Regarding reviews of Movies/TV shows, do you prefer reviews made by Critics or the Audiences?

[AGXStarseed]

I'm just curious to see whether you guys read reviews about movies and/or TV shows and, if so, do you prefer the words of the general audiences or from the paid critics?

I ask as, while critics and audiences can agree on movies they both find good (such as The LEGO movie) or that they both find bad (such as Jem and the Holograms), both sides can differ - sometimes to extremes, with it branching from confusion to conspiracy theory as to why critics have slammed one movie/show that audiences enjoyed yet praised another movie/show that audiences hated.
An example of a both would be 1991's Hook - which in my own opinion was flawed yet decent and has an overall audience rating on 76% on Rotten Tomatoes but the Critics overall rating is just 28%.
Alternatively, Season 11 of Doctor Who (with Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor) has been lauded by critics on Rotten Tomatoes with an overall 94% rating, despite audiences having harsher opinions and overall giving it just 28% - which is still dropping now.

For me, I'll check out both but - in the event of a split between the professional critics and the audience - I tend to give the audience more credit.

So, what about you guys?

 

[Autistamatic]

I look to both, like yourself, but the credence I give depends on the nature of those reviews. Toxic fandom, along with the desire to "look clever" has devalued the audience review no end.
"The Last Jedi", "Solo" and the recent series of Doctor Who are prime examples of Toxic Fandom - encouraging people to boycott things they have a facile objection to (usually strong women, people of colour, altruism...) in an effort to promote their own narrow world views.
It made me laugh that so many people have jumped onto the bandwagon over Jodie Whitaker's Doctor, predicting disaster, yet her series has enjoyed record views on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

[Mr Allen]

Usually both, except reviews of Star Wars related movies, which are usually done by butt hurt Star Wars geeks who hate Disney so they aren't impartial.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Usually both, except reviews of Star Wars related movies, which are usually done by butt hurt Star Wars geeks who hate Disney so they aren't impartial.

Just out of curiosity, how would you rank the new Star Wars movies (The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Rogue One and Solo) from best to worst in your opinion?

 

[AGXStarseed]

I look to both, like yourself, but the credence I give depends on the nature of those reviews. Toxic fandom, along with the desire to "look clever" has devalued the audience review no end.
"The Last Jedi", "Solo" and the recent series of Doctor Who are prime examples of Toxic Fandom - encouraging people to boycott things they have a facile objection to (usually strong women, people of colour, altruism...) in an effort to promote their own narrow world views.
It made me laugh that so many people have jumped onto the bandwagon over Jodie Whitaker's Doctor, predicting disaster, yet her series has enjoyed record views on both sides of the Atlantic.

I watched the new Doctor Who series this year and, to be honest, I wasn't that impressed. Just to be clear, I wasn't that fussed with Matt Smith or Peter Capaldi's eras either - just personal opinion.
I'm all for a female incarnation of the Doctor (considering Time Lords are aliens that regenerate into anything - including apparently having "two heads or no head" - the idea of them changing sex wasn't an issue), but I just don't think Jodie Whittaker was the best choice.
I hear Olivia Colman was considered (she previously appeared in Doctor Who as one of Prisoner Zero's disguises in the hospital during The Eleventh Hour) and I think she would have done a good job, but it didn't work out.
For Jodie, it felt to me like to she was trying to imitate traits from both David Tennant and Matt Smith's versions of the character and that put me off. Also, the way she waves the Sonic Screwdriver around had me silently hoping for a scene (or possibly some outtakes) where she accidentally hits someone with it like how you see videos of people getting hit by Wii remotes.
As for the companions, I think Yasmin was just pretty forgettable although Graham and Ryan were okay.

I won't go into too much detail regarding the episodes - as some of them cover important events in history which can be pretty political or contains what some people state was a "politically correct" bias - and this isn't the thread to talk about such things.
In general, I found most of the episodes to be pretty boring, especially when comparing them to earlier series and that great sense of sci-fi escapism that made me excited to tune in.
Also, I wasn't fond of any of the new villains, with the CGI looking pretty bad - which is odd considering that in Doctor Who the CGI usually ranges from decent to good.

All in all, I just wasn't that impressed.
In regards to the 'Toxic Fanbase', I've been TARDIS Wiki for a while and the majority of people on there seem to genuinely decent people who just love the franchise. I've had disagreements here and there but nothing major.
I think you find so-called 'toxic' individuals in every fandom; the ones who like things the exact same way and refuse to be flexible to any/most changes to the point where they shout their mouths off like petulant schoolchildren. Thankfully in most cases, I believe they are a minority and I think social media is why they are now often so focused on and brought into the light.

 

[Autistamatic]

I actually really enjoyed the recent season of Doctor Who. I agree Yasmin was a weak character, but I liked the enthusiasm JW brought to the role and Bradley Walsh was very good imo.
The problem with Toxic fandom is that they pick on one aspect they don't like, usually because they have quite, shall we be charitable and say "old fashioned" attitudes, and attempt to demolish the object of their supposed fandom from within the fan community.
A case in point is the preponderance of rage on YouTube alone, from numpties claiming Star Trek has been "infiltrated" by so called "SJWs" (which is anybody with more up to date views) who have turned Discovery into a feminist, racially tolerant, socialist nightmare, which ignores the fact that Star Trek has always promoted feminism, racial tolerance and socialist political systems from the start. It's an empty argument, but they keep on with it as if they are making a point.
This isn't the place to discuss the politics of it, but the way these fools mobilise towards IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes to give shows and movies the lowest scores possible has devalued the audience review no end. Reading a number of reviews may give you a good picture of what to expect, but scores have become very misleading.

