When I was younger, I didn't pay much attention to critics. I usually chose movies based on what sounded appealing to me. On the rare occasion, I'd listen to what Siskel and Ebert had to say. I appreciated both of them, but resonated more with Siskel.
Years back, I was introduced to Rotten Tomatoes. Although the site deals with averages, it is informative. It was only when I watched the movie "Bright" on Netflix, and then checked in out on Rotten Tomatoes, did I start to see the division between critics and audiences. Sometimes they see eye-to-eye, but too often, there is major disagreement. This couldn't be more true than with "Bright". On Rotten Tomatoes, "Bright" currently stands at 27% critic score and a 83% audience score. Personally, I loved the movie, and I'm angry at Will Smith for getting the sequel cancelled with his Oscar antics. I thought "Bright" approached race relations in an original and inventive way.
On the rare occasions, I'll agree with critics in these polarized opinions - such as with "Ghost Busters: Afterlife" - but I usually agree with the audience opinions. One thing I've noticed, is that critics tend to favour more idealistic character and story development, where a general audience tend to favour more naturalistic character and story development. Idealism vs naturalism is a conflict that has raged on since the dawn of civilization. It's not all that dangerous in movie preferences, thank goodness, but it's an interesting pattern to notice.
There could be countless reasons for why critic and audience opinions differ, including flaws in the rating systems behind Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and other rating sites. Why do you believe there is such a gap between critics and audiences on certain films, and why they are in agreement on other types of films?
3 people like this
Kiril:
Haha! It seems like persistence pays off. Personally, I get bored easily and have never submitted the same script to the same contest or festival twice. Nevertheless, I've seen many screenwriters flog the same one or two scripts for several years.
1 person likes this
Uncle Phil - conversely a few years back my script won at both Blue Cat & Moondance so when a new/start up contest appeared in some dinky little town over in Idaho and they ask for submissions, I deci...
Expand commentUncle Phil - conversely a few years back my script won at both Blue Cat & Moondance so when a new/start up contest appeared in some dinky little town over in Idaho and they ask for submissions, I decided to enter that script - thinking of it as a learning experience for their readers... never even made the cut.
1 person likes this
Doug: It boggles the mind sometimes. I've done tons of festivals and contests and have been blessed with a lot of affirmation. However, I've known few screenwriters who have seen any benefits from contests.
1 person likes this
Hardy, I think paid fellowships are more guarantee of a career than winning contests.
1 person likes this
I did bloodlist again (for free) this year, but with a short story....next year might be my first year's entry script (now proofread) and year beyond this short story, but as I script...high quality (filmable) concept is what's hard to find, forms and rewrites are just a finesse...