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

[Ghost]

1 hour 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. 

Yes, and where there’s smoke - there’s fire.

Theres also the old adage that you are never caught the first time.

But the point was to show that yes, it can and has happened.

 

The second article was to just show how “sneaky” they can be with reviews - which I sort of alluded to before the link.

 

I do think only a small portion of a movies audience actually decides based on reviews.

I personally only read them after I’ve seen a movie, just to see what others think and to see if it aligns with my thought.

[ShardWarrior]

6 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

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.

 

Whether you have seen it firsthand is irrelevant.  Astroturfing is a real issue.  It undermines credibility and erodes public trust in reviews. 

 

6 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

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.

 

See above regarding undermining credibility and trust.  You are certainly more than welcome to believe whatever you like, including that there are no incentives - financial or otherwise - for "professional critics" to write favorable reviews of a film or music album or book.

[TTRPGWhiz]

27 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Whether you have seen it firsthand is irrelevant.  Astroturfing is a real issue.  It undermines credibility and erodes public trust in reviews. 

 

 

See above regarding undermining credibility and trust.  You are certainly more than welcome to believe whatever you like, including that there are no incentives - financial or otherwise - for "professional critics" to write favorable reviews of a film or music album or book.

 

Credibility and trust *in whom*? You won't find the kinds of things you're talking about in reviews at Collider, The Onion, NYT, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, whatever your actual organization of choice is. Even ScreenRant wouldn't stoop that low. You're talking about nobodies. Does it undermine credibility and trust in something like Rotten Tomatoes? Yeah probably. But again: trust junk sources, get junk info.

[Ghost]

6 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

 

Credibility and trust *in whom*? You won't find the kinds of things you're talking about in reviews at Collider, The Onion, NYT, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, whatever your actual organization of choice is. Even ScreenRant wouldn't stoop that low. 

Oh, so naive.

[TTRPGWhiz]

11 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Oh, so naive.

Burden of proof is on the people making accusations.

If y'all can point to a single instance of someone working at an outlet, and not out of their second bedroom, being directly paid for positive reviews, then spill that tea. Every google search I've done so far points to the same article about paying absolute nobodies about $50 a piece to elevate the profile (not the box office; not that that's the larger point, but it's still a point) of one--literally one--independent movie. One movie.

[Ghost]

11 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Burden of proof is on the people making accusations.

If y'all can point to a single instance of someone working at an outlet, and not out of their second bedroom, being directly paid for positive reviews, then spill that tea. Every google search I've done so far points to the same article about paying absolute nobodies about $50 a piece to elevate the profile (not the box office; not that that's the larger point, but it's still a point) of one--literally one--independent movie. One movie.

So, you think some of the publications you listed have no issues with distorting the truth, or outright lying and yet draw the line when it come to movie reviews????

Thats your stance?

“We’ll sign off on umpteen fake stories from Jayson Blair, but by god our movie reviews better be real!!!”

🤭🤭🤭

 

Most likely movie reviews are such a non story, that no one cares enough to look into them.

However, I will leave you with this excerpt from a leaked email from Entertainment Weekly…just to illustrate what their own employees think of their movie reviews….

 

“But people are eventually going to tune out if articles are poorly written. The out of context clickbait titles, posting out of context quotes… and film reviews that sound like paid-for PR pieces from studios completely make a joke of our magazine and entertainment journalism.” 

 

 

Edited May 16 by Ghost

[TTRPGWhiz]

2 minutes ago, Ghost said:

So, you think some of the publications you listed have no issues with distorting the truth, or outright lying and yet draw the line when it come to movie reviews????

Thats your stance?

“We’ll sign off on umpteen fake stories from Jayson Blair, but by god our movie reviews better be real!!!”

🤭🤭🤭

 

Most likely movie reviews are such a non story, that no one cares enough to look into them.

However, I will leave you with this excerpt from a leaked email from Entertainment Weekly…just to illustrate what their own employees think of their movie reviews….

 

“But people are eventually going to tune out if articles are poorly written. The out of context clickbait titles, posting out of context quotes… and film reviews that sound like paid-for PR pieces from studios completely make a joke of our magazine and entertainment journalism.” 

 

 

Not appearing in this post: one shred of evidence

Anyway, back on topic: maybe an ace reporter from a fictional world has uncovered this kind of widespread yet completely undocumented corruption!

[battlewraith]

All of this talk about credibility and trust in critics is because I called out the Critical Drinker. 

Why did I do this--because people keep referencing his garbage takes in these threads. 

