Quote:
Originally Posted by Yodaking
One, I do think that some of them feel threatened by the fact that it was a ~$90 million Netflix movie not released to a theater. They make their living on the established Hollywood film studio to theater system that has been a fixture in American pop culture for the last 70 years or so. Change can be hard to accept, especially when your career, and possibly identity, are so closely tied to the status quo. I can understand their nervousness too. If Netflix can produce and release a steady stream of good big studio films directly to everyone's home where they can immedietly watch it without buying a ticket, what do people need the critic's opinion for?
|
This makes no sense. Zero. Just the opposite, in fact: the more content is out there, the more valuable a critic can be. You'd have to be an idiot not to see this, as a critic, and I don't think they (for the most part) are idiots. More content = more stuff to write about, and a thicker jungle of material through which I might guide those who are interested in my opinion. More Netflix movies, more tv shows, the better for me as a guy who gets to write about all that stuff.
Remember Baywatch? Or The Emoji Movie? Both got panned by the critics; both were successful at the box office. That's ok. Sometimes audiences are looking for one thing, and critics are looking at another.
You don't have to agree with "critics" for every film, or even for any film. But if I'm a critic, I *love* that there's more content out there. If I'm a critic, I likely wrote unkind reviews about several movies that went on to be successful, and I don't care. I'm not the enemy of the movie or the enemy of the audience; I'm just a guy (or woman) writing what I thought about a piece of art, to share my experience of viewing it.
Pretty much every person is just trying to do his or her job, as you are trying to do yours. No need to attach sinister motivations to something, just because it doesn't match the way you imagine it might have been done differently.