One thing that happens if you step away from this board for a few months is that you realize to what extent GD and the Pit are just an exploration of the psyche of a relatively small number of posters. It feels like you could mute 15 people and make half the threads incomprehensible.
Has there been a “**SlackerInc **states his views on Jordan Peterson” thread yet?
So you’re surprised that a movie that you think had cast diversity as its only good quality was trashed by critics with the same opinion? Do you think Rotten Tomatoes critics (who hail from not just around the US, but Canada, and maybe elsewhere) color their reviews with a liberal agenda?
No, but I’m not a fan.
Do you seriously think they don’t? What, the Onion piece had no basis in reality? It got through the whole writers room despite being totally off base? :dubious:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, that Barry Jenkins and Spike Lee are a credit to their race.
BTW, even the 40% RT score appears to be padded. They classified James Berardinelli, one of their “Top Critics”, in the “Fresh” column. He praised certain sequences and performances, but I don’t know how a review containing the following can be considered positive:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m sorry; I know the conversation has moved past this, but I need to jump in here. You posted 2 definitions; which is it?
I’ve done work as an entertainment reporter, which, in my case, included, among other things, acting as a film critic.
First, I’ve never been to an early screening. There’s no real need for them anymore. It’s far easier (and I assume cheaper) for the distributors to send out screeners than to host physical screenings. It’s also more convenient for the critics, as they get to watch on their own time in a location of their choosing.
When I worked in the field, I’d get in touch with the PR people for the distributor or studio (smaller ones handled that within their own office, while larger ones, like Disney, “outsourced” it to local firms) and work with them to get screeners in whatever way they handled it. Some of them would send physical DVDs, while others had online portals where you’d log in and watch the movies in window.
I don’t know if that invalidates me from your definition or not, since I was never invited to “early screenings” but I did screen the movies early with the assistance of the studio or distributor, but, if it doesn’t, (and this is my salient point) Rotten Tomatoes has never heard of me or my outlet, as the latter didn’t (and still doesn’t) qualify for inclusion.
It’s not hard for a newspaper or magazine to meet qualifications required to work with studios and distributors to review their movies. If you have circulation of a couple thousand (or maybe even less), you’re in. A good number of them, especially magazines geared toward that type of thing, will have critics on their staff who meet your second definition, especially if you substitute “get to go to early screenings” with “get to access screeners to watch the movies early”. But, as Rotten Tomatoes only counts reviews from 100 daily newspapers, 100 weekly newspapers, 100 magazines, and 10 “entertainment-based publications”, a strong majority of those critics won’t be found on Rotten Tomatoes.
So, again, I ask: which definition of film critic do you want to go with–the one that makes your point or the one that “everyone knew”?
If you wanna argue that a movie with a 98% RT score is not “widely acclaimed by critics”, knock yourself out. :dubious:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that’s directed at me, I will give you every single dollar in my wallet if you can show me where I even came close to making that point.
Ha, David Edelstein is awesome:
Dovetails nicely with the Onion piece.
That was the point of contention involved in arguing about “critics”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That may have been yours, but it wasn’t mine.
I just liked your convenient juxtaposition between the definition that you “thought everyone knew” and the one you were actually using.
But if that wasn’t clear enough (I’m not sure how, but whatever), let’s get even more specific.
“Selma” has a score on Rotten Tomatoes of 98% based on the reviews of 242 critics.
Is it seriously your contention, based on your own definition (that you "thought everyone knew), that a sample size of 242 is an adequate number from which you can extrapolate the whole?
I would bet that there are more than 242 critics who meet your definition (that you “thought everyone knew”) of film critic (i.e. paid & credentialed) in the state of California alone.
In general, to say “Rotten Tomatoes says ‘’ so critics clearly thought ‘’” is statistic bullshit. I’ve already pointed out that, in terms of print, Rotten Tomatoes is limited to 100 daily newspapers, 100 weekly newspapers, 100 magazines, and 10 “entertainment based publications”. That’s not even close to the number of those publications in existence with professional (i.e. paid & credentialed) film critics on their staff. (That’s also assuming that the 310 eligible publications all have film critics on their staff and have taken advantage of their Rotten Tomatoes eligibility; I’m willing to bet that the actual number counted is significantly lower.)
So, again, I’ll ask: is the definition of “critic” one of the handful that’s aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes or is it the one that “everyone knew”, which renders Rotten Tomatoes statistically irrelevant when discussing the whole?
Will it hurt your feelings if I say those are the critics that matter? I don’t even care about all of their critics: the score among the “Top Critics” is a more significant marker to me. And then beyond that, there are about 10 of those whose reviews I read.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, I think DuVernay can be compared to M Night Shamalamadingdong. He made an iconic movie out of the gate in the Sixth Sense, but the rest of his movies weren’t so well received. Was it because he’s from India?
He’s from Pennsylvania.
Good grief, the Richard Brody review is also mislabeled. Did it get any legitimately good reviews?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from a Spanish restaurant using Tapastalk.
OK, are Pennsylvanian directors flash-in-the-pan? Is Pennsylvanian an ethnicity?
That 60% of Rotten Tomatoes critics thought the movie sucked is a good indication they don’t.
Did you read the David Edelstein excerpt I posted?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which is a strange message considering that the premise of the story is that entire regions of the cosmos have fallen to the darkness, and that therein lie hell worlds that the most you can hope for is to escape them with your soul intact.
Ha! I had not even thought of it that way but you are absolutely right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk