Main > Everything Else
The Lone Ranger
Howard_Casto:
--- Quote from: danny_galaga on July 09, 2013, 04:51:20 am ---
Movies are made for audiences, not reviewers, no?
--- End quote ---
Big blockbuster films are made for the largest audience possible.. aka morons. Once in a blue moon though there is a film that is actually good AND appeals to the less than intellectual masses. That is the role of the critic... to say "Hey you guys that aren't mouth breathers.... this is actually a good one!" It is impossible for a critic to know what you will personally enjoy, so they don't do that. They'll look for plot holes... look for good acting, thoughtful humor, ect... and list these things giving you examples of how the film is constructed. Then they'll go on to give their personal opinion based upon that.
A good critic should be able to recommend a film they don't care for, because they can see that it is a good example of a particular genre, even though they don't care for that genre. Likewise they should be able to give a low score to a film they got a kick out of. It isn't about what they like, it's about what's good. I'm not saying that all, or even most critics operate this way, but the good ones do.
Don't misunderstand... I was just teasing you a bit, but since you got all serious on me I thought I would give a little insight into my train of thought.
yotsuya:
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on July 09, 2013, 08:28:38 pm ---
A good critic should be able to recommend a film they don't care for, because they can see that it is a good example of a particular genre, even though they don't care for that genre. Likewise they should be able to give a low score to a film they got a kick out of. It isn't about what they like, it's about what's good. I'm not saying that all, or even most critics operate this way, but the good ones do.
Don't misunderstand... I was just teasing you a bit, but since you got all serious on me I thought I would give a little insight into my train of thought.
--- End quote ---
Roger Ebert was great at that. Every time I read his reviews or his essays, I always got a sense of WHY he felt the way he did.
I'm a cinephile, so I don't "DO" summer blockbusters (yeah, I know, I know), but my brother-in-law is Joe Six-Pack and goes to see everything that comes out. If he didn't like a movie, well, it has to be really bad, or he doesn't get it. The studios love guys like him.
danny_galaga:
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on July 09, 2013, 08:28:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: danny_galaga on July 09, 2013, 04:51:20 am ---
Movies are made for audiences, not reviewers, no?
--- End quote ---
Big blockbuster films are made for the largest audience possible.. aka morons. Once in a blue moon though there is a film that is actually good AND appeals to the less than intellectual masses. That is the role of the critic... to say "Hey you guys that aren't mouth breathers.... this is actually a good one!" It is impossible for a critic to know what you will personally enjoy, so they don't do that. They'll look for plot holes... look for good acting, thoughtful humor, ect... and list these things giving you examples of how the film is constructed. Then they'll go on to give their personal opinion based upon that.
A good critic should be able to recommend a film they don't care for, because they can see that it is a good example of a particular genre, even though they don't care for that genre. Likewise they should be able to give a low score to a film they got a kick out of. It isn't about what they like, it's about what's good. I'm not saying that all, or even most critics operate this way, but the good ones do.
Don't misunderstand... I was just teasing you a bit, but since you got all serious on me I thought I would give a little insight into my train of thought.
--- End quote ---
Well colour me 'Moron' ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version