Overrated/Underrated Geek Media

[Bedrockgames]

I'll reply to some of the rest later, but this is a good example of the kind of problem I'm pointing to - "audiences" don't have anything to say, because they're made of individuals, who have things to say, but very few of them choose to say much - usually only ones with with extreme opinions re: the film's quality, unless you get someone out there to actually survey them. Anything which is self-selecting though will grab a very strange portion of the audience, not the audience as a whole.

I don't think this is true at all. I think audience members have a great deal to say. An important feature of water cooler talk is all about what people have to say to one another about movies and shows they are watching. Even pre-internet, the media would often try to capture and sum up what audiences thought. And I think it is possibly the most important reaction to consider. Art doesn't just exist for the art and the critics, it exists for the audience

But now we can get a much better sense of what audiences are thinking. It is pretty routine for websites like RT to have audience scores. But even without those, you can get a sense of peoples opinions by asking around, seeing what people are writing online, etc. Obviously more concrete data would be helpful, but this information is also out there. And we also can have some sense of what the audience thinks just by the fact that something was successful or a box office bomb.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Indeed, the entire idea of the "audience as a whole" is questionable, given many films are divisive in various ways.

That is a valid. I am not saying audiences are monolithic. But I think you can speak in general terms about whether people liked something, what they generally thought, and you can also break down things by fandoms.

Hell, look no further than the Minecraft movie - kids of a certain age will probably think, unironically, that it's amazing. Kids who are a bit older will think that it's bad-but-amazing with a degree of irony. A lot of adults will think its pure crap, but tolerate it for the sake of their kids.

This is another excellent point. I must admit I keep thinking this is about that old game on the computer where you tried to clear mines one by one, so I don't have any understanding of what this movie is about. But I think what you are doing is exactly what we should do when we talk about movies and how they appeal to different groups. I love kung fu, wuxia and HK action movies. If I want to talk about a movie like Chor Yuen's Heroes Shed No Tears, most people are going to think it is a corny 70s chop socky film. But if you start getting into he fandom, then you will start seeing a split based on what subgenres people like (wuxia fans are probably going to have a much higher estimation of the movie than people who are really into the kung fu craze, and among wuxia fans it is generally pretty well esteemed....but if I showed it to someone with no knowledge of the genre, they might think it is junk, if I showed it to a critic who only has passing awareness of the genre, they might think it is junk as well). And that is just a random example, I am not saying that is exactly how that particular film would pan out across fandoms.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But I think you can speak in general terms about whether people liked something, what they generally thought

I think this is precisely where it gets dangerous though.

People often have wildly incorrect ideas about what audiences "generally thought", because they tend to project their own ideas on to the audience.

The less critically they think about the movie, the more likely they are to do this, too. This is why I suggest expert critics tend to be better at guessing the success/popularity of a movie than rando-type critics or actual randos - even if they don't like a movie, they may well know it is going to be a big hit (again, Minecraft is a great example - it's basically a 2/5 movie for a lot of people, but it's going to be a huge hit because it taps into a specific vein of meme-y youth culture).

And sites like RT often don't offer great insights into audience opinions as they tend to get only "motivated" people coming to like/dislike a movie (and are also vulnerable to review bombing by people who haven't seen a movie), and aside from review bombing, positivity to a movie seems to motivate people more than negativity - it's not uncommon to see a movie get an 60-80% or even higher audience score and then be a complete flop more in like with its 20-40% critic score (the old CinemaScore grading system, which actually forced audiences to grade movies, not just motivated ones, tended to map to movie success more closely, but we still saw some movies which audiences liked flop and so on).

If I want to talk about a movie like Chor Yuen's Heroes Shed No Tears, most people are going to think it is a corny 70s chop socky film.

This sort of thing is often pretty good at splitting really good critics from semi-competent ones, in that good critics will recognise this is a movie that they perhaps don't understand, and will express that, whereas worse critics will think "bad movie" and not even consider their own incomprehension.

I often mock the British movie critic Barry Norman for reacting to I think one of John Woo's better films (possibly even Hard Boiled) by saying "It's almost as if the violence is choreographed, a dance" or something like that, which he seemed to intend as a critique, and my reaction was to think "What do you think a 'fight choreographer' does, Barry?", but to be fair to him, I do also recall that he at least admitted a general incomprehension of the film, and whilst he didn't like it, he did seem to allow that maybe he just wasn't getting it (indeed he was not). That's because whilst he wasn't the sharpest pencil, he was at least quite thoughtful as a critic, and operated as an actual critic, not just an opinion-man.

I suspect many of the critics you watch on YouTube also operate as fairly expert critics within those genres.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I suspect many of the critics you watch on YouTube also operate as fairly expert critics within those genres.

It varies. Some do. But other times i like getting the opinions of non-genre fan. And I also watch movie YouTube channels for a variety of reasons. Sometimes I just want to hear an individual's take for instance. I watch both for being informed and for entertainment value. I also just want to get a sense of what people think after I have written my own review, so I will type the movie name in and see what comes up or go to channels I know. And if it is a mainstream movie I will usually google a siskel and ebert review of it on youtube because those are usually on there (and I find that just interesting from a time capsule perspective: I will do this with other critics as well if it is there to find). I've also found it interesting to look at old news coverage of movies coming out because that is also sometimes on youtube as well (or you may find some really old late night appearances).

