Unpopular opinions go here

[Emberashh]

Truly unpopular opinion:

Critics, as a group, across the overall body of their work, are typically correct. They consume a lot more of any given media than the general public does, by virtue of the fact that they're consuming it during those eight hours a day that everyone else is doing something else for work. As a result, they are tuned into a lot of the detail than the general public won't spot and know context that many people won't, like when a work is responding to a sometimes obscure other work.

A lot of critics in the internet era are pretty terrible and think that just recapping every moment of a work is somehow criticism. (It's not.)

But even so, most of them get it right most of the time. Most Rotten Tomatoes top critic Tomatometers are pretty good guides to what's going to be a good work. My wife and I, for instance, went in blind to watch Ex Machina and What We Do in the Shadows, both of which had about a 99% rating at the time we rented them, and were completely blown away.

Having said all that, the aggregate of critics' opinions doesn't necessarily mean you will or won't like a work. And you can like "bad" works -- which we all do -- without shame. (I just rewatched Bakshi's "Wizards" while making dinner the other night and it doesn't hold up. I love it anyway.) It's not a negative reflection on you if you like something the critics don't, and you absolutely don't need to get angry and defensive when that happens. Just enjoy your thing.

I think its less that they're incorrect and more that some often don't engage with a given work on its terms, and instead impose expectations on it separate from what it intends to do.

While not as often obvious as this, it is a lot like complaining when a Comedy is funny and doesn't try to be anything else. It'd be like saying Blazing Saddles or Young Frankenstein wasted Gene Wilder because they didn't give him a gritty character drama to chew on in the middle of absurdist comedy.

 

[Emberashh]

Oh, I agree. It's hard to disagree with Kubrick.

That said, the whole point ... the whole philosophical import of Burgess's book has to include Alex maturing. That's absolutely central to the message of the book. By omitting it, Kubrick is making a completely different point that is arguably diametrically opposed to the one made in the book.

Oh I can disagree with Kubrick. Or at least, disagree with what everyone tends to say about his most famous movie.

Dr. Strangelove is a terribly unfunny movie for one thats so often recommended as a comedy. I get when its trying to be funny, but it just isn't, and it isn't an issue of not getting what its like to live under threat of M.A.D or whatever. Its just stupid and unfunny.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Different strokes. I like both books a lot. But Frankenstein was a novel that captivated me and is more emotionally moving than Dracula (which isn't a knock on Dracula, it is a great novel too, but for other reason)

For sure, there's no deep emotional or intellectual stuff happening in Dracula, which is what Shelley is focused on with Frankenstein.

 

[Cadence]

I assume this isn't unpopular, but it fits the adaptation thing. "The Incredibles" is the greatest "Fantastic Four" adaptation that will ever be made.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Truly unpopular opinion:

Critics, as a group, across the overall body of their work, are typically correct. They consume a lot more of any given media than the general public does, by virtue of the fact that they're consuming it during those eight hours a day that everyone else is doing something else for work. As a result, they are tuned into a lot of the detail than the general public won't spot and know context that many people won't, like when a work is responding to a sometimes obscure other work.

I'm not sold, for a couple reasons.

1. Some critics too regularly show that they literally are not paying attention. As in, they'll bring up plot problems or the like that are pretty clearly addressed within the product at hand. This is most likely the consequence of skimming through material that didn't grab them and (incorrectly) assuming it won't matter.

2. There are critics who are either too in love with certain genres to see its flaws, or too hostile to certain genres to see any virtues in them. That inevitably makes their reviews of those genres largely useless.

(Incidentally, the problem with Rotten Tomatoes is its methodology tends to overemphasize slightly positive or slightly negative reviews, depending on whether a given set of review leans into one or the other. Look at a case where a movie has gotten 20 slightly positive reviews and ten really negative reviews some time and look at the score. Its instructive).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh I can disagree with Kubrick. Or at least, disagree with what everyone tends to say about his most famous movie.

Dr. Strangelove is a terribly unfunny movie for one thats so often recommended as a comedy. I get when its trying to be funny, but it just isn't, and it isn't an issue of not getting what its like to live under threat of M.A.D or whatever. Its just stupid and unfunny.

Somehow, you have not just managed to insult Kubrick, but Peter Sellers.

....I have no words for this.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm not sold, for a couple reasons.

