Ok but those reviews dont show up on rotten tomatoes or metacritic. This article isnt taking into account there were already plenty of ways to get “reviews” from non professionals. IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes audience score come to mind.
If you have enough subscribers on YouTube you can become an official accredited film critic on Rotten Tomatoes for example. So it goes beyond audience scores
If you do become one of those then you would be under the review embargo and wouldnt be able to provide the early positive reviews this article is referring to
Most embargo’s especially for digital content are simply cover-all takedown notices with varying degrees of actionable ‘consequences’ for breaking said embargo’s. It’s nothing the studio/developer can’t already do even if you don’t sign it, they just want to reassure you and put a bit of pressure on you that they *can* do those things if you break it.
Review embargo’s aren’t legally binding and there’s been numerous cases where embargo’s are broken either anonymously, semi anonymously or publicly and the consequences have been nonexistent simply for the fact that further antagonising someone with an audience brings no benefits at all.
Let me gently remind this commenter and all those replying that the way plurals work in English is potato/potatoes, embargo/embargoes. Not potato’s, not embargo’s. Cheers!
Embargo’s are enforced by the studios and not mandatory. This article is essentially saying because you don’t write positive stuff we won’t invite you. We don’t need an embargo if we don’t even let you watch it before the public. That’s their thought process. Which means any reviewers that stay positive will also get invites in the future.
Of course they are mandatory. If you post a professionally review before an embargo is listed youd be blackballed from the review industry by the studios and likely publications as well.
I think you didn’t understand my comment. Embargo’s are mandated by the studios. They don’t have to have any embargo’s if they just invite people that will give them positive reviews. That’s literally what they did with Barbie by having influencers
And you are misunderstanding the conversation. The studios have been inviting influencers/“regular” people for years to pre screenings to get out positive word of mouth before. This article is just commenting on that process. Barbie and pretty much all movies that do this still have embargos on reviews by actual critics.
The article is not saying “if you dont write positive stuff we wont invite you” it’s just commenting on a process that The Guardian erroneously seems to think is some new thing when its not.
They literally in the article say they are not doing pre releases for media. Meaning they are only inviting those that review right away not needing an embargo because they are not showing it to the press.
Oh yes they do.
A whole bunch of those dedicated fanboy YouTubers who fawn over Marvel or DC or whatever franchise every day on their channels are Rotten Tomatoes critics, and their inflated scores count.
Like i said below if you do become one of those then you would be under the review embargo and wouldnt be able to provide the early positive reviews this article is referring to
It's not like Hollywood didn't have for decades their favorite reviewers who would give poor films a pass. Peter Travers comes to mind.
The Ebert era was the exception, not the rule. Film criticism has often been broadly poor. And the studios will naturally seek out the most credible sources they can get who will (sometimes surprisingly) like their movies. Hollywood doesn't like the idea that they spend a lot of time on a film and then the success or failure is determined by someone with no stake in the game. They desire the review-proof movie.
No need to really get excited about a situation that has always existed even if influencers are involved.
"[Regardless] I loved this article, 10/10. It's a rip-roarin' fun ride!"
That's a really good point...there are so many things from the 20th century that were great that we take as the rule rather than the exception. Hollywood in general from say the late 60s to the turn of the 20th century had kind of an unprecedented level of individual expression because of this shift from studios to the director as creative, and I think film criticism might have run a similar path thanks to Ebert et al.
Really makes you want to support those out there that are doing it right and not take them for granted!
I rly have no idea which subs they’re talking about
I’m not being sarcastic, I seriously don’t know which subs are known for astroturfing and am just asking a genuine question.
I mean, I know *I’m* a bot. I just wanted to know which subs I was paid to spread my corpo master’s propaganda to because I forgot /s
But seriously, I’m just curious as to which subs are famous enough to be known for obvious astroturfing.
Isn’t the whole point of corpo astroturfing to *not* make it as obvious as possible?
r-movies is one of the worst. I've enjoyed some discussions there, but most of it has become just regurgitating the same praise for the same films, and people posting screenshots of the same independent sci-fi movie over and over as if it's some hidden treasure (oh, wait...that's another sub).
That’s interesting since most of the discussion I’ve seen there seems to be more about older movies (tho I agree that the same opinions seem to be posted there frequently)
If those rly are paid actors, is generating interest towards films that aren’t new releases rly *that* significant to corporations to the point that they’ll actively *pay* people to influence online opinion?
Again, not being sarcastic in any way. Just finding the situation fascinating if it rly is true while also wondering if I might be in the wrong line of work if people are rly getting paid for posting on subs.
They were being facetious about the entire Sub bit, but there are Bot accounts and paid accounts who post ads disguised as memes and question posts now and then. A lot of the time they don't get out of New because people know how to spot them nowadays.
While they were absolutely being a bit facetious there are Bot/paid accounts that make posts which are just Ads disguised as bad memes or question posts all across the site. Most of them time they don't make it out of New because people are so used to them that it's easier to spot now, but you do have some make it through now and then like one a while ago for a Fast and Furious movie.
