Critic A.O. Scott: Modern Fan Culture Harmful to Art and Movies

[WebLurker]

I mean… Star Wars: The Last Jedi has no heart and no brain for anyone who doesn’t share its specific preferences and biases; if you don’t already prefer self-centered insular protagonists over more empathetic and aware protagonists, or if you don’t wish to mock war films and sci fi shows you haven’t paid much attention to, or if you don’t have some white dude privilege going on… than what Rian Johnson and some professional critics regarded as an incisive, inspirational and relatable examination of Star Wars will in fact be a myopic, jaded, downright anti-intellectual film with strong sexist and racist tones and horrible narrative structure, making commentary it’s too ignorant to think through or properly analyze.

…And I think that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is just the most prominent of these kind of “professionals who have to watch everything and need a break every now and then” reviewers and “gifted amateurs who know what they’re talking about here” fans.

Dunno if it's that kind of movie, but it's certainly one of the most misunderstood installments in its franchise.

[Zauriel]

I agree with some posters that fans in general are getting worse and worse.

Welcome to the dark side of fandom.

[inisideguy]

I dont think film reviewers are a whole heck of a lot different than any type of critics. I know there are various alums the rolling stone absolutely panned back in the day. Led Zeppelin 1 probably the most famous but not even close to the only ones that turned out to be classics.

[Agent Z]

Movie critics themselves are just as toxic. If not more so than any fandom. They wanna be the taste makers of our society and decide which movies should actually exist or not. When I was coming up nobody gave a eff about a movie critic. Now they're so powerful they can sink a movie with negative reviews. It's sad and pathetic but hey they're the victims...whatevs.

This is not remotely a new thing. Or did you think negative reviews have never affected a movie before now?

[Agent Z]

Yes this is a problem with some fandom. We see it even here. But it's just as easy to ignore what these people say. No one says you must engage with people on the internet.

I feel this advise is easier to offer when it isn't you on the receiving end of such behavior. And it still doesn't fix the problem of fans being hostile and anti-intellectual.

[CliffHanger2]

This is not remotely a new thing. Or did you think negative reviews have never affected a movie before now?

Maybe they did have an affect but not like now. Or maybe you've never heard of movies like Scarface which critics hated. But became a cult classic that pushed Al Pacino's career. And was a top box-office rated R movie. Oh critics get it now. It took their lame-asses decades to catch up with "anti-intellectuals" who got it on the first run. Or even Blade Runner another movie that got mixed reviews when it first came out. But again it took critics years to catch up. So yeah...critics...

[CliffHanger2]

I feel this advise is easier to offer when it isn't you on the receiving end of such behavior. And it still doesn't fix the problem of fans being hostile and anti-intellectual.

But movie critics are hostile themselves. So they get that energy back they put out there. Arts and Entertainment don't have to be "intellectual" to be great. That's day one **** any critic of performing or visual arts should know. Heck any real Intellectual knows that. These ppl aren't intellectuals they're just critics. And mostly bias at that.

[Thezmage]

99% of the time when somebody says this sort of thing, when you look into it it turns out that they're either talking about being corrected when they've said something inaccurate or they've said deliberately inflammatory things and got shocked that people responded like they just said something inflammatory

[Agent Z]

Maybe they did have an affect but not like now. Or maybe you've never heard of movies like Scarface which critics hated. But became a cult classic that pushed Al Pacino's career. And was a top box-office rated R movie. Oh critics get it now. It took their lame-asses decades to catch up with "anti-intellectuals" who got it on the first run. Or even Blade Runner another movie that got mixed reviews when it first came out. But again it took critics years to catch up. So yeah...critics...

Those were exceptions, not the rule. Most of the time, a movie that is hated by critics is equally hated by audiences.

But movie critics are hostile themselves. So they get that energy back they put out there. Arts and Entertainment don't have to be "intellectual" to be great. That's day one **** any critic of performing or visual arts should know. Heck any real Intellectual knows that. These ppl aren't intellectuals they're just critics. And mostly bias at that.

Some critics do take it too far, I will admit that. However, most are just people doing a job.

99% of the time when somebody says this sort of thing, when you look into it it turns out that they're either talking about being corrected when they've said something inaccurate or they've said deliberately inflammatory things and got shocked that people responded like they just said something inflammatory

Sorry, who are you referring to with this?

[Kirby101]

I feel this advise is easier to offer when it isn't you on the receiving end of such behavior. And it still doesn't fix the problem of fans being hostile and anti-intellectual.

Unless the NY Times insists it's critics respond to public comments made after a review, Scott did not have to engage or even read what was said.
It is ironic that a critic is having trouble with what people say about his work.

[Thezmage]

Sorry, who are you referring to with this?

Most of the critics who complain about fan backlash

[Scott Taylor]

Well we all know that a certain mob mentality can ensue but also what has been happening a lot is an "us versus them" mentality. We hear about Rotten Tomatoes scores, for instance, but there is often a big disparity between what critics have to say and what the audience score has to say. The "us versus them" thing is real and I have felt it myself, many times.

So I guess if we are talking about mob mentalities then my point of view is that there are two mobs involved here - the critics and the fans. Scott's article even reflects this, its worded like he is a survivor of an undead apocalypse and is ready to go into hiding. Its an attitude that does not serve the critic well, if he's claiming to be above the fray in some way.

[Zero Hunter]

Movie critics themselves are just as toxic. If not more so than any fandom. They wanna be the taste makers of our society and decide which movies should actually exist or not. When I was coming up nobody gave a eff about a movie critic. Now they're so powerful they can sink a movie with negative reviews. It's sad and pathetic but hey they're the victims...whatevs.

Any Critic who has been doing it for more than 5 or 10 years are useless. They see so many movies they get jaded. Every single one of them. That is why you always see them fall in love with some weird indy flicks that makes no sense to most people because all they want is something different. It doesn't have to be good just different and they fawn all over it. It is the same with Music or Tv critics. They all get burned out and jaded and start looking for the fringes of entertainment.

[CliffHanger2]

Any Critic who has been doing it for more than 5 or 10 years are useless. They see so many movies they get jaded. Every single one of them. That is why you always see them fall in love with some weird indy flicks that makes no sense to most people because all they want is something different. It doesn't have to be good just different and they fawn all over it. It is the same with Music or Tv critics. They all get burned out and jaded and start looking for the fringes of entertainment.

Agreed and it just gets annoying hearing these burn outs complain so much.

[Mister Mets]

There are a few further threads with this discussion, although it's not limited to film criticism, and applies easily to video games or anything else.

Society has become much more niche-ified. There isn't much a of a monoculture anymore, or an idea of shared references. You may very well have audiences looking for very different things, so it's hard to have one major discussion.

Some people view fandom as an identity, so a criticism of the thing they like can not be evaluated on its own merits. On the flipside, there are others whose identity is wrapped up in being against certain things, who take it personally if the work is well-regarded.

In a lot of discussion on culture, there seems to be a discomfort in talking about quality, to avoid insulting anyone else by suggesting the thing they like is bad. The loophole is to talk about things that seem to be measured objectively to hint that this is why a work is worthwhile. There may be claims that particular movies appeal to an audience that doesn't always feel seen, or raise important issues, or that they're harmful for some reason, which neglects the important question of whether it's entertaining. So much of the discussion is people less informed that the typical political columnist getting an excuse to do op-eds.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/whats-wrong-with-the-media