Do We Need Reviewers?

[PosthumanHeresy]

So, I've actually been thinking about this for quite a long time, ever since seeing the growing divide between what people are seeing and what reviewers are saying. As of late, movies considered "low quality" have made more money than every member of this forum will likely see in their lives, combined. One of the biggest examples of this is the Transformers series. While our personal opinions on it may vary (personally, I see it as a turn-your-brain-off-and-gain-ten-pounds-via-popcorn film), the fact of the matter is, even though they're often seen as awful, and the film critics bash the films as if they were Neo-Nazi Klansmen and the films were minorities, they make buckets of money. The same can be said for many, many films. Additionally, many films now seen as "classics" actually were seen in a much poorer light when they first debuted. However, this is not just about the money.

In the music industry, it feels that reviews are pointless. Not unimportant, but pointless. In film, it's possible to make something nobody thinks is good but the maker. Just look at The Room. Nobody likes it unironically. It's awful. However, with music, no matter what you make, somebody likes it. Eminem, Marilyn Manson, Throbbing Gristle, Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, Kiss, FFDP, Isosine (big-name mashup maker), David Bowie, Heart, Elvis, Beethoven, NWA, Michael Jackson, Weird Al and a trillion more, if you name it, it has fans who love it unironically. So, how is it that music reviewers can have any authority? While we all hold personal opinions on stuff, and no matter how convinced we are that we are right, how do people get paid to give their opinions on albums? It seems an impossible thing to do, because even if you have a reviewer for every genre, you can't give an accurate analysis. The best you can do is critique the music itself, and if the singing sounds bad, but even then, good and bad are subjective. Remember, Justin Bieber got hired without autotune, by posting covers on Youtube, which had a big fandom at that time. Even Rebecca Black has fans, though small in number. So, critiquing an album seems impossible without hoping your readers don't realize how pointless it is, due to how subjective "good music" is, even to fans of a single genre. Even I, who mostly listens to metal, can't stand Assault On The Living, but I know fans of theirs.

So, what about television and film? There is actual definitions of quality in these, but there's still a large element of subjectiveness, and there is definitely no big name genre reviewers. So, if you showed someone who loves chick flicks but hates action movies, you'd get a totally different score on, say, Kick-Ass 2, than if you reversed that. People have their preferences, and no matter how much they try to eliminate bias, it's not going to leave. Juries are a perfect example. Women get lighter punishments and less guilty verdicts for the same crimes as men, while racial minorities (and in case anyone objects to not counting women as minorities, while they are treated like minorities in many ways outside of this, they make up 51% of humanity) not only are more likely to be found guilty, but more likely to get harsher punishment than white people. Bias always exists, and doesn't die. So, if a reviewer is biased against something, they're going to give a different score than someone who is neutral on that thing or enjoys it. Additionally, even quality on TV and film is quite subjective, as proven by the aforementioned Transformers films, the "movie movies" and most of MTV's programing (and TLC, and the History Channel, and Discovery and too many others). So, while you can say the plot makes no sense, the acting is shit, and everything else is bad for many works, apparently The Room is the only one we can agree on.

Something else to keep in mind is the weird disconnect between public opinion and success. Think about it, there's massive hatedom for many extremely successful works like Twilight, 16 and Pregnant, Toddlers and Tiaras (spinoff level money, even) and tons of other stuff. In fact, for many of those, it's rare to see supporters, in my experience. Perhaps they're all internet-illiterate. This seems to be bigger now than ever before. Normally, if millions of people think something is awful, it fails. Nowadays, though, it almost seems like awful is the best way to succeed. Is the entire hatedom watching out of bile fascination? Because, that's the best explanation I can think of.

