tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7877371347086447490.post7191739488038321076..comments2024-03-28T20:37:08.491+11:00Comments on The Audient: A year out of synchDerek Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13750747272647975591noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7877371347086447490.post-28545969903737893042010-02-06T04:14:46.553+11:002010-02-06T04:14:46.553+11:00True on Metactric. I was actually going to mention...True on Metactric. I was actually going to mention Rotten Tomatoes in yesterday's post, and why I had chosen Metacritic over Rotten Tomatoes. They measure slightly different things yet, remarkably, come up with very similar scores. RT is simply the number of "fresh" scores relative to the number of "rotten" scores -- in other words, how many thumbs up/thumbs down a film gets. I guess it's probably a little more subtle than that -- a critic may give a film a "rotten" and not actually consider it a bad film, they may just think it's not a "fresh" film. In any case, the result we always reach is that it's flawed to try to find an objective system for which films are good and which are bad -- and so we come back to the strange reality that a good film critic is pretty much just someone who writes well and happens to like movies.Derek Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750747272647975591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7877371347086447490.post-37941515702260280552010-02-06T02:42:43.817+11:002010-02-06T02:42:43.817+11:00The thing I don’t like about Metacritic is that th...The thing I don’t like about Metacritic is that the scores don’t give you an indication of that singular championing voice for any particular film. Whether it be Michael Phillips adding Me and Orson Welles to his top 10 for 2009, Roger Ebert’s similarly outlandish endorsement of Knowing (showing a Chicago bias here, sorry), or your love of Away We Go and Education of Charlie Banks, a good critic putting him or herself on the line to recommend an under-seen or under-appreciated flick is what makes criticism so engaging. When you smooth it out to a single score (and I know you can dig and read the different individual scores, but I don’t always do that on Metacritic) you lose the purpose of reading and following reviews. There are countless critics out there, and most of them have their own opinions and tastes (unless they are Ben Lyons) – why else would we want to read them? It’s important, therefore, to know who you trust and who’s opinion you respect the most. Its OK to disagree with them, film is art afterall, but the point is that you like HOW they see the art form and trust them to formulate solid opinions about the art form. I have about six critics nationwide right now who’s opinions I respect. Six out of thousands (granted, there are probably more than six viable critics out there, I just haven’t and don’t care to seek them out). But Metacritic surveys hundreds of critics and therefore, its only natural then that the score produced by Metacritic is going to give you a bland / middle of the road / uninformed / mainstream opinion…just like the Oscars. The Mainstream doesn’t care about one odd film that one nerdy guy in Chicago swears is 50+ places better Avatar…it just cares about Avatar, and unfortunately there are many critics who write to their audience, and want to tell their audience that what they want to hear. So films like Avatar get a 84 on Metacritic and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans gets a 69. <br /><br />Anyway, it’s a worthwhile exercise to see how your favorite films of last or of any year stack up against the Metacritic scores, but its also important not to let those compromised scores ever cause you pause. And so even though you’re completely wrong about at least two of your top 10, its good and important that you stick to your guns and champion them anyway. I may hate Charlie Banks, but I sure am glad that I read someone who likes it.Don Handsomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04448844952916507647noreply@blogger.com