 

[Theta.G]

Critics can be easily swayed to distort results and guide public opinion.
To make or break a movie.
With peers there's a much larger sample size and although websites can skew public
opinion in a number of ways it's still more reliable than a critic.

 

[Mr Allen]

Just out of curiosity, how would you rank the new Star Wars movies (The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Rogue One and Solo) from best to worst in your opinion?

Force Awakens was good, Last Jedi was decent and didn't deserve all the hate IMO, Rogue One was the best they could do for a kind of filler between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, and Solo could've been better IMO, I wanted more of the Jabba the Hutt/Solo back story, but I gather that's coming in the sequel.

 

[TheFreeCat]

Bulk matters. That is why I actually DO like google reviews for things like Drs. When you see 27 great reviews, well, that matters.

Once I was going to join a gym and there were 32 bad reviews in a row. I went and omg it was a terrible place.

When the reviews start piling up in one way, it really matters.

Where it is harder is if there are something like 500 reviews (like on Amazon) which means there will be lots of bad reviews, too. Now, if the bad reviews are mostly like, "It came missing a part" or things like that, that is not so much a bad review of the quality as a glitch. So I don't count those. But if there are even 30 that say, "Two days and the lever quit" .......well, then I move to another product.

As to movies? I don't watch a lot . I can't sit that long. But I do that for TV shows . Usually they are wrong for me. I don't like killing and blood all over and most of the shows today are murders and blood and all that. I also don't like a lot of naked people running around just to stimulate the masses. It takes more than that for me to get stimulated. So I find most reviews just don't fit my likes.

I think many Aspies are like that. We are not run of the mill people.

 

[Autistamatic]

I think you've summed it up pretty well @TheFreeCat
Scores can be misleading, but reading a number of the actual reviews themselves can be quite useful. Details matter, but scores can be manipulated either way by determined saboteurs.

 

[Judge]

Until the mid seventies, you could only find the opinions of critics in mostly newspapers and magazines. Back then I always had the impression of them being so elitist in their subjective opinions, I hardly paid any attention to their published opinions.

Until the mid seventies, when two Chicago critics took their opinions to television every Sunday afternoon on a show called "Sneak Previews". It was a great show- not because of the two critics with usually opposing views, but rather the opportunity to see all the upcoming films.

Though over time I began to realize that critic Gene Siskel seemed to always emphasize some form of nebulous artistic value. Almost like the Supreme Court in how it did or didn't describe pornography. On the other hand, critic Roger Ebert also seemed to have opinions that reflected one simple premise. Whether or not he just plain enjoyed the film. LOL. That was easy. While Gene would always ramble on and on about his esoteric, pedantic film requirements, there was Roger. Who simply gave a yea or nay based on whether he truly enjoyed a film. After that it became easy to pick films to see. And back then I went to the movies nearly every week. If Roger liked it, chances are I may as well. Forget Gene Siskel.

Of course there were other critics like Judith Crist and Gene Siskel appearing on the Today Show who essentially did the same thing. I came to loath much of anything Judith Crist had to say. She seemed more like a media censor than a film critic anyways. And others would succeed them as well, such as personalities like Leonard Maltin.

When the Internet came about, so did the critics. But then for the first time, so did the masses. So when I see what the critics and the masses think, I still default to Roger Ebert's way of thinking. Would he have simply "liked" the movie, without all the esoteric mumbo-jumbo about artistic merit I heard from Gene Siskel for all those years? That's it in a nutshell. What the public collectively thinks matters to me.

Did they simply like the movie? It's not rocket science.

Rest in peace, Roger.

 

[Autistamatic]

I think the best thing a review can say for me is
"If you liked XXXX then you'll probably like YYYY"

 

[Tom]

I have found critics opinions unreliable. They often over analyze or have predjudices and lose touch. Audience reviews are usually more straightforward and easier to understand. They will differ (audience reviews), some hate it some love it but they tell you why and you can usually tell which group you relate too and can go by.

 

[FreeDiver]

There are times when the audience and critics opinions are in absolute polar opposite of each other. Take for example, Giligen's Island and The Love Boat. Both of these show where just absolutely hated and despised by all the critics. Yet the audience absolutely love these shows. But because the critics never liked them. they never ran for as long as they could. In other words. They fell victim to the critics.

 

[Fino]

I look at critic reviews for fun because I like the snappy quotes! Audience reviews are often badly written, especially grammatically, which ruins it for me.

But I don't put stock in either. After how many times I've been told I'm weird, how could the opinion of anyone else ever be relevant to me?

 

[Adora]

I find that most movies I like critics hate or vice versa so I don’t rely alot on critics opinions and try to make my own judgement in movies, but I do find it interesting to see a movie that gets slammed by critics but get a high score with audiences because it shows a great divide between what makes a good movie and sometimes audiences have a very different opinion to what critics do.

 

[Gracey]

Audience for me I think.
They’re not paid to give an opinion.

Not that I read reviews.
Advertising trailers and a recommendation from a relative would
trigger my curiosity.

 

[Bedlamite]

I'm just curious to see whether you guys read reviews about movies and/or TV shows and, if so, do you prefer the words of the general audiences or from the paid critics?

First, please forgive my cynical attitude today. Personally, I don't own a TV. The programming is either "newspeak" or trivial trash! What passes as "news" or "educational documentaries" is conditioning propaganda. As far as movies are concerned, I like to "think for myself". I neither take the "opinions" of "professional critics" (paid by the network sponsors), nor the general audience. I will watch the movie's trailer and decide for myself if it would be something that I would like to watch.