Additionally, there's video games. I'm a gamer, although less than I used to be (I don't pirate games unless they're old, like Postal 2 (don't mistake for Portal 2, because it's happened before), but I do for anime, TV, film, and music, so I'm more into music than anything nowadays), and I have to say, games and gamers are weird. No matter what a company does, they're perpetually angry at them (unless their name is Valve, and then the company could literally shit on you and you'd wear it as a hat), but they never stop playing or buying sequels. And, regarding sequels, games somehow get away with pumping them out much faster than films. Think about how many Call of Duty games have been released since 2000. No, really, think about it, because I doubt anyone can say the exact number, because there's been a truckload counting all the sidegames and expansions. With some, this makes a certain level of sense. For example, Halo has an ongoing story that continues in books, comics, anime, a live-action movie, stuff on the internet, ARGs and I'm sure I forgot something here. While for a time, Call of Duty did have a continuing story with the Modern Warfare games, it already became the juggernaut without them, and powered on when it wasn't MW games coming out. People bought it for the name, not the gameplay or plot, because the gameplay was the same and the plot was thin as gruel usually. With film, a sequel can still bomb. It can still fail. With games, it is much rarer for it to bomb. Sequels are almost always a licence to print money. And, even if one is ruled to be shit, people will buy the next just as much as they bought the last ones. Game reviews are pretty much only used to get into a series. After that, they're ignored. Is it because players feel committed due to the massive cost? Is it the endorphins that "winning" in a game gives us becoming related to that series? I have no idea.

However, I'm sure people are asking "How are we to know something is good if we don't have reviews, though?" And, that's what prompted me to make this finally. We've crowdsourced reviewing already. With so many places letting the masses decide what they think, reviewers seem pointless. They did studies, finding that the general consensus of a crowd on a question tends to be highly accurate. This is proven on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" in particular, as the crowd answers are overwhelmingly correct. This leads me to ask, why do we need reviewers at all? Crowdsourced reviews seem to be more accurate in general, and give a better opinion than one person. With hundreds or thousands of biases, they cancel themselves out and give an average rating, rather than one person's biased opinion, which means that crowdsourced reviews seem to be a better place to look than professional ones. So, do we need reviewers?

[Her3tiK]

So, I've actually been thinking about this for quite a long time, ever since seeing the growing divide between what people are seeing and what reviewers are saying. As of late, movies considered "low quality" have made more money than every member of this forum will likely see in their lives, combined. One of the biggest examples of this is the Transformers series. While our personal opinions on it may vary (personally, I see it as a turn-your-brain-off-and-gain-ten-pounds-via-popcorn film), the fact of the matter is, even though they're often seen as awful, and the film critics bash the films as if they were Neo-Nazi Klansmen and the films were minorities, they make buckets of money. The same can be said for many, many films. Additionally, many films now seen as "classics" actually were seen in a much poorer light when they first debuted. However, this is not just about the money.

In all honesty, I don't understand the hate for the Transformers movie. Sure, the Transformers themselves didn't have a lot of lines in the first movie (that improved with the sequels), but the people who say there was no plot crack me up; the original cartoon recycled the same "Decepticons are attacking X to make energon, let's stop them!" line for almost every single episode. Transformers has always been giant robots beating the piss out of each other because something something civil war on their home planet. To expect anything more than that, especially from a Michael Bay film, is pretty dumb. Far as I'm concerned, the films have lived up to the original concept pretty well, all things considered.

In the music industry, it feels that reviews are pointless. Not unimportant, but pointless. In film, it's possible to make something nobody thinks is good but the maker. Just look at The Room. Nobody likes it unironically. It's awful. However, with music, no matter what you make, somebody likes it. Eminem, Marilyn Manson, Throbbing Gristle, Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, Kiss, FFDP, Isosine (big-name mashup maker), David Bowie, Heart, Elvis, Beethoven, NWA, Michael Jackson, Weird Al and a trillion more, if you name it, it has fans who love it unironically. So, how is it that music reviewers can have any authority? While we all hold personal opinions on stuff, and no matter how convinced we are that we are right, how do people get paid to give their opinions on albums? It seems an impossible thing to do, because even if you have a reviewer for every genre, you can't give an accurate analysis. The best you can do is critique the music itself, and if the singing sounds bad, but even then, good and bad are subjective. Remember, Justin Bieber got hired without autotune, by posting covers on Youtube, which had a big fandom at that time. Even Rebecca Black has fans, though small in number. So, critiquing an album seems impossible without hoping your readers don't realize how pointless it is, due to how subjective "good music" is, even to fans of a single genre. Even I, who mostly listens to metal, can't stand Assault On The Living, but I know fans of theirs.

