Then popularity determines quality? And you dont even need to have seen the movie/game/book to leave an "audience" review a vast majority of the time. All reviews should be taken in context and compared to what you know about yourself. Im not really a movie buff so ill use video games as an example. If you blindly take steam reviews, metacritic reviews, or even critic (ign etc) reviews as the end all be all qualifier of quality, youre in for a bad time. Ive enjoyed games that have been poorly reviews by critics and/or audiences and i havent enjoyed ones that have been rated positive. And to that point, i disagree that critics are becoming irrelevant... the definition of critic is just changing. The proliferation of "youtube reviewers" allows everyone to find the reviewer that more closely resembles their tastes. I just think public opinion is generally a poor way to judge the quality of any type of artistic expression. If 40,000 people like something but i dont... why should i care? Thats why i choose to be more nuanced in my consumption of criticism to find the reviewers or whatever that i trust. I dont weigh every source the same so strat statistica (for me personally) isnt always an indicator of quality . But fair point to everything youve said. If the arugment is that "the msm" has a left leaning biased, thats fair. But there are obviously plenty of right-leaning review sources that have rated the show highly. Based on your argument it seems like your problem is more specific to RT and who they choose to qualify as "critics" rather than SJW culture (if it can even be called that) in general.
I suppose you could choose a measure of quality where it does not. What is a quality film? One that wins Oscars? One that is enjoyed by the masses? One that fits with the tastes and ideals of movie buffs? One that creates a lasting cult following? Depending on your definition, it does indicate quality. For instance the Star Wars original trilogy is beloved by so many people even after decades. Ergo, it is a quality set of films (which you may or may not like). I think this line of reasoning is straying away from the topic of this thread. The point is that left leaning critics canned it for political reasons, but regular ordinary people enjoyed it. It's not a statement of quality beyond that the vast majority of people who watch it find it enjoyable and worthwhile. If you were a comedian, and 99% of people loved your work, would you not feel that you produced something of quality? Would you not be proud of your work? Once again we're a bit off topic, but I don't disagree with anything you say here. This is not in dispute and it was never my contention that one should blindly follow the masses. An overwhelming majority of a large number of people can be used as a general guide, but it does not guarantee that it will suit one's particular tastes. If 99% of a large number of people say something is good that does not mean that it is necessarily subjectively good for you. But it can be used as credible evidence that the thing in question is in general good/successful. Correct. I should have clarified that I mean the majority of mainstream critics. The reason being is that they seem to have stopped rating movies/shows based on acting/story/pacing/etc. and instead focus on and judge according to their political leanings (which is mainly left in the entertainment industry). I do follow certain YouTuber reviews that more closely fit my taste, just as you suggest. However, if we are to judge a mainstream critic, how would you do it? Shouldn't their evaluation of a film match the evaluation of the largest possible percentage of the movie going audience? What is the point of a mainstream critic if they continually negatively review content that 90-99% of the population enjoys. Now if you want to be a critic with a very specific niche/style, fair enough, but you're no longer mainstream at that point. It doesn't mean that you should necessarily care or enjoy it, but it does help gauge whether that thing is objectively (and I use that term loosely as it isn't truly an objective measure) good or not. For instance, The Shawshank Redemption is often considered to be an exceptional movie by most people that have seen it. That doesn't mean you will like it, but even if you don't, it is still a great movie. As for the example you gave of 40,000 (and I recognize that it was just a generic example), that sort of absolute number is meaningless. For instance 40,000 positive reviews out of 10 million is awful, but 40,000 positive reviews out of 40,001 is exceptional. I know that is a tangent, but it is important to note. That's sort of the point, most mainstream critics are left-leaning. Many of the websites and mainstream critics, RT being just one easily accessible example, are heavily left leaning. Is it too much to ask critics to review movies/shows based on story/pacing/characters/etc. and not if it fits their political affiliation? The statistics where presented to you in response to your question on how I could dismiss the critics' reviews while touting the 99% audience rating. My use of statistics answered that question unequivocally.
I dont wanna get too off topic so ill just say well discussed, appreciate the well reasoned responses! I guess ultimately when i see a low critic score and a high audience score (or vice versa) i think there must just be a difference in judgement criteria, not that its some conspiracy perputrated by the left to keep chapelles "most popular show on netflix" down. Especially considering there are equally as offensive shows with higher "critic" ratings. I may reapproach this later when i have more time, but i guess i just find the whole "but the sjws are ruining everything" argument to be really overblown and overstated. It feels like this group the cries victim wants an enemy a whole lot more than there actually is one, and it gets in the way of more stimulating discussions (like the nature of critic reviews, what qualifies as a "critic", what or should qualify as "maintstream", etc) At least in my opinion. But what do i know /shrug.
