of what they say about the movie...social media is just about me, me, me and how many hits on YouTube or retweets I can get on twitter.
1 person likes this
Couldn't agree more, Madeline. But that's also why the selfless rise above on social media. Those who give get noticed. Those who blend in with the noise get lost.