As someone who does this for... basically a hobby, since the pay isn't great, I may be a little biased, but bear with me. Sites that do music reviews tend to get advanced access to said music before it's released, assuming they're fairly well known (and are buddy-buddy with the label), such as Metalsucks and their competitors. Therefore, they can provide fans and potential listeners with an idea of what the album will sound like before its released, or leaked, or however the first soundbytes get out. Not to say they won't have their own biases; I've only done one non-metal review personally, and that as more a favor than anything. That said, yes, peoples' personal preferences come in to play; a die-hard Metallica fan might have actually enjoyed Lulu (not that I've met one of these people). As with any other source of information, its best to check multiple sources to get a better picture.
However, when you find someone who knows what they're talking about, be it from a theory/songwriting standpoint, or someone who knows the genre inside and out, you do occasionally come across people who will give the good and the bad. Perhaps an album has great production quality, and the guitarists' solos are showing some new punch, but the singer's losing his edge cuz he's been at it for 14yrs. It happens. The trick, as with anything else, is to find someone who does their best to look at the piece from an analytic perspective, in addition to through the lens of their own tastes.

Something else to keep in mind is the weird disconnect between public opinion and success. Think about it, there's massive hatedom for many extremely successful works like Twilight, 16 and Pregnant, Toddlers and Tiaras (spinoff level money, even) and tons of other stuff. In fact, for many of those, it's rare to see supporters, in my experience. Perhaps they're all internet-illiterate. This seems to be bigger now than ever before. Normally, if millions of people think something is awful, it fails. Nowadays, though, it almost seems like awful is the best way to succeed. Is the entire hatedom watching out of bile fascination? Because, that's the best explanation I can think of.

Haters tend to be very good at shining a light on whatever it is has them worked up. Whether they're aware of it or not, they tend to do a much better job of reminding people that things like Miley Cyrus exist, and their rage has the kind of energy that makes for sensationalist stories and "reporting". Herd mentality is incredibly easy to work into a frenzy over the dumbest possible things, which, I am now convinced, is exploited by people who want their pet project to have another successful album cycle, or movie, or whatever it is they do for a living that people generally seem to think they shouldn't be able to get away with.

However, I'm sure people are asking "How are we to know something is good if we don't have reviews, though?" And, that's what prompted me to make this finally. We've crowdsourced reviewing already. With so many places letting the masses decide what they think, reviewers seem pointless. They did studies, finding that the general consensus of a crowd on a question tends to be highly accurate. This is proven on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" in particular, as the crowd answers are overwhelmingly correct. This leads me to ask, why do we need reviewers at all? Crowdsourced reviews seem to be more accurate in general, and give a better opinion than one person. With hundreds or thousands of biases, they cancel themselves out and give an average rating, rather than one person's biased opinion, which means that crowdsourced reviews seem to be a better place to look than professional ones. So, do we need reviewers?

Someone got good at making money by giving their opinions on things. Others followed suit, and now we have an entire industry devoted to it. It just so happens that the internet allows anyone to say anything about any subject, so it is now much easier to find opinions on things, but much harder to find "good" ones (and I maintain that it is possible to quantify the definition of "good" when it comes to subjective reviews). Someone who says, for example, "I can't stand the new Born of Osiris album because it's boring and unoriginal" and leaves it at that probably isn't all that good at giving reviews. Someone who takes the same album and says, "while I've been a fan of theirs for years, the new BoS sounds a little on the stale side. While the keys/synths remain central to their dynamic range, the riffs fall short of their potential, and the addition of clean singing feels like a poor attempt to reach out to djent fans", while perhaps not giving an opinion you agree with, at least goes in to some detail as to why they think what they do. Not to say they're necessarily right or wrong, but that they're at least competent enough to explain themselves, instead of writing a short paragraph and waiting for ad revenue as flame wars rage in the comments.

[Lithp]

I'm critical of, well, critics, for similar reasons, but in their defense, they do represent other data points that we can use to analyze movies. A film's box office success tells you nothing of what writers think of it, it just tells you how successful it is.

[PosthumanHeresy]

So, I've actually been thinking about this for quite a long time, ever since seeing the growing divide between what people are seeing and what reviewers are saying. As of late, movies considered "low quality" have made more money than every member of this forum will likely see in their lives, combined. One of the biggest examples of this is the Transformers series. While our personal opinions on it may vary (personally, I see it as a turn-your-brain-off-and-gain-ten-pounds-via-popcorn film), the fact of the matter is, even though they're often seen as awful, and the film critics bash the films as if they were Neo-Nazi Klansmen and the films were minorities, they make buckets of money. The same can be said for many, many films. Additionally, many films now seen as "classics" actually were seen in a much poorer light when they first debuted. However, this is not just about the money.

