It has been going on for a lot longer than that, but it has seemed to be particularly bad lately.
For the most part I have always blamed it on the fact that film critics have one job - to watch movies. So they likely watch 10-100x more movies in a year than I do. That means they are bored of things that may seem fresh to me. They probably like unique takes on things, even when they don't overall deliver as strongly as a more generic tale does, simply because they are different.
At least, that's my opinion. I have no real proof of it other than I can say that when I deep dive into something, I become more aware of it, and start to have a much different view than most people who partake in the same thing more casually.
So you have that, factored in with a whole bunch of younger SJW weirdos now, and yeah - the critic score and the audience scores are generally completely unrelated to each other.
. So they likely watch 10-100x more movies in a year than I do.
I was thinking about this when I waw watching the 8-year-old Red Letter Media review of Star Trek: Into Darkness on YT yesterday.
During the review, Jay mentions he's watched less than 5 Star Trek episodes of any kind (other than the films) in his life, while Mike and Rich are avid Trekkies.
And yet, the three were still able to put together an entertaining and thoughtful critique of the film without ostracizing casual viewers like Jay with "well, actually....." elitism. They treated his present day opinions as worthwhile even if he doesn't understand or care about all the lore.
I mean if they like something then fine, but the attacks on the audience are ridiculous. Like with last Jedi. I can’t count how many critics said that “if you don’t like it then you aren’t smart enough to understand”
It has been going on for a lot longer than that, but it has seemed to be particularly bad lately.
For the most part I have always blamed it on the fact that film critics have one job - to watch movies. So they likely watch 10-100x more movies in a year than I do. That means they are bored of things that may seem fresh to me. They probably like unique takes on things, even when they don't overall deliver as strongly as a more generic tale does, simply because they are different.
At least, that's my opinion. I have no real proof of it other than I can say that when I deep dive into something, I become more aware of it, and start to have a much different view than most people who partake in the same thing more casually.
So you have that, factored in with a whole bunch of younger SJW weirdos now, and yeah - the critic score and the audience scores are generally completely unrelated to each other.
I was thinking about this when I waw watching the 8-year-old Red Letter Media review of Star Trek: Into Darkness on YT yesterday.
During the review, Jay mentions he's watched less than 5 Star Trek episodes of any kind (other than the films) in his life, while Mike and Rich are avid Trekkies.
And yet, the three were still able to put together an entertaining and thoughtful critique of the film without ostracizing casual viewers like Jay with "well, actually....." elitism. They treated his present day opinions as worthwhile even if he doesn't understand or care about all the lore.
I mean if they like something then fine, but the attacks on the audience are ridiculous. Like with last Jedi. I can’t count how many critics said that “if you don’t like it then you aren’t smart enough to understand”