1. Some critics too regularly show that they literally are not paying attention. As in, they'll bring up plot problems or the like that are pretty clearly addressed within the product at hand. This is most likely the consequence of skimming through material that didn't grab them and (incorrectly) assuming it won't matter.

2. There are critics who are either too in love with certain genres to see its flaws, or too hostile to certain genres to see any virtues in them. That inevitably makes their reviews of those genres largely useless.

(Incidentally, the problem with Rotten Tomatoes is its methodology tends to overemphasize slightly positive or slightly negative reviews, depending on whether a given set of review leans into one or the other. Look at a case where a movie has gotten 20 slightly positive reviews and ten really negative reviews some time and look at the score. Its instructive).

The word "most" was important throughout my post.

Yes, there are definitely bad critics, just as there are bad people in every industry.

They are not the whole or even the majority of critics.

If you are always running into sloppy critics, you should look elsewhere for your criticism. (The RT Top Critics list is generally a pretty good start.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Truly unpopular opinion:

Critics, as a group, across the overall body of their work, are typically correct. They consume a lot more of any given media than the general public does, by virtue of the fact that they're consuming it during those eight hours a day that everyone else is doing something else for work. As a result, they are tuned into a lot of the detail than the general public won't spot and know context that many people won't, like when a work is responding to a sometimes obscure other work.

A lot of critics in the internet era are pretty terrible and think that just recapping every moment of a work is somehow criticism. (It's not.)

But even so, most of them get it right most of the time. Most Rotten Tomatoes top critic Tomatometers are pretty good guides to what's going to be a good work. My wife and I, for instance, went in blind to watch Ex Machina and What We Do in the Shadows, both of which had about a 99% rating at the time we rented them, and were completely blown away.

Having said all that, the aggregate of critics' opinions doesn't necessarily mean you will or won't like a work. And you can like "bad" works -- which we all do -- without shame. (I just rewatched Bakshi's "Wizards" while making dinner the other night and it doesn't hold up. I love it anyway.) It's not a negative reflection on you if you like something the critics don't, and you absolutely don't need to get angry and defensive when that happens. Just enjoy your thing.

I don't know if that is popular or not, but I would definitely disagree. I think when you watch movies over and over again, you start to value different things about them than a person who is going less often. I am no critic but I spent several years on my podcast watching wuxia movies every week (and had been watching a ton of them for years prior as well: having probably a little over 300 DVDs). While that gave me a lot of insight into tropes, trends, what was drawing influence on what, etc, I still had a lot of blindspots. Culturally there were things that would be difficult for me to fully understand or realize (that might take time for me to grasp or be process of understanding, misunderstanding, etc). But that aside, the bigger issue is when you are that deep into viewing like that you are paying attention to nuances that most other people probably don't care about, and your metric of what makes a good film (in my case what makes a good wuxia or martial arts film) is going to be different than a lot of people. I had to start adding more caveats to my recommendations because people would take a recommend as 'this movie is good' and not realize I thought it was good because of a whole context of things about the genre I had in mind (and they might be disappointed as a result).

With critics I don't think they should be dismissed but I do think these wide discrepancies between audience and critic scores are notable and often reflect things like class lines (people who are critics are more likely to have gone to college for example, and more likely to have a master's degree, and film critics are more likely to know the language of film criticism).

I will say, I agree Ex Machina is a great movie. And I often like critically acclaimed movies. But I know I have seen a number of films with over 70% critic scores I thought were terrible or boring. And I can recall quite a few praised by critics over my life that aged horribly. A lot of what critics are doing is just forming a consensus that probably has as much to do with them being in the same cultural space as one another, as with the quality itself. And a lot of the genres I think are amazing (horror and martial arts films) have long been looked down upon by critics (I think without very good reason). When it comes to professional critics, I think it is better to take them case by case, rather than as a group. I look for critics who are good at giving their honest reaction to what they experienced in the theater, because a lot of critics seem to be searching for the smartest opinion on a given film rather than just their real reaction to it

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I assume this isn't unpopular, but it fits the adaptation thing. "The Incredibles" is the greatest "Fantastic Four" adaptation that will ever be made.

If I were Kevin Fiege, beating the Incredibles would absolutely be the bar I'd set for myself. It's going to be a challenge.

 

[Emberashh]

Somehow, you have not just managed to insult Kubrick, but Peter Sellers.

....I have no words for this.

I don't think its a coincidence the funniest a Kubrick movie has ever been for me is when someone else was doing the funny. (R. Lee Ermy)