I would add Alita Battle Angel to the list. It has a 61% critic score and 93% audience. The critic score was lower but there was a lot of blowback so some critics changed their tune. Alita has a strong female lead (and a minority actress to boot) but the movie didn't espouse any social justice narratives and it premiered shortly before Captain Marvel and it was made by one of Disney's competitors. These all work. To win an Oscar an actor, director, writer or whatever needs to meet a minimum standard of qualtiy in their work and be very good at licking the Academy's boots. The system is pretty cronyistic nowadays. Oscars often go to high quality films but there is a clear bias towards giving Oscars to actors and directors who are close to retirement as a proper send off. In many cases, someone wins an Oscar for a mediocre role as an apology for snubbing them on an Oscar for a good roll four or five years ago. Making lots of money is a measure of success. That's mostly why people do everything. The fact that anyone makes finanicial sacrifices for artistic integrity ever is a laudable thing, even if it's rare. I would say having solid acting and skilled cinematography is a good measure of success. I am enough of a film nerd that I can enjoy a skillfully produced show or movie even if I don't really care for the story. Hulu's original live action shows fall into this camp for me. The following is just my opinion, but it's the correct opinion The most important determinate of whether a film is good is how memorable it is. Does a movie imprint on the cultural narrative. Avatar made a lot of money. I'm betting most people reading this thread have seen the movie, but do you know any memorable quotes from it? Do any kids dress as a Na'vii for Halloween years later? Does it get spoofed by affectionate parodies on TV. Cracked.com's movie discussion panel talked about the Oscars and trashed the politics of it. They also covered the best way to try to objectively give awards to good movies is to look back to movies four or five years ago. So in 2019 we give awards to performances in 2015. If no one remembers a performance or film fondly four years later, you do not qualify for the award. If my Megamillions ticket wins, and I end up with 140 million dollars after taxes, I might set this award comittee up with a special Scalenex Cup for emotional death scenes. I'm pretty sure the Razzies were initially created by bored rich people who like movies. I guess by this standard, the best movie of all time is The Wizard of Oz. I don't believe any movie is more recognizeable, more part of the cultural narrative. The original Star Wars movies and to a lesser extant the prequels are part of the cultural narrative. In ten years I doubt anyone will reference the Disney Star Wars movies in a postiive way. Superman and Batman are part of the cultural narrative. They are such enduring characters that their mythos can survive a bad rendition...or several. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, for all it's flaws has made itself culturally enduring. I'm sure in fifty years, whatever the equivalent of Turner Classic Movies will marathon Marvel movies and have dusty academics talk about why Iron Man was so ground breaking and go over the pros and cons of Ant Man, etc. Phase 1-3 Marvel movies will remain popular by film hobbysists. In fifty years, I doubt phase four Marvel movies will be watched by anyone who isn't a film student. Recently, DC has started making some good movies. Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Shazam were all very entertaining movies, but I do not believe they are timeless classics. I would say the only studio that routinely produces timeless classics is Pixar, and even then not everything they make is a masterpiece. Like a third of their movies are timeless classics which is freaking amazing! I would say Finding Nemo, Up, Toy Story, Monster's Inc., and Incredibles are timeless classics. If you disagree with my assessment I will be very cross! I think Wall-E, Inside Out, Toy Story 2, and Brave are contenders for being timeless classics but if you disagree with me I will shrug my shoulders and move on with my life. Woah, this is WAY off topic. I will note that it is hard for a comedian to become timeless because all the best comedians (whether you go by acclaim or money) are those that tap into the zeitgeist of their era.
That is an excellent addition! I remember when Captain Marvel was being trashed on RT, the narrative thrown out by the left was that it was due to trolls hating on it because it had a strong female lead. Yet these "sexist trolls" seemed to have no problem with Alita. Funny how that works. This is a perfect example why SJWs earned the name NPC! The 1978 best picture Oscar was won by Annie Hall. Star Wars was one of the runners up. And what lesson has history taught us??
I tend to agree, but I'd like to add that the same was said about the prequels as well. So I guess we will see. Well, it is a good movie and it was successful. So...they were kinda right? Don't get me wrong I like Star Wars, but some of its objectively measurable qualities are not _that_ high. It is one of the movies the audience loved because of the other reasons that were mentioned above. Well to be fair one factor most likely is that most people probably just didn't care about it that much. Captain Marvel was way more present basically everywhere, because Disney and being part of a popular franchise. Alita was a way smaller target. One property of Trolls is that they tend to attack where they can do most damage.