 

The Thunderbolts review was a great example. In the first minute, he's disparaging Yelena as an embodiment of modern feminism. 

In actuality, the film as far as I could tell had nothing to with feminism unless you think fictional female superheroes fighting alongside male fictional superheroes counts as feminism. 

The fact that he's pandering in these reviews is made clear when he puts out a short film that features the same "girlbossy" depictions that he routinely slams big studios for doing (except executed very poorly). This to me demonstrates the gap between his grifting and his aspirations as a serious filmmaker. 

 

It's whataboutism. It would be like if you identified a specific doctor as a quack and in response someone called out controversies with Big Pharma. 

It's a deflection. Both can be true and it wouldn't change anything.  And if f a bunch of shills from the big studios show up here, $50 in hand and start hyping up movies--that complaint would be relevant. But in reality, it's just Critical Drinker fans here pre-shitting on movies because their cohort squeezes everything through the same ideological lens. 

[ShardWarrior]

56 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Credibility and trust *in whom*? You won't find the kinds of things you're talking about in reviews at Collider, The Onion, NYT, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, whatever your actual organization of choice is.

 

This is demonstrably false, but as I said earlier, you go right on believing whatever you like.

[TTRPGWhiz]

10 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

This is demonstrably false, but as I said earlier, you go right on believing whatever you like.

So demonstrate it! I am legitimately interested in this topic, which is why I keep referring to searching for stories. All I've found is a bunch of references to the one Vulture article about one PR firm paying for reviews for one movie. People repeating, "no, but it's really happening" isn't very convincing.

[Ghost]

22 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

So demonstrate it! I am legitimately interested in this topic, which is why I keep referring to searching for stories. All I've found is a bunch of references to the one Vulture article about one PR firm paying for reviews for one movie. People repeating, "no, but it's really happening" isn't very convincing.

 

[Ghost]

53 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

All of this talk about credibility and trust in critics is because I called out the Critical Drinker. 

Why did I do this--because people keep referencing his garbage takes in these threads. 

 

The Thunderbolts review was a great example. In the first minute, he's disparaging Yelena as an embodiment of modern feminism. 

In actuality, the film as far as I could tell had nothing to with feminism unless you think fictional female superheroes fighting alongside male fictional superheroes counts as feminism. 

The fact that he's pandering in these reviews is made clear when he puts out a short film that features the same "girlbossy" depictions that he routinely slams big studios for doing (except executed very poorly). This to me demonstrates the gap between his grifting and his aspirations as a serious filmmaker. 

 

It's whataboutism. It would be like if you identified a specific doctor as a quack and in response someone called out controversies with Big Pharma. 

It's a deflection. Both can be true and it wouldn't change anything.  And if f a bunch of shills from the big studios show up here, $50 in hand and start hyping up movies--that complaint would be relevant. But in reality, it's just Critical Drinker fans here pre-shitting on movies because their cohort squeezes everything through the same ideological lens. 

What Critical Drinker fans?

I’ve personally never watched one of his videos.

 

I think one person referenced him, and you’ve somehow equated that to you defending the Alamo against hoards of invaders.

 

We’ve gone through this in multiple threads, and I still for the life of me cannot figure out why it bothers you so much when someone talks about having concerns - real or imaginary.  
Why do you feel the need to swoop in and rescue the rest of the forum from someone posting their concerns?

 

They will eventually be proven correct or incorrect, so why not let it play out?

Edited May 16 by Ghost

[Ghost]

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/645297/david-manning-sony-fake-film-critic
 

https://filmstories.co.uk/features/columbia-pictures-and-the-fake-movie-critic-of-the-early-2000s/
 

 

[battlewraith]

4 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I think one person referenced him, and you’ve somehow equated that to you defending the Alamo against hoards of invaders.

Lol oh really? Where did I equate that?

PI mostly posts this stuff, but obviously people get bent if you criticize something like that. Surely this august assembly would not spend pages roasting the notion of criticism itself over nothing right? These zesty insinuations of industry wrongdoing had to come from somewhere.

[Ghost]

6 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Lol oh really? Where did I equate that?

PI mostly posts this stuff, but obviously people get bent if you criticize something like that. Surely this august assembly would not spend pages roasting the notion of criticism itself over nothing right? These zesty insinuations of industry wrongdoing had to come from somewhere.

You’re right.  
Studios are honest.

Critics are infallible.

We are all just conspiracy theorists.

 

Thanks for pointing out the error of our ways.

🙄🙄🙄

Edited May 16 by Ghost

[TTRPGWhiz]

9 minutes ago, Ghost said:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/645297/david-manning-sony-fake-film-critic
 

https://filmstories.co.uk/features/columbia-pictures-and-the-fake-movie-critic-of-the-early-2000s/
 

 

Cool stories! What outlets were his reviews published in?

...oh, none? They were just blurbs in local newspapers? And as soon as someone at an actual publication (Newsweek) smelled a rat, the whole thing came apart? Crazy.
So right now we're looking at: two incidents, one in 2000, the other in 2018, neither of which involve a reputable film critic or outlet. 

As for the ostrich: ask them if while they've got their head down there, they might look for a single scrap of evidence that a real (not fake) movie critic working for a publication got paid money by a studio to write a review.

If you guys want to move the goalposts to "movie studios do shady stuff to promote their movies", then go for it. No disagreement there. If you want to stick to trying to prove that studios pay legitimate critics for fake reviews, you're gonna have to...what was it..."try again, try harder".

Edited May 16 by TTRPGWhiz

[Ghost]

How would they involve a reputable critic when Sony made up a fake critic???????

 

You asked for instances.  
One was provided.  
You wanted another involving a major studio - you got that.

 

Accept or deny.  That’s your choice.

 

 

Edited May 16 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

4 minutes ago, Ghost said:

You’re right.  
Studios are honest.

Critics are infallible.

We are all just conspiracy theorists.

 

Thanks for pointing out the error of our ways.

🙄🙄🙄

 

The truth of the matter is that critics vary, as do studios--or any group of people.

It's not this categorical, black or white thing. Pointing to a fake critic or bad business is not an indictment of all critics or businesses. 

And yeah--if you're just willing to assume sweeping generalizations like this you are more likely to buy into conspiracy theories. 

Do better. You're welcome.

[battlewraith]

Just now, Ghost said:

How would they involve a reputable critic when Sony made up a fake critic???????

 

 

Sony was sued over that incident and settled. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

2 minutes ago, Ghost said:

How would they involve a reputable critic when Sony made up a fake critic???????

 

 

 

...uh, yes, exactly. The question isn't "do movie studios do shady stuff". It is specifically, "is there evidence of movie studios paying reputable critics for positive reviews". That is the conversation we are having. 

[Ghost]

4 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

The truth of the matter is that critics vary, as do studios--or any group of people.

It's not this categorical, black or white thing. Pointing to a fake critic or bad business is not an indictment of all critics or businesses. 

And yeah--if you're just willing to assume sweeping generalizations like this you are more likely to buy into conspiracy theories. 

Do better. You're welcome.

The point was that critics have lied.

Someone, maybe not you unequivocally denied that it has ever happened.  2 instances were shown.

At no time did I say ALL critics lie.  Nor did I ever say ALL critics were paid off.  My contention is that it has happened.

 

So if anyone is making a sweeping generalized statement, it’s you.

Now how about you take your own advice, and DO BETTER

[Ghost]

4 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

 

...uh, yes, exactly. The question isn't "do movie studios do shady stuff". It is specifically, "is there evidence of movie studios paying reputable critics for positive reviews". That is the conversation we are having. 

In my book, making up a fake critic to write fake reviews is worse, but whatever.

You live in your world and I’ll live in mine.

[TTRPGWhiz]

5 minutes ago, Ghost said:

The point was that critics have lied.

Someone, maybe not you unequivocally denied that it has ever happened.  2 instances were shown.

At no time did I say ALL critics lie.  Nor did I ever say ALL critics were paid off.  My contention is that it has happened.

 

So if anyone is making a sweeping generalized statement, it’s you.

Now how about you take your own advice, and DO BETTER

lol, not one person has written, "no critic has ever lied". Good lord.

The world of absolutes some of y'all live in would make a Sith blush.

[Ghost]

10 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

lol, not one person has written, "no critic has ever lied". Good lord.

The world of absolutes some of y'all live in would make a Sith blush.

Coming from someone who refuses to believe that a critic could/would lie

🤭

 

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a movie critic

[TTRPGWhiz]

6 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Coming from someone who refuses to believe that a critic could/would lie

🤭

 

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a movie critic

See this is the issue, maybe: you think asking for one example is the same thing as denying that it's possible.

Someone wrote, "movie studios pay critics for positive reviews all the time". 
I wrote, "do you have any examples of this occurring with reputable critics/outlets?"
Then you came in with, "oh, so critics NEVER LIE?".
It's not even the same conversation.

Peace be with ya, Ghost. I'm not super interested in continuing a conversation with someone who values beliefs over evidence and who can't figure out what the actual conversation is.

Edited May 16 by TTRPGWhiz