In all honesty, I don't understand the hate for the Transformers movie. Sure, the Transformers themselves didn't have a lot of lines in the first movie (that improved with the sequels), but the people who say there was no plot crack me up; the original cartoon recycled the same "Decepticons are attacking X to make energon, let's stop them!" line for almost every single episode. Transformers has always been giant robots beating the piss out of each other because something something civil war on their home planet. To expect anything more than that, especially from a Michael Bay film, is pretty dumb. Far as I'm concerned, the films have lived up to the original concept pretty well, all things considered.

That was what I was getting at about the films. They're dumb, but it's Transformers. It's not supposed to be intelligent. You're there for the robots beating eachother up, and I think that is why critics hated it and everyone else loved it. Critics have a bias against big dumb fun movies.

In the music industry, it feels that reviews are pointless. Not unimportant, but pointless. In film, it's possible to make something nobody thinks is good but the maker. Just look at The Room. Nobody likes it unironically. It's awful. However, with music, no matter what you make, somebody likes it. Eminem, Marilyn Manson, Throbbing Gristle, Chris Brown, Justin Bieber, Kiss, FFDP, Isosine (big-name mashup maker), David Bowie, Heart, Elvis, Beethoven, NWA, Michael Jackson, Weird Al and a trillion more, if you name it, it has fans who love it unironically. So, how is it that music reviewers can have any authority? While we all hold personal opinions on stuff, and no matter how convinced we are that we are right, how do people get paid to give their opinions on albums? It seems an impossible thing to do, because even if you have a reviewer for every genre, you can't give an accurate analysis. The best you can do is critique the music itself, and if the singing sounds bad, but even then, good and bad are subjective. Remember, Justin Bieber got hired without autotune, by posting covers on Youtube, which had a big fandom at that time. Even Rebecca Black has fans, though small in number. So, critiquing an album seems impossible without hoping your readers don't realize how pointless it is, due to how subjective "good music" is, even to fans of a single genre. Even I, who mostly listens to metal, can't stand Assault On The Living, but I know fans of theirs.

As someone who does this for... basically a hobby, since the pay isn't great, I may be a little biased, but bear with me. Sites that do music reviews tend to get advanced access to said music before it's released, assuming they're fairly well known (and are buddy-buddy with the label), such as Metalsucks and their competitors. Therefore, they can provide fans and potential listeners with an idea of what the album will sound like before its released, or leaked, or however the first soundbytes get out. Not to say they won't have their own biases; I've only done one non-metal review personally, and that as more a favor than anything. That said, yes, peoples' personal preferences come in to play; a die-hard Metallica fan might have actually enjoyed Lulu (not that I've met one of these people). As with any other source of information, its best to check multiple sources to get a better picture.
However, when you find someone who knows what they're talking about, be it from a theory/songwriting standpoint, or someone who knows the genre inside and out, you do occasionally come across people who will give the good and the bad. Perhaps an album has great production quality, and the guitarists' solos are showing some new punch, but the singer's losing his edge cuz he's been at it for 14yrs. It happens. The trick, as with anything else, is to find someone who does their best to look at the piece from an analytic perspective, in addition to through the lens of their own tastes.

That is a good point, and it is nice to have an analytic perspective, but even that can be mere opinion. While one may feel that way, another may feel it's completely inverted. One of the few non-opinion things there would be Loudness War-related stuff, length, number of songs, whether they're all legitimate songs or if some are other more "tracks" than "songs" (as in, not really music, but like, speaking or noise) and if there's a sudden genre shift. Other than that, even whether or not the singing is good is opinion.

Something else to keep in mind is the weird disconnect between public opinion and success. Think about it, there's massive hatedom for many extremely successful works like Twilight, 16 and Pregnant, Toddlers and Tiaras (spinoff level money, even) and tons of other stuff. In fact, for many of those, it's rare to see supporters, in my experience. Perhaps they're all internet-illiterate. This seems to be bigger now than ever before. Normally, if millions of people think something is awful, it fails. Nowadays, though, it almost seems like awful is the best way to succeed. Is the entire hatedom watching out of bile fascination? Because, that's the best explanation I can think of.

Haters tend to be very good at shining a light on whatever it is has them worked up. Whether they're aware of it or not, they tend to do a much better job of reminding people that things like Miley Cyrus exist, and their rage has the kind of energy that makes for sensationalist stories and "reporting". Herd mentality is incredibly easy to work into a frenzy over the dumbest possible things, which, I am now convinced, is exploited by people who want their pet project to have another successful album cycle, or movie, or whatever it is they do for a living that people generally seem to think they shouldn't be able to get away with.

That's a very good point.

However, I'm sure people are asking "How are we to know something is good if we don't have reviews, though?" And, that's what prompted me to make this finally. We've crowdsourced reviewing already. With so many places letting the masses decide what they think, reviewers seem pointless. They did studies, finding that the general consensus of a crowd on a question tends to be highly accurate. This is proven on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" in particular, as the crowd answers are overwhelmingly correct. This leads me to ask, why do we need reviewers at all? Crowdsourced reviews seem to be more accurate in general, and give a better opinion than one person. With hundreds or thousands of biases, they cancel themselves out and give an average rating, rather than one person's biased opinion, which means that crowdsourced reviews seem to be a better place to look than professional ones. So, do we need reviewers?

Someone got good at making money by giving their opinions on things. Others followed suit, and now we have an entire industry devoted to it. It just so happens that the internet allows anyone to say anything about any subject, so it is now much easier to find opinions on things, but much harder to find "good" ones (and I maintain that it is possible to quantify the definition of "good" when it comes to subjective reviews). Someone who says, for example, "I can't stand the new Born of Osiris album because it's boring and unoriginal" and leaves it at that probably isn't all that good at giving reviews. Someone who takes the same album and says, "while I've been a fan of theirs for years, the new BoS sounds a little on the stale side. While the keys/synths remain central to their dynamic range, the riffs fall short of their potential, and the addition of clean singing feels like a poor attempt to reach out to djent fans", while perhaps not giving an opinion you agree with, at least goes in to some detail as to why they think what they do. Not to say they're necessarily right or wrong, but that they're at least competent enough to explain themselves, instead of writing a short paragraph and waiting for ad revenue as flame wars rage in the comments.

Yeah, I get why they exist and will continue to exist. What I question is if we need them to exist, or if letting the people give ratings (on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10) and write text stuff if they like. I get it's nice to have people explain their reasoning, but it doesn't seem like it's something we need to pay people for, or take the opinion of one or even ten people, but as many as possible, on.

I'm critical of, well, critics, for similar reasons, but in their defense, they do represent other data points that we can use to analyze movies. A film's box office success tells you nothing of what writers think of it, it just tells you how successful it is.

But that's my point. Online reviews done for free on things can tell you what normal people think of it, and since we're more likely to think like an average viewer than a movie critic, gives you a broader mindset, as well as a more close-to-normal mindset. It's the reason for the critic/viewer disconnect on Transformers. Critics are looking at it as a movie with all ingredients considered. Viewers are there for giant robot fights.

[Lithp]

But you're only looking from the perspective of the consumer. There are other reasons to want movie data. For instance, academics.

[PosthumanHeresy]

But you're only looking from the perspective of the consumer. There are other reasons to want movie data. For instance, academics.

I'm curious, what academics? Because if it's how it gets reviewed, I still think the information of the masses is a better perspective.

[chitoryu12]

a die-hard Metallica fan might have actually enjoyed Lulu (not that I've met one of these people)

NOBODY enjoyed Lulu.

[Sigmaleph]

The obvious use of a reviewer is that, if you find someone whose taste roughly matches yours, you can use them to predict whether you'll like the movie/song/game/etc. And if it's an unusually good reviewer, even if your tastes don't match their review can tell you what sort of things it is similar to, what elements it has that you might like or dislike, and so on. This has the advantage over crowdsourcing that it can be specific; it's hard to customise crowd feedback to give more weight to people who share your tastes*, but if you already know this about the reviewer, you can pay more attention to their opinion

From a somewhat more cynical point of view, if you build a self-identity as someone who likes 'high-quality cinema' (or whatever), you can sustain that identity by aligning your views with that of professional reviewers. You can then feel superior to the unwashed masses because you have an appreciation for true art.

Cynical!Sigma would at this point like to remark that a lot of people's behaviour can be understood in terms of finding stupid excuses to feel superior to others. The rest of me does not endorse this statement, but doesn't necessarily disagree either.


*That being said, it should be doable to build a media database where individual users rank things and it gives you recommendations on what sort of things you might like based on how much other people match your ratings and looking at what they liked. The algorithms for this sort of thing already exist, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already tried to implement it.

