Should film critics try to tune in to pop culture?
Steve Safran March 16th, 2007
Peter Bart at Variety notes that there is a huge disconnect this year between favorably reviewed movies and successful box office hits. (This is new?) The new movie “300,” for example, is getting widely panned yet is a success. Ditto “Ghost Rider,” “Night at the Museum,” (Which the LR Spouse and LR Offspring loved), “Wild Hogs” and “Norbit.” Bart asks “If the established media want to stay relevant, should their critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?” I ask “Why do we bother with reviewers when we could have tons of people seeing movies and have their thoughts aggregated and summarized?” I care what one film snob thinks? Also - we’re about to get whacked with a snowstorm this weekend in New England. Movie receipts will be down. Imagine how “300″ could recoup that if the studio announced it was putting it on Pay-Per-View. (Check out Variety’s interactive box office chart.)
14 Comments Add your own
1. saundra | March 16th, 2007 at 6:18 am
That’s sorta what CNET’s metaCritic site does now, only with an emphasis on their composite “professional” reviewers score. They also offer a rating done by movie-goers (as well as gamers, readers and music-lovers).
It’s interesting when a flick that’s universally panned by critics appeals to the public. You’d think SOME of the pros would be in touch with Average Joe. It works both ways, too. I’ve come out of a theatre really PO’d that I wasted my money on a critical darling that failed to connect.
2. saundra | March 16th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Not to go on and on about metacritic… but I checked and their ratings bear out what you’re saying…
Critics gave “300″ mixed reviews while metacritic users give it a favorable rating… Wild Hogs gets an unfavorable rating from critics while users give it a green light… And users agree with your wife and kids about Night at the Museum, while the critics red-lighted it. The only problem is that only the critics’ rankings appear on the main page lists.. to get the composite vote of movie-goers, you have to click the individual movie title. Still the best site I’ve found for aggregating flick reviews.
3. The Tony | March 16th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Successful doesn’t mean good. Unsuccessful doesn’t mean bad.
Like what you want, hate what you want.
Just leave me out of it.
Please, PLEASE…don’t start some damn web channel thing devoted to your “modern extreme” movie reviews or anything.
Oh, wait. This is Lost Remote.
I mean. PLEASE, start a web channel for modern, extrme movie reviews! I love niches! YES!!!!! MORE!!!!!!! THE FUTURE IS NOW! MYSPACE MOVIE REVIEWS, COMING SOON!
4. Charles | March 16th, 2007 at 8:52 am
“Successful doesn’t mean good. Unsuccessful doesn’t mean bad.”
Amen!
5. El Dangeroso | March 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Richard Roeper loved “300.” People just have to be smart enough to finda critic who shares their sensibilities. Roger Ebert rarely let me down, so looking over his old reviews opened up a treasure trove of great, older movies.
Movies are expensive. Time is precious. If a critic can spare me two hours of watching paint dry, I’m grateful.
Peter Bart is probably just upset because some critic caught his godawful show, “Sunday Morning Shootout.” He and Peter Guber have the collective charisma of a walnut.
6. Peter Cogswell | March 16th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
blah blah blah attack “old media” attack “old media” attack “old media” yadda yadda snooze.
The real question is if Lost Remote wants to remain relevant should they drop the tired anti-establishment snarky attitude and look into finding a new shtick?
7. Steve Safran | March 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
We’re trying to broaden our appeal to fifth graders, if that helps.
8. curt | March 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Looks like Mr. Cogswell bought 1st class tickets for the Clueless Train.
Moron.
9. Peter Cogswell | March 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Pardon? I gotta give credit to Mr. Safran for coming up with the wittier retort.
10. Michael Gorman | March 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Sounds like one of Peter’s nerves was hit.
11. Charles | March 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I should probably add that having thousands of reviews aggretated in one place may work out well sometimes, but that might include everyone who went to see Norbit.