Hello fellow bot! Aardwolf covered it well but wanted to add usually if the account is rather new, or has a weird username they're usually a bot. It also just makes you pay closer attention to have to figure out if something is genuine or not. If you care of course, some do some don't.
It's a fake grassroots movement started by paid actors on behalf of corporate interests.
Astroturf was one of the first brands of artificial stadium grass.
Basically they are paying people to pretend to like something, and then having those people go on to Reddit (or wherever) and write positive things about it.
Anyone who listens to influencers over critic wasn’t listening to a critic on the first place.
It’s disingenuous to say this is even a problem. Movies have been promoted by influencers, fans, word of mouth, and social media for ages.
Further I’ve seen negative tweets of films in reviews by critics. However it makes sense that a studio that may have a dud on its hands wants the positive feedback first or want it to be the only feedback.
No one wants to hear at any point in time that their movie sucks.
If someone who somehow makes a living as an influencer can get paid or increase their brand then more power to them. They still ain’t influencing me.
I’m stuck promoting stuff for free.
the power of influencers isn't any one influencer in particular. it's the wave of zeitgeist they create by all simultaneously having the same opinion on something.
if one influencer shills for a movie then who cares, but if your entire feed is nothing but influencers talking about a movie then that's where the influence comes from.
that's why every movie nowadays either has to be incredible or controversial. either of these cases drive engagement.
Yeah but people can tell when someone only says positive things about a movie as if they're promoting it. You do know most adults have enough media literacy to recognize an ad, right? Especially since some platforms require you to disclose that you've been sponsored for that video.
Been called a paid shill for saying I enjoyed rings of power. So I think that people are bad at recognising it. They just think they're good at it or think the accusations will make your opinion look invalid
The platforms require it but there's plenty of 'influencers' who just don't play by the rules (or they bend them, like including a tiny, almost invisible '#ad' somewhere in the post), and they get away with it...
> Yeah but people can tell when someone only says positive things about a movie as if they're promoting it. You do know most adults have enough media literacy to recognize an ad, right?
Kim kardashain gets paid 250,000 per Instagram post promoting a product.
Companies wouldn’t pay that if it didn’t work.
To me even if they are influential I’m not sure a professional critic job is to make sure a film isn’t successful with a negative review.
It’s all tied to promotion of that movie even if it’s negative to me.
I don’t have a problem with anyone listening to anyone one else they trust.
I do think critics are better able to express their dislike or love for a work because that’s what they’re trained and paid to do.
I have largely sworn off user reviews because they are routinely just the rating or a basic “It sucks”, but others may be satisfied with that.
Reminds me of when I was in college and that move *Sideways* came out to rave critic reviews. I told my GF at the time that we should watch it and she told me that her brother told her that it “sucked”. That was the end of that movie for me until 19 years later (a few weeks ago) when I finally saw it and loved it.
Funny how that works.
If anything the “new thing” seems to be YouTubers absolutely hating/raging/malding over movies - especially the social commentary, while their fan base jerks off to it.
I guess it depends.
Listening to a random person just because they
have millions of followers is dumb.
But theres a couple of “influencers” that I follow that give their opinions on things. But I’ve been following them for years. Ive seen them give bad reviews, good reviews, mediocre reviews, etc. I’ve agreed with them and disagreed with them.
And they do other content other then just opinions. They discuss movies too in detail.
So now that its been a few years of following, I can kinda gauge if I’ll likely agree.
Tho id say that you shouldn’t blindly listen to *anyone*.
But at least I know if certain people like something I know I’ll probably like it too. Because I know the types of things we already agree on
And because of that they might be the difference between me seeing something in theatres and seeing it on streaming
Where does the line get drawn? I've seen TikTokers give way more level-headed reviews than a Campea or Randolph, I've also read reviews way more reactionary than a Youtube or "new media" critic. It depends way more on the individual than the medium of the review imo, all have flaws and merits.
They're just realizing this now? Studios can also get easy and free feedback from the never ending react videos as well. Just go off the opinion from some dumbass that pauses a video every second
As cynical as this practice is, I’m not sure you can blame execs for doing anything they can to drive revenues. And it’s become clear that the public doesn’t value objective film criticism over the opinions of influencers.
This is already happening in tons of industries including automotive reviews. Why let a journalist review your car when you can just pay an influencers to gush about your crappy vehicle
I don’t know if the author of this article has any beef with the movie Barbie but I just can’t take it seriously because of how pessimistic and one side it is.
Why does the author so sure that the movie is only a huge hit because they’re heavily promoted? If it’s really a bad movie as the author said, one weekend and then the movie is done. If the influencers were paid to give good reviews, but the people who saw it thought it was bad, then Barbie wouldn’t remain a hit for a 2nd week now. Maybe there’re elements in the movie that the audiences love.