[Alehksunos]

I am suddenly reminded of this document I've typed almost a year ago. It's a little of cringe-worthy reading it now, but here is it.

Enjoy responsibly.

(click to show/hide)

Things I like to say about critics and being a critic:

There is nothing wrong with criticizing a work or even declaring it shit. There is something wrong with being an egotistical, narcissitic asshole who claims you're "a self-proclaimed dean of this field," even treating yourself like you're a fucking artist and you eat what you call "masterpieces" and shit pretentious or outright dispicable turds you call "art." Then again, fucking everything is considered "art," even someone's recently shat out piles of feces in a toilet. Nowadays, it's all about "true art" and other shit that even excuses "anti-intellectualism" and other cult-like lunacy. Another disgusting trope in "professional" criticism is that the poor bastards who are fed this shit-corn often consider their words "The Gospel;" these fuckers are being treated like evangelists of popular media, that their word is right and nay-sayers are wicked witches who must be converted to the word of that critic or those critics. The reasons to hate a critic is also one of the reasons like I like people like Mike Slobodka of Red Letter Media (who plays as the Harry S. Plinkett character), who parodies the ego and holier than thou additude with a twist of sounding angry; a slaggish "Angry White Man" cocktail that makes Rush Limbaugh blush.

The Red Letter Media Reviews are no "The Guy With Glasses" Reviews. He had taken movies much of us know they suck (even Star Trek: First Contact, which Trekkies think is awesome, but I outright detest the character derailment of Captain Jean Luc Picard passionately) and made reviews that sounds like the average, run of the mill "THIS MOVIE IS FUCKIN' ASSBAHLS" reviews (complete with humor that is absolutely vile, such as rape jokes), but that these reviews are really to test how stupid and apathetic we are and that we are will to consume swill from not just Hollywood, but also the internet and magazines; that we are so bored out of our god damn minds, we'll even eat shitty fast food not because our options and budget are limited, but because we're victims of a society where we are subjected to great societal banality and we all live in Bill Hicks' worst nightmares (or if there is a hell, were he is now, making jokes about how shitty a place hell is and how its denizens are subjected to... you get the idea already). He even shredded "True Trekkies" in a surprisingly positive review of Star Trek (the 2009 film) because they didn't get "True Art," rather a popcorn film that appeals to more mainstream audiences.

And while we're at it, I would like to tell you that I hate all "True Fans" of all fandoms equally. Fuck you all and your "No True Scotsman" ideology, especially if you're a fan of an über-mainstream, toyetic work like Transformers, My Little Pony, Pokémon, etc. You stupid, insufferable cuntjobs have no right to consider yourselves superior to others. You're not a fucking god, you're a low-life with a tiny penis who stews in his space, dying slowly from cardiovascular diseases, whose only friends are those online friends you've managed to impress with your "Wumbo-sized" ego and who suck your e-cock, and thanks to your views as sexist and clueless as Christian Westion Chandler (god damn it, why do I even mention that guy again? I've had enough of him since 2009) will never get laid EVER. There, I've mentioned one of my "Berserk Buttons," and that is people who have so much self-worth that they demand everyone to stroke their ego and cuss out everyone they don't consider a "worthy fan." I've mentioned the same for critics who also have such heavy self-worth.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I'll be honest, the disconnect is not new. For example, going by Rotten Tomatoes. The Boondock Saints has a 20% reviewer rating. That's pretty low. The viewer rating? 90%. Army of Darkness is more sane, with a 71% vs. 84% The Transformers films are 57% vs 85%, 20% vs. 68% and 36% vs. 61%. All of these are large differences, and even show that while critics prefered the third one over the second one, viewers prefered the inverse. How about the awfulness that is the Twilight franchise? 49% vs. 74%, 27% vs. 65%, 49% vs. 64%, 24% vs. 60% and 48% vs. 70%. Now, not only does this show more space between ratings, but also a sort of bipolar mindset in the critics. Up, down, up, down and up again. Scary Movie 5 got a 4% from critics. It also got a 52% from viewers. Epic Movie got a 2% from critics and 36% from viewers. Even when a movie is bad, the audience still enjoys it far more than the critics. Repeatedly, they have been shown to have no idea what the common viewer is thinking. Also, it doesn't just go in that direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got an 82% from critics and a 52% from viewers. These people are being paid to express their viewpoints in order to advise people. If we're going to have them, perhaps we should stop using "experts" and just use common people.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