12. Peter Cogswell | March 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Hrm.. I have to say, I wasn’t expecting the Lost Remote community to be of the sort that doesn’t permit differing opinions or challenges to statements of any sort. Is this a media blog or did I accidentally wander into MichelleMalkin.com? But yes, you’re right, how DARE I disagree that film reviewers should base their opinions on what they think will be a boxoffice hit rather than what they think of a movie? Or have the opinion that just because YouTube has great potential as a marketing tool people shouldn’t be allowed to steal and upload entire episodes of tv shows without permission of any sort and that the “old media” companies are acting perfectly within reason when they try to put a stop to that. And not thinking that every newspaper in existence that hasn’t designed and implemented a website with the latest and most up to date everything you can think of isn’t destined to vanish in the immediate future. What a fool I am for willing to debate such things. Yes, indeed, I am a “moron” who just hopped off the “clueless train” and had my, um, “nerves touched”. I’ll be quiet now and let the elite do their thing without being troubled by the likes of me.
13. Safran | March 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
And here I will jump in as I do occasionally when things become disrespectful.
There are a certain number of new folks commenting here at LR. Messrs. Cogswell and The Tony especially. First I want to welcome you. It’s terrific to hear new voices here. You are welcome to our conversation and we love to hear viewpoints - especially those who challenge our notions. (Just ask Tyndall and Baker.)
We don’t censor for opinion here. We defend ourselves, yes. We can even take the odd name calling. And some times I’ve changed my position based upon feedback. (Ask Andy L.)
So for those who respond to these and other posters, please understand a simple rule of thumb: it is not our mission to support name-calling. We don’t take down comments here, except in extreme cases. You are the community. You police yourselves. But we will not tolerate the name-calling of others. We have one and only one request here: respect.
It has long been an irritant of mine here that people hide behind the anonymity of the web in order to boost their own bravado. That’s nonsense and anti-journalism, but I’ve come to accept that’s part of the conversation.
LR is a living room. I ask you treat it as such. Have a great conversation. Let things get spririted. Even throw some jabs my way - I can handle them. But you don’t go calling strangers names at our party and you don’t do so at LR. There are plenty of news-related sites for that sort of ill-tempered nonsense.
I appreciate Cogswell’s challenge of my assumptions and, as you see, I can take it. (I wouldn’t mind a little less sarcasm thrown our way, but that’s hardly a problem we can’t handle.) I prefer constructive opinion and thought.
But unless people are constantly negative and get in the way of good conversation, I never want people to feel as though they can’t contribute thought here. Those kinds of folks have a habit of fading away anyway.
By the same token, those who contribute may want to consider the spirit in which they do so. We do, after all, have the mission here of improving the state of online journalism. Do we take issue with the status quo? You bet. But this is Cory’s blog and that’s his mission statement.
There are lots of other places to go for lots of different POVs. You want a site that talks about how everything’s great in broadcasting? There are plenty. We disagree. It’s not an us vs. them thing, either. We are “them.” We want everyone to improve.
So, kindly, allow those with different points of view. And those who want to challenge LR - PLEASE do so. All we ask is to keep it respectful. No ad hominem attacks, no non-productive bickering, and no anti-Red Sox slurs. THAT I will censor, so help me.
14. Peter Cogswell | March 17th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Ah, well thank you Mr. Safran for the response. For a moment there I almost assumed I had this blog all wrong. I’m not quite a “newbie” to LR, I’ve been reading your blog for many months now so please don’t misinterpret my smart ass remarks as claims that you are a bunch of jerks who don’t know what you’re talking about. If I figured that was the case I wouldn’t frequent your site like I do. I simply disagree with many of your opinions and I was surprised by the harsh responses I got when I spoke up (yes I may have been sarcastic in my tone but what can ya do?). I certainly don’t think “everything’s great in broadcasting”, and that’s not what I was trying to imply. I just don’t think everything’s wrong in broadcasting, and I feel that you LR people sometimes jump the gun on pressing the “old media”, as it seems to be frequently called around here, to make changes that I don’t think necessarily need to be made. I didn’t expect you or Cory or any of the LR hosts to respond to me, as you seem to be busy people, but I figured I might get a clever response or two from the regular posters with their funny attitudes, not the vindictive posts from people who seem far too sensitive to my opinons that I was met with. In any case, I’m going to continue following you guys since you often have interesting things to say, but since I’m not really one for the message board fights with internet strangers I’ll probably resist the urge to confront you on your ideas from now on to save myself and others with too much time on their hands some energy. Nice to speak with you though.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed