Good question. I dunno.
Would / is pandering to the audience be a bad thing?

 

Movies can.... but critics shouldn't.. they should call a spade a spade.. but then if the critic misses the fact the movie specifically targeted it's audience... ahh i'm getting a migraine..

 

Yes.
They feel entitled and it's annoying. They are also way to negative

 

That's what capitalism is. You provide your customers a product they want or you go out of business.

 

I think the trick is to make them think they want what you're providing.

 

Right?
So maybe critics should pander to the audience.

After they get to know the audience.

 

But then we lose honest on the nose reviews.

Man, no wonder reviewers don't give a fuck anymore!  

 

Of course they are!!! Can't any of you see?! Bay didn't buy them cookies this year for their Transformers review party, so they decided to pay him back by giving this movie negative reviews. That'll teach that stingy Bay somethin' fierce. He won't be forgetting those cookies next time. Oh wait, there won't be a next time. MUUAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

you should turn the blue off for the last 3 sentences

 

So who do critics review for?

 

I would care more about what critics think if every movie that they said was the BEST THING EVA wasn't always a boring piece of crap. I think some are paid off too. For example, I noticed that some Disney movies don't turn out great but the critics all give is 100% top scores when it legitimately had flaws.

 

Yeah i mean, that's a heavy question. They should be writing honestly for themselves, in a style to suit their audience. But people are very suspicious of reviewers, how many times do we hear on the internet that there's a conspiracy to hurt bay, or Disney have paid off critics to up rate marvel movies. It's probably all bullshit.. but it might all be true.

I think most of us have learned to read between the lines, we know what trends we're looking for among a cluster of reviews. TBH I mainly read movie reviews just to see how they articulate themselves.

But, regardless, I still stand by the idea that if these movies were better than they are, the reviews would be better whether critics hate Bay and underestimate the brand or not.

 

Your threads are becoming increasingly desperate. Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.

 

 

I doubt that's pay-off, so much as people develop positive feels to some brands/etc., and critics aren't immune to hype. Disney has an edge because *everyone* grew up on them pretty much, so if a Disney movie is good, it gets points for 'capturing the Disney magic.' A legitimately good Disney movie will thus reliably get higher tier scores.

Flipside, it is not automatic- Brother Bear got 38%. A well-loved director or brand can have the critics turn on them if they disappointed.

I dunno, throwing in giant robots and monster is totally pandering to me. I don't complain about those being in! Like, Pacific Rim is pandering to kaiju fans, period. Love it. TF1 pandered to people with a mix of nostalgia, giant robots, and explosions. Also quite enjoyed it!

Pandering can sometimes be used to refer to low-quality attempts at appeal, but it's honestly really subjective. Pandering can range to 'characters say classic lines even if the context doesn't really fit' to 'just aiming for a specific group.' Not all pandering is bad, I'd say! Heck, one can definitely make the argument that many good movies are examples of good-pandering.

 

Yeah, but what about reviewers pandering to the audience?

 

I dunno.
I'm under the impression that there is a great disconnect between critics and people.

I don't see how a critic can pander to the audience unless they first know the audience.
And I don't think they do.

 

IDK, is there really that much of a disconnect? For most movies, the critic scores and audience scores line up for the most part with some exceptions (and those tend to be comedy films since humor is subjective).

 

Mm, there's different ways of doing that.

"Ok, here are reviews, explicitly, with this type of person in mind," is not only not bad, it's kinda helpful. Especially if I'm in that group, but sometimes even not, to get an insider's perspective on an area that's not mine.

"This movie, I'd hesitate to recommend to most people, but if you're a fan of the genre it'll likely strike a cord," is nice too. As long as they tell you their lens, that's fine.

Some reviewers like to exaggerate their reactions for entertainment value of the review itself, which I find less useful. This movie either rocks/sucks with no in between makes for a poor reviewer- though I don't think most places stick with reviewers like that since more discerning fans will complain.

If a reviewer just tries to predict what'll be popular and not... well, then they're just kinda crap reviewer. Flipside, some people do really have tastes like that, so, shrug.

 

Holy shit dude people don't like the movies get the fuck over it this is fucking ridiculous. No they aren't bad people because they don't like something you like. Jesus Christ I hate us so fucking much

 

A critic once chokeslammed my dog and then told me Empire Strikes Back sucked