Another thing I like finding on youtube is interviews with directors and actors, and panels. I find many times that panels where the audience can directly engage someone like William Friedkin is pretty interesting. And finding similar things like interviews with both Friedkin and Blatty were of equal interest (I think this one was a DVD extra that made its way onto youtube).

But I will also do things like watch reaction videos to movies. These kind of fascinate me. You have to work out how much of the reaction is for the clicks, but it is at least a window into a wide variety of reactions to a film from different people.

I just often have this urge to find as much as I can on a movie on YouTube after watching it. I will also usually look for articles on them. I buy a lot of physical media. And for me the joy of genre movies on bluray and DVD is being able to check out stuff like the commentary track and the essays they sometimes include from film historians and critics in the sleeves. I am probably not as deep on this as I was when I was younger (I remember spending a whole month listening to the audio commentary and rewatching movies when I was in my 20s for example, usually some old martial arts movie or something)

 

[Bohandas]

I think this is precisely where it gets dangerous though.

People often have wildly incorrect ideas about what audiences "generally thought", because they tend to project their own ideas on to the audience.

The less critically they think about the movie, the more likely they are to do this, too. This is why I suggest expert critics tend to be better at guessing the success/popularity of a movie than rando-type critics or actual randos - even if they don't like a movie, they may well know it is going to be a big hit (again, Minecraft is a great example - it's basically a 2/5 movie for a lot of people, but it's going to be a huge hit because it taps into a specific vein of meme-y youth culture).

And sites like RT often don't offer great insights into audience opinions as they tend to get only "motivated" people coming to like/dislike a movie (and are also vulnerable to review bombing by people who haven't seen a movie), and aside from review bombing, positivity to a movie seems to motivate people more than negativity - it's not uncommon to see a movie get an 60-80% or even higher audience score and then be a complete flop more in like with its 20-40% critic score (the old CinemaScore grading system, which actually forced audiences to grade movies, not just motivated ones, tended to map to movie success more closely, but we still saw some movies which audiences liked flop and so on).


This sort of thing is often pretty good at splitting really good critics from semi-competent ones, in that good critics will recognise this is a movie that they perhaps don't understand, and will express that, whereas worse critics will think "bad movie" and not even consider their own incomprehension.

I often mock the British movie critic Barry Norman for reacting to I think one of John Woo's better films (possibly even Hard Boiled) by saying "It's almost as if the violence is choreographed, a dance" or something like that, which he seemed to intend as a critique, and my reaction was to think "What do you think a 'fight choreographer' does, Barry?"

I think that the point may be that it's not supposed to look choreographed, just props aren't supposed to look cardboard or styrofoam and monsters aren't supposed to look like guys in rubber suits (unless the film is a spoof or it's going for some kind or weird minimalism like you see in some stage plays)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think that the point may be that it's not supposed to look choreographed, just props aren't supposed to look cardboard or styrofoam and monsters aren't supposed to look like guys in rubber suits (unless the film is a spoof or it's going for some kind or weird minimalism like you see in some stage plays)

I don't know Barry Norman so I am unsure how to read his writing, but this is kind of how it sounded to me. That said, this is a style of cinema that does look more dance-like and choreographed intentionally. I will say I have noticed a divide between certain kinds of kung fu critics. This has less to do with John Woo movies and more to do with Kung Fu versus Wuxia (which we used to just call wire-fu and flying swordsman). Just as an example, I was watching New Dragon Inn on dvd or blu-ray and they had two prominent critics doing audio commentary. One of them was being kind of critical of the film because he didn't like 'the flying swordsman thing' and he wanted more grounded kung fu. It was a bit unfair, and new dragon inn was a classic, but if it is his opinion, it is his opinion. But I was left wondering why they had someone do commentary who didn't seem to like the action style that the movie was designed around

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't know Barry Norman

He used to make great pickled onions.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Underrated: Text.
I see lots of geeking out over movies, TV, comic books, and even audiobooks, but give me printed words to read.

 

[payn]

Underrated: Text.
I see lots of geeking out over movies, TV, comic books, and even audiobooks, but give me printed words to read.

Maybe you are on to something.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And sites like RT often don't offer great insights into audience opinions as they tend to get only "motivated" people coming to like/dislike a movie (and are also vulnerable to review bombing by people who haven't seen a movie), and aside from review bombing, positivity to a movie seems to motivate people more than negativity - it's not uncommon to see a movie get an 60-80% or even higher audience score and then be a complete flop more in like with its 20-40% critic score (the old CinemaScore grading system, which actually forced audiences to grade movies, not just motivated ones, tended to map to movie success more closely, but we still saw some movies which audiences liked flop and so on).

I do think these platforms are getting better at weeding out these problems, but things like review bombing as a concept are also often used to discount audience opinion