Why is there such a disconnect between audiences and "critics" now a days? Seems like all the movies "critics" hate...

Why is there such a disconnect between audiences and "critics" now a days? Seems like all the movies "critics" hate, audiences love and vice verse

Attached: Screenshot_20220219-111011_Chrome.jpg (1080x1538, 255.38K)

people are literally obsessed psychos these days. if any american film were to cast a kpop girl the film would have a 100% audience score because they would all make 100 accounts and vote

Most casual movie viewer's are retards. So they lap up shit movies and give them good reviews, while more intelligent and nuanced films go right over their head.

So which one did they turn into a nigger?

Because "critics" fall into two categories
1_ Those that are paid to shill
2_ Those that will said whatever is safe and politically correct for fear of being cancelled.

>REDDIT TOMATOES
>CRITICS

Attached: soy (32466).jpg (616x722, 35.75K)

critics have above average IQs and are mostly white

audience is average IQ and mostly amerimutt

checked.
Braddock I think
i mean this is a Feb release popcorn flick. Nothing wrong with enjoying it. There are a lot of B-tier films I like that I know are bad

>now a days

Attached: 1643398526720.jpg (320x371, 62.12K)

What? Half the critics in the RT scores are from sites like Salon and Christian Monitor. Sure there are some actual real critics but the days of reading an educated opinion in the newspaper are gone

I've been wary of critics since the Last Jedi got a 91% and Snyder's Justice League fell to 71%. The audience can't be bought; either the studio deliver what was promised, or they don't.

>studio
Films manufactured by studios and not artists are always shit.
Also the % on RT means nothing, it's not a quality meter, it's a marketing ploy.

>Seems like all the movies "critics" hate, audiences love and vice verse
that's not true and never was. Critics and audiences usually agree with each other.

Ever since TLJ, rotten tomatoes has:
>only allowed audience reviews from people who bought tickets via fandango
>filtered every review under 7/10, to 7/10
I’m pretty sure there was more, but this is enough to explain why audience scores don’t go under ~80% anymore, as it’s statistically impossible. As it takes two 7/10s to counter every 10/10

>critics have above average IQs and are mostly (((white)))

sure probably 4 years ago. Not any more
thats true. But it does seem to form an overall consensus for "critics" relatively well
I dont dissagree, but this is a b tier February release which is fine but why do "critics" not understand that. These films are supposed to be fun and stupid to make you forget about winter.

because "critics" are just irrelevant bloggers

Honestly I don’t get why critics even bother with popcorn flicks like this or marvel movies. They’re always going to shit on them and everyone knows it, why bother, they’d rather be watching faggy art films anyways

While I do agree with the critics bad audience score hypothesis, it's worth noting how many reviews the audience score has. Rotten Tomatoes used to have (and probably still does) an issue with bots in the viewer score. I used to post on the RT forums back when those existed and we would regularly discuss how to here was underperforming or objectively bad films with many times the number of viewer ratings than movies that had done far better at the box office. An example we turned to a lot was "That's my Boy", the Adam Sandler flop - having about 100,000 reviews by the audience under the old system but a Transformers movie might only have 5k.

Thats a fair point, but statistically, shouldnt they even out. Shouldn't the critics have enough reviews to represent the audience consensus since that is the overall purpose of "critics" in the first place? I find myself agreeing with audience scores more and more over critics which means there is a disconnect between audience and "critics" when it comes to a lot of flicks

test

Uncharted already has a dindu in it. Why do they need to black face someone?

>sure probably 4 years ago. Not any more
not true. Just check rottentomatoes. In overwhelming majority of movies and shows discrepancy is smol.

Audience scores are higher now to stop "review bombing" since RT fucked with them. It only has 6.7 on IMDb and 6.4 on metacritic

not true at all. The majority of films have a disconnect between audience and critics. What timeline are you in?