Critiquing the Critics: Are they critiquing, criticizing, or just paid shills?

[PeregrineFalcon]

It looks like I called it.

 

[battlewraith]

13 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

It looks like I called it.

 

LOL just stop. You're actually starting to make me want to see this movie.

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

LOL just stop. You're actually starting to make me want to see this movie.

By all means go see it then.

 

I'm not one of those that says other people can't enjoy a movie, or game, that I don't. Nor am I one of those that calls people -ists and -phobes if they don't watch a movie that I do. I hope you watch it and enjoy it.

 

I'm actually not happy because it looks like I was right. I really wanted this movie to be good. Unfortunately it looks like it'll be yet another example of a movie that does poorly and then the star and director will attack fans on social media.

[battlewraith]

43 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm not one of those that says other people can't enjoy a movie, or game, that I don't. Nor am I one of those that calls people -ists and -phobes if they don't watch a movie that I do.

 

Oh, I'm fairly certain that this film is going to end up in the DEI dumpster fire, right alongside most recent movie releases.

 

You are the counterpart to those people. You would probably get more enjoyment out of media in general if you stopped letting twitter, social media influencers, etc. predigest them for you.

[Excraft]

On 5/1/2025 at 10:32 AM, PeregrineFalcon said:

It looks like I called it.

 

Eh, I'm still going to wait and see.  There's definitely people putting stuff out there that isn't true to get clicks on their TikTok on Instagram.  James Gunn did well with GoTG, he may do well with Superman too. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

I'm concerned that instead of a good Superman movie what we'll end up getting is a boring and ham-fisted lecture about the current administration.

 

[battlewraith]

56 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm concerned that instead of a good Superman movie what we'll end up getting is a boring and ham-fisted lecture about the current administration.

 

 

56 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm concerned that instead of a good Superman movie what we'll end up getting is a boring and ham-fisted lecture about the current administration.

 

 

 

I'm hopeful that people will eventually stop letting social media hacks poison their perception of pretty much every big tent superhero film that comes out.

 

Edit: to be clear, CriticalDrinker is one such hack in case there was any confusion.

Edited May 15 by battlewraith

[ZacKing]

37 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I'm hopeful that people will eventually stop letting social media hacks poison their perception of pretty much every big tent superhero film that comes out.

 

I'm hopeful people will eventually stop whinging over others having a different opinion or worldview than they do.   I'm also hopeful someday people will stop trying to blame "social media hacks" for "poisoning the public perception" for shit movies flopping at the box office.  Whether or not this movie will be a hit or flop isn't known at this point.  I'd like to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I do have my reservations.  James Gunn has done some good work before, so the movie may be great.  Then again, given the propensity Hollywood has to produce overly preachy content, the concern @PeregrineFalcon has is legit.  Remember, it's not the message, it's the delivery.

[battlewraith]

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

I'm hopeful people will eventually stop whinging over others having a different opinion or worldview than they do.   I'm also hopeful someday people will stop trying to blame "social media hacks" for "poisoning the public perception" for shit movies flopping at the box office. 

 

Ah the irony, given how little it takes to elicit that kind of response from you. 

But let me clarify things. It's not about difference of opinion or worldview, particularly regarding a film that hasn't even been released yet. (maybe you'll even see it if your mates give the thumbs up). 

 

It's about grifters. Shitty, formulaic would be critics who crap on films to entertain an aggrieved audience who wants to see these films fail. They'll call out "what we all know" and then clutch their sphincters tight as they wait for the receipts to trickle in, praying for a flop to prove them somehow right. Fortunately, any shtick gets old and played out. And sometimes they themselves reveal why nobody should take them seriously. 

 

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

It's about grifters. Shitty, formulaic would be critics who crap on films to entertain an aggrieved audience who wants to see these films fail. They'll call out "what we all know" and then clutch their sphincters tight as they wait for the receipts to trickle in, praying for a flop to prove them somehow right.

 

There are also a great many "critics" who are quick to heap lavish, glowing praise on anything and everything, regardless of how large a flop it is (see the Marvels) to make certain they do not lose their special access to red carpet premieres and exclusive interviews and the like.

[ZacKing]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Ah the irony, given how little it takes to elicit that kind of response from you. 

 

Oh the irony isn't lost on me at all.  It's always someone else with a different opinion than you who is the "shitty, formulaic grifter."  

 

What you're saying about reviewers like Nerdrotic and Critical Drinker isn't true either.  It would be true if they never posted a positive review of anything ever.  They have posted many positive reviews on films and TV shows over the years, so them having an opinion on critical and financial flops and why those projects were failures doesn't make them a "shitty, formulaic grifter."  If you had watched any of their content, you'd also see they're not hoping these projects fail.  Like everyone else, they'd like for these to be good films with a good story and well rounded, fleshed out characters.  You might have a different opinion than they do on how to go about doing that, and that's perfectly fine.  You're certainly welcome to your opinion just as much as they are welcome to theirs. 