I'll be honest, the disconnect is not new. For example, going by Rotten Tomatoes. The Boondock Saints has a 20% reviewer rating. That's pretty low. The viewer rating? 90%. Army of Darkness is more sane, with a 71% vs. 84% The Transformers films are 57% vs 85%, 20% vs. 68% and 36% vs. 61%. All of these are large differences, and even show that while critics prefered the third one over the second one, viewers prefered the inverse. How about the awfulness that is the Twilight franchise? 49% vs. 74%, 27% vs. 65%, 49% vs. 64%, 24% vs. 60% and 48% vs. 70%. Now, not only does this show more space between ratings, but also a sort of bipolar mindset in the critics. Up, down, up, down and up again. Scary Movie 5 got a 4% from critics. It also got a 52% from viewers. Epic Movie got a 2% from critics and 36% from viewers. Even when a movie is bad, the audience still enjoys it far more than the critics. Repeatedly, they have been shown to have no idea what the common viewer is thinking. Also, it doesn't just go in that direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got an 82% from critics and a 52% from viewers. These people are being paid to express their viewpoints in order to advise people. If we're going to have them, perhaps we should stop using "experts" and just use common people.

Anyone who has enough of an interest in films to try and make a career out of reviewing them is going to be more passionate about them than the average person, so they are more likely to veer towards being highly critical.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I'll be honest, the disconnect is not new. For example, going by Rotten Tomatoes. The Boondock Saints has a 20% reviewer rating. That's pretty low. The viewer rating? 90%. Army of Darkness is more sane, with a 71% vs. 84% The Transformers films are 57% vs 85%, 20% vs. 68% and 36% vs. 61%. All of these are large differences, and even show that while critics prefered the third one over the second one, viewers prefered the inverse. How about the awfulness that is the Twilight franchise? 49% vs. 74%, 27% vs. 65%, 49% vs. 64%, 24% vs. 60% and 48% vs. 70%. Now, not only does this show more space between ratings, but also a sort of bipolar mindset in the critics. Up, down, up, down and up again. Scary Movie 5 got a 4% from critics. It also got a 52% from viewers. Epic Movie got a 2% from critics and 36% from viewers. Even when a movie is bad, the audience still enjoys it far more than the critics. Repeatedly, they have been shown to have no idea what the common viewer is thinking. Also, it doesn't just go in that direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got an 82% from critics and a 52% from viewers. These people are being paid to express their viewpoints in order to advise people. If we're going to have them, perhaps we should stop using "experts" and just use common people.

Anyone who has enough of an interest in films to try and make a career out of reviewing them is going to be more passionate about them than the average person, so they are more likely to veer towards being highly critical.

But that's the problem. By doing so, they've made themselves out of touch, and therefore pointless. By becoming highly passionate and knowledgeable, they have no idea what they're talking about. A group consensus will tell you what people like you generally think. A reviewer will tell you what people who are obsessive and a bit anal over film think, which means that, chances are, you won't relate to their reviews.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

I'll be honest, the disconnect is not new. For example, going by Rotten Tomatoes. The Boondock Saints has a 20% reviewer rating. That's pretty low. The viewer rating? 90%. Army of Darkness is more sane, with a 71% vs. 84% The Transformers films are 57% vs 85%, 20% vs. 68% and 36% vs. 61%. All of these are large differences, and even show that while critics prefered the third one over the second one, viewers prefered the inverse. How about the awfulness that is the Twilight franchise? 49% vs. 74%, 27% vs. 65%, 49% vs. 64%, 24% vs. 60% and 48% vs. 70%. Now, not only does this show more space between ratings, but also a sort of bipolar mindset in the critics. Up, down, up, down and up again. Scary Movie 5 got a 4% from critics. It also got a 52% from viewers. Epic Movie got a 2% from critics and 36% from viewers. Even when a movie is bad, the audience still enjoys it far more than the critics. Repeatedly, they have been shown to have no idea what the common viewer is thinking. Also, it doesn't just go in that direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got an 82% from critics and a 52% from viewers. These people are being paid to express their viewpoints in order to advise people. If we're going to have them, perhaps we should stop using "experts" and just use common people.

Anyone who has enough of an interest in films to try and make a career out of reviewing them is going to be more passionate about them than the average person, so they are more likely to veer towards being highly critical.