Nobody cares about that movie and it will be lost to time. Star Wars changed cinema. Star Wars is a cultural icon. There is no comparison between the two. It has nothing to do with Alita being a smaller film. Many of the same people that were trashing Captain Marvel were at the same time endorsing Alita (I know, I was watching their YouTube channels and reading the comments). Calling them trolls that hate women was objectively false. They don't like SJW driven stories with bland female characters. I think we can agree that Wonder Woman was a much larger female lead film than Alita and that movie was celebrated too. No, the shill media couldn't handle the backlash and they threw that story out as a cover. It appears that some people fell for it.
Valid points, except I still think that Alita not being such a high profile movie did play a role. Edit: and saying nobody cares about Annie Hall is a bit exaggerated. It is a popular movie, at least here. Sure it is not Star Wars, but Star Wars's success wasn't only the movie.
How so? The very same channels that were ripping on Captain Marvel were at the same time praising Alita. Those people all clearly defined their reasons for doing so, and the profile of the movie was never one of them. Look at Aliens then. That is a far more influential movie than Captain Marvel. It also stars a strong female lead, but even today, people love that movie. Nobody attacks the film for having a female lead. Yes it is an exaggeration. I didn't mean that literally not a single person on the planet cared. However, in contrast to Star Wars, its fan base and success are nonexistent.
The channels, sure. That lines up with what I have seen. Individuals however don't necessarily follow the same pattern. There was quite some bashing (and don't get me wrong: for a reason, at least initially) that I would just call a hate-train. And it is just natural. Marvel has many fans. Alita most likely has a lot less. So the opinions on Marvel will be more numerous and (based on experience with fans of large franchises) have a higher number of extremists among them as well.
I think the fact that it was lower profile contributed. I hadn't thought about this until now but there might be an east/west thing going on to. I am sure if I say Alita Battle Angel is the first manga or anime that was adapted to the western big screen succesfully, someone will give me a counter example. Aeon Flux could arguably called successful. I poked around Youtube. I found two Youtubers that were aware of Alita before the movie. They both said the movie was a faithful adaptation of the source material and this was a surprise to them. The other anime IPs that became western movies were a lot more well. Dragonball, Avatar the Last Airbender, Aeon Flux. Anyway back to stand up comedian. Netflix had a special with Aziz Asari. He covered a lot of the same kind of stuff Dave Chappelle did but he did it cautiously. Aziz was actually Metooed. This got him removed from a project and the public eye for a year and a half or so. He didn't do anything illegal, no legal charges were filed and a lot of commentators said the woman went too far with her public accusations but Aziz was clearly shell shocked and apologetic. He spent at least fifteen minutes making jokes about stuff he did ten years ago may come back to bite him. He seems genuinely scared. When Dave Chappelle made jokes about someone holding something he did ten years ago against him, he had a "Come at me bro!" attitude where Aziz had a "Please don't hurt me!" attiitude. Aziz was never my favorite comedian but I enjoyed his past work a bit. I'm not going to watch any of his future work. He was never very edgy to begin with now he has completely lost his edge.
I remember the case of Aziz Ansari I think. It rippled through my filter bubble because the feminists (no really, they aren't all crazy) agreed that the case was fishy, maybe even outrageous. I cannot say anything bad or good about his comedy, I don't know him, but give him a chance. One bad comedy program doesn't make a bad comedian.
For the record, I have yet to see Rambo: Last Blood. Furthermore, the only Rambo movie that I would rate favourably is First Blood. That said, this video, which explores the bias of the critical reviews of the movie, fits perfectly inline with the topics we have been discussing on this thread...
I gave that Bill Burr Paper Tiger special a go and I can say that, first 10 minutes or so aside, it was much, much better than Dave Chappelle’s. The jokes were funnier, the points behind them more poignant and the whole thing just generally felt better thought out and smarter. He did use some shock humour but, again the first 10 minutes aside, it felt like he actually used it cleverly and with substance, rather than relying on the shock itself. Both comedians are definitely skilled at delivery, but Bill Burr had good substance behind his that Dave Chappelle lacked I felt. If you cut out the lazy opening to Paper Tiger you would definitely have a thoroughly enjoyable and very well thought out comedy I would happily recommend to anyone.