 

51 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

There are also a great many "critics" who are quick to heap lavish, glowing praise on anything and everything, regardless of how large a flop it is (see the Marvels) to make certain they do not lose their special access to red carpet premieres and exclusive interviews and the like.

 

^100%

[PeregrineFalcon]

3 hours ago, battlewraith said:

It's about grifters. Shitty, formulaic would be critics who crap on films to entertain an aggrieved audience who wants to see these films fail.

I don't know if Critical Drinker wants these films to fail, I know that I certainly don't. But I do find that, at least the movies that I have seen, his opinion almost always mirrors mine to a 'T'. So when he gives his opinion on the ones that I haven't seen, I find it highly likely that my opinion will match his.

 

Maybe that makes me a shitty, formulaic, grifter in your eyes. Fortunately, I don't allow others' opinions of me to affect me one way or the other.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

There are also a great many "critics" who are quick to heap lavish, glowing praise on anything and everything, regardless of how large a flop it is (see the Marvels) to make certain they do not lose their special access to red carpet premieres and exclusive interviews and the like.

Whataboutism. You should maybe not listen to those people either. 

I looked up reviews of the Marvels. Audience reviews are generally higher than the critical reviews were. And if you look on something like Rotten Tomatoes for instance, the highly rated critics gave it an even worse score. So that's not a profound indictment of critics. 

[battlewraith]

25 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

It would be true if they never posted a positive review of anything ever.

 

Right, so if they never posted anything positive, about anything, ever --THEN they would be grifting. 

LOL! Yes I've watched their content. The video I linked, if you removed the context, would be indistinguishable from his actual content. 

 

31 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

It's always someone else with a different opinion than you who is the "shitty, formulaic grifter."

 

Always huh? Got some quotes?

[ShardWarrior]

13 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Whataboutism. You should maybe not listen to those people either. 

 

I do not listen to them either.  I make my own judgements.  The fact, which was lost on you it would seem, is that there are extremes on both sides of the spectrum. 

 

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I looked up reviews of the Marvels. Audience reviews are generally higher than the critical reviews were. And if you look on something like Rotten Tomatoes for instance, the highly rated critics gave it an even worse score. So that's not a profound indictment of critics. 

 

Many reviews on those kinds of website have been shown to be paid for by the studios.  Same thing on Amazon.  They are polluted with fake product reviews from people who were paid to leave positive feedback in exchange for free Amazon credit or gift cards.  Yes, people can have their own opinions.  However, a professional film critic heaping glowing praise on flop after flop after flop does tend to make one wonder. 

[ZacKing]

19 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Always huh? Got some quotes?

 

Yes.

  

3 hours ago, battlewraith said:

It's about grifters. Shitty, formulaic would be critics who crap on films to entertain an aggrieved audience who wants to see these films fail. They'll call out "what we all know" and then clutch their sphincters tight as they wait for the receipts to trickle in, praying for a flop to prove them somehow right. Fortunately, any shtick gets old and played out. And sometimes they themselves reveal why nobody should take them seriously. 

 

These reviewers you're referring to here have a different opinion than you do, but they're "shitty, formulaic grifters" in your own words.

[TTRPGWhiz]

14 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

I do not listen to them either.  I make my own judgements.  The fact, which was lost on you it would seem, is that there are extremes on both sides of the spectrum. 

 

 

Many reviews on those kinds of website have been shown to be paid for by the studios.  Same thing on Amazon.  They are polluted with fake product reviews from people who were paid to leave positive feedback in exchange for free Amazon credit or gift cards.  Yes, people can have their own opinions.  However, a professional film critic heaping glowing praise on flop after flop after flop does tend to make one wonder. 

The Marvels, since that was the mentioned example, has a 50 on Metacritic, with about as many “average” reviews as positive, and a third of that negative. No fan voting, no YT snake oil salesmen. Who is one professional film critic whose reviews are consistently much more positive than the average? And how does this prove payola and not just a “glass half full” perspective?*

 

This idea (not necessarily yours, Shard) that you can’t trust critics from newspapers and magazines but people like CriticalDrinker are here to show you the truth, is mind boggling to me. Maybe there is some truth to studios “buying” good press with access. But anyone who takes their cues from Comicsgate-adjacent “critics” (aka, “some dude with a YouTube channel”) is probably predisposed toward a worldview that places them atop a pile of “sleeping sheeple”, or whatever adorable self-important phrase is in vogue on the social media platforms they canoodle on.

 

“Comics fans”** increasingly treat giant blockbuster movies based on the things they claim to love like indie bands that made it big, except even those indie fans would have gotten over it after 17 years. 

 

I’d be interested to see any news story about studios paying movie critics for positive reviews. AFAIK there are two or three, and they’re explicitly about independent movies.

 

*I looked at the critic profile for Molly Freeman, who gave The Marvels its highest weighted score with a 90. Molly also gave Brave New World a 40. Her average review score is a 59. Does Molly seem like a paid critic?

 

**Almost every time someone comes here with negative opinions about a movie based on something they say they care about, they also mention that “I haven’t read a comic in 15 years, ever since [insert silly reason].” These movies aren’t for you. Comics fandom is about five percent of MCU fandom. Get over it.

Edited May 16 by TTRPGWhiz

[ShardWarrior]

4 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

This idea that you can’t trust critics from

newspapers and magazines but people like CriticalDrinker are here to show you the truth is mind boggling to me. 

 

I never suggested that Critical Drinker or anyone like him are "truth tellers".  Far from it.  I kindly ask you not to distort what I wrote. 

 

8 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I’d be interested to see any news story about studios paying movie critics for positive reviews.  AFAIK there are two or three, and they’re explicitly about independent movies.

 

Whether or not these were independent films or major studio releases is irrelevant.   "Astroturfing" is a real thing and it is an ongoing problem across just about every industry.  You may not recall, HBO was caught using fake accounts to undermine critics or their programming.  Periodically, there will be social media posts showing the same word for word review posted on multiple different accounts to give the impression that a film or product is more or less favorable.  This practice erodes trust in review sites and critics in general.

[TTRPGWhiz]

21 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

I never suggested that Critical Drinker or anyone like him are "truth tellers".  Far from it.  I kindly ask you not to distort what I wrote. 

 

I literally wrote “not necessarily yours, Shard”.

 

As for the rest, again, if people are getting their movie quality tips from junk sources, that’s on them. I’ve never once seen any of the reviews that I’ve read engaging in that kind of verbatim text copying. Fake accounts writing undermining posts isn’t the same thing as paying an actual critic to write a favorable review. That’s a wild comparison.

Edited May 16 by TTRPGWhiz

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

46 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

 It’s wild that this isn’t the default take. 

That doesn't get you clicks on socials, though, or monetise those YouTube clips...

 

Small incoming rant. Every reviewer across time has had their own schtick, from Siskel & Ebert, Barry Norman and Mark "Grumpy" Kermode, through to the old acid-pen theatre critics back in the day. It's how they gain a following. (BTW: hunt out Ian McKellen in full b**ch mode in The Critic if you like that sort of thing.)

 

And people sometimes like reading things getting trashed. I'm a tiny bit bothered these days that there's a direct, easily-gamed monetisation model attached to some of it, but hey, if that's what people wanna read, and a guy's gotta eat.

 

It just ain't Siegel and Shuster's gospel truth until the flick comes out.

[battlewraith]

9 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

And people sometimes like reading things getting trashed. I'm a tiny bit bothered these days that there's a direct, easily-gamed monetisation model attached to some of it, but hey, if that's what people wanna read, and a guy's gotta eat.

 

The problem is that, when you are dealing with social media "critics" they are, as you say, driven by clicks--which are fueled by the algorithms driving the various platforms. Material that is more contentious is going to be more visible to viewers. A punchy video trashing a film along ideological lines is going to get more views then a measured, reasonable discussions of a film's quality. And content providers can see this in their metrics and have strong incentive to cater to more sensationalized content in order to make more money. 

[Ghost]

Only posting the first link because some people seem astounded to hear that their could ever be any type of suspicious reviews.
 

https://www.ign.com/articles/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-after-pr-firms-scheme-to-pay-critics-for-positive-reviews-uncovered

 

Older article, but I think a lot more telling of how reviews work - and is still a disservice to readers

 

https://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/research/why-critics-dont-pan-blockbusters-least-not-right-away
 

 

Edited May 16 by Ghost

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I literally wrote “not necessarily yours, Shard”.

 

After you edited your post, yes.  😉

[battlewraith]

11 minutes ago, Ghost said:

https://www.ign.com/articles/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-after-pr-firms-scheme-to-pay-critics-for-positive-reviews-uncovered
 

https://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/research/why-critics-dont-pan-blockbusters-least-not-right-away
 

 

 

So, the first article concerns a pr firm's attempt to game rotten tomatoes over a film that hadn't even been picked up yet. And this example, which would've had a tiny sample size is extrapolated to all reviews.

 

The research article talks about strategies the reviewers take to not piss off studios--the key one being to delay unfavorable reviews by 1-3 days. That's it.

Additionally, the article talks about media outlets wanting to differentiate themselves. So reviews that come out later will tend to be more negative. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

23 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

So, the first article concerns a pr firm's attempt to game rotten tomatoes over a film that hadn't even been picked up yet. And this example, which would've had a tiny sample size is extrapolated to all reviews.

 

The research article talks about strategies the reviewers take to not piss off studios--the key one being to delay unfavorable reviews by 1-3 days. That's it.

Additionally, the article talks about media outlets wanting to differentiate themselves. So reviews that come out later will tend to be more negative. 

Yea, the first is one of the few I found earlier. The takeaway there was, “if ‘lower level’ Rotten Tomatoes critics can be bought for $50 a pop, then they probably aren’t legitimate critics”. Reinforced why I never reference that site. And again, it was an indie studio buying positive reviews so that it could gain wider distribution. I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about in this thread about a major summer superhero movie.