But that's the problem. By doing so, they've made themselves out of touch, and therefore pointless. By becoming highly passionate and knowledgeable, they have no idea what they're talking about. A group consensus will tell you what people like you generally think. A reviewer will tell you what people who are obsessive and a bit anal over film think, which means that, chances are, you won't relate to their reviews.

I guess expert reviews are really only useful to people who are equally passionate, and even then you will still have differences in opinion.

That's probably why I don't use reviews that much.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I'll be honest, the disconnect is not new. For example, going by Rotten Tomatoes. The Boondock Saints has a 20% reviewer rating. That's pretty low. The viewer rating? 90%. Army of Darkness is more sane, with a 71% vs. 84% The Transformers films are 57% vs 85%, 20% vs. 68% and 36% vs. 61%. All of these are large differences, and even show that while critics prefered the third one over the second one, viewers prefered the inverse. How about the awfulness that is the Twilight franchise? 49% vs. 74%, 27% vs. 65%, 49% vs. 64%, 24% vs. 60% and 48% vs. 70%. Now, not only does this show more space between ratings, but also a sort of bipolar mindset in the critics. Up, down, up, down and up again. Scary Movie 5 got a 4% from critics. It also got a 52% from viewers. Epic Movie got a 2% from critics and 36% from viewers. Even when a movie is bad, the audience still enjoys it far more than the critics. Repeatedly, they have been shown to have no idea what the common viewer is thinking. Also, it doesn't just go in that direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got an 82% from critics and a 52% from viewers. These people are being paid to express their viewpoints in order to advise people. If we're going to have them, perhaps we should stop using "experts" and just use common people.

Anyone who has enough of an interest in films to try and make a career out of reviewing them is going to be more passionate about them than the average person, so they are more likely to veer towards being highly critical.

But that's the problem. By doing so, they've made themselves out of touch, and therefore pointless. By becoming highly passionate and knowledgeable, they have no idea what they're talking about. A group consensus will tell you what people like you generally think. A reviewer will tell you what people who are obsessive and a bit anal over film think, which means that, chances are, you won't relate to their reviews.

I guess expert reviews are really only useful to people who are equally passionate, and even then you will still have differences in opinion.

That's probably why I don't use reviews that much.

That's my point. Most people only use tech reviews, because it's the only place where there's legitimate facts. We don't need them, otherwise, and can get a better, more useful picture from group consensus.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

I'll be honest, the disconnect is not new. For example, going by Rotten Tomatoes. The Boondock Saints has a 20% reviewer rating. That's pretty low. The viewer rating? 90%. Army of Darkness is more sane, with a 71% vs. 84% The Transformers films are 57% vs 85%, 20% vs. 68% and 36% vs. 61%. All of these are large differences, and even show that while critics prefered the third one over the second one, viewers prefered the inverse. How about the awfulness that is the Twilight franchise? 49% vs. 74%, 27% vs. 65%, 49% vs. 64%, 24% vs. 60% and 48% vs. 70%. Now, not only does this show more space between ratings, but also a sort of bipolar mindset in the critics. Up, down, up, down and up again. Scary Movie 5 got a 4% from critics. It also got a 52% from viewers. Epic Movie got a 2% from critics and 36% from viewers. Even when a movie is bad, the audience still enjoys it far more than the critics. Repeatedly, they have been shown to have no idea what the common viewer is thinking. Also, it doesn't just go in that direction. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got an 82% from critics and a 52% from viewers. These people are being paid to express their viewpoints in order to advise people. If we're going to have them, perhaps we should stop using "experts" and just use common people.

Anyone who has enough of an interest in films to try and make a career out of reviewing them is going to be more passionate about them than the average person, so they are more likely to veer towards being highly critical.

But that's the problem. By doing so, they've made themselves out of touch, and therefore pointless. By becoming highly passionate and knowledgeable, they have no idea what they're talking about. A group consensus will tell you what people like you generally think. A reviewer will tell you what people who are obsessive and a bit anal over film think, which means that, chances are, you won't relate to their reviews.

I guess expert reviews are really only useful to people who are equally passionate, and even then you will still have differences in opinion.

That's probably why I don't use reviews that much.

That's my point. Most people only use tech reviews, because it's the only place where there's legitimate facts. We don't need them, otherwise, and can get a better, more useful picture from group consensus.

Yes, I would agree that's mostly true.