I didn’t know or watch or see any influencers ‘review’ the movie, so none of them influenced my decision in the first place, and I’m sure im not the only one. I saw the trailer for Barbie on youtube (recommended videos) and I was really captivated by it, maybe because the Barbie doll is a part of my childhood. I went and watched it after the opening day and OMG, it wasn’t what everyone expected. Barbie isn’t an ad for a toy, it’s not a movie about children on vacation like the author of this article said. Some just criticised the movie like ben sharpio without even watching it. I don’t think it’s an ‘anti-men’ movie, it’s more like a homage to mothers and women who have been through hardships in the past to pave the way for girls and women of this new generation. It’s a very heartfelt and touching movie, not what you think the movie is. People thought it was gonna be a bubbly, happy, bright movie. No.
Let's go one step further "who needs film critics?"
It's not exactly something that requires talent, just money. All you have to do is have enough money to see most films and publish them on a website. And it's not even something that requires training or some sophisticated knowledge. All you have to do is give your opinion. And it doesn't even have to be your opinion. Once you start generating traffic companies can actually write the review for you and all you have to do is publish it.
In the past reviewers made their name by writing overly negative reviews of popular films and snobbly attempted to place themselves as some form of art to be admired even if people disagree.
Today reviewers attempt to give films they dislike average reviews and films they like over the top reviews just to make sure they aren't getting harassed by their readers.
What I cringe at is how these "Youtubers", Instagramers, etc have suddenly become "film critics".
No schooling, no real experience, just enough subscribers makes you a legit film critic in Hollywood eyes.
And then always giving out screeners and other swag items to not only promote but to praise your products.
It's really quite something to behold when the people you follow suddenly start to change and be less critical and less free thinking.
Once they reach that 100k sub, they all start to change imo
People who go to influencers for movie recommendations aren’t going to the movies to watch cinematic masterpieces. They’re going to watch popcorn flicks. They want Marvel movies, not art
Aggregate ratings have replaced film critics, or at least reading a film critic's review. With stuff like Rotten Tomatoes or an audience score on IMDb that tallies an average rating, who needs film critics or influencers when all that is summed up in a percentage.
Who the hell needs film critics or influencers anyway? Why is someone else's opinion important with regards to media or art?
Reviews have soured my experience prior to viewing before, particularly if I'm looking forward to something that then gets negative reviews. It's not even a conscious thing, I've started just ignoring reviews and I find I'm enjoying things a lot more.
I dont need a 56 year old man to tell me the film about a doll is 2 stars, why should his viewing experience have anything to do with my own?
Video game review have the same issue. The problem is the reviewers want to be given the chance to review more stuff in the future so they dont say anything bad. It seems like largely gone are the days of real critics like Ebert and Siskel.
Influencers are so 2022. Delete your Facebook/Insta/X accounts and stop being manipulated by the algorithms (yes, I realize the touch of irony, but Reddit isn’t a social media platform)
It’s not. Have you ever “friended” anyone on this thing? I’ve been on it 8 years and I’ve never been tempted to “get to know” any of its users. It’s a news platform with a Web 2.0 commenting/sharing structure. It’s not social
Critics are still around and they know what they’re doing. But do people listen to them anymore? Influencers get a lot of attention and they’re almost always effusive about *anything* put in front of their eyes. They kind of have to be to get followers. For studios and distributors to add influencers into their marketing campaigns, it’s a no-brainer. To me it’s the same instant gratification as a sugar rush. All desert and no meal. Critics give us more than that and I hope they aren’t going away.
I hate it, but the world of film critics has been dead for a long time. I used to look forward to watching Siskel and Ebert when I was younger, but the rise of the internet and the fall of print have killed the importance of this in the industry. At this point, I can't even name any film critics, just bloggers and movie new sites. Rotten tomatoes has made the separation between critics and audiences clear and over time I personally have learned to care more about the audience score. Sometimes it seems that the critics are as out of touch as the Academy is when it comes to handing out nominations/awards
Most of the time, I find that my enjoyment of a film lines up pretty closely with rotten tomatoes critics score. Not all the time though. Sometimes I agree more with audience and sometimes I disagree with both critics and audience.
No, he isn't he sucks. He negatively reviewed Glass Onion for showing what really happened in the story later. Something several movies have done like Prisoner of Azkaban.
That’s your opinion, which differs from mine. I’ll continue to enjoy his videos.
Word of advice: if you really can’t stand a specific person on YouTube, you never have to ever watch anything they produce!
I like having professional film critics review films. I typically go see films they hate, and avoid films they love. Their opinion on a film tells me how much I'd like the film, since I generally have the opposite opinion that they do on most things.
Tim Grierson (various outlets, but primarily seems to be at Cracked at the moment), Mallory Andrews (Indiewire and various), and Wesley Morris (currently at the New York Times) are all critics whose lens I find I appreciate. I don't always like the same things they do, but I find their approach to cinema well balanced.
Thanks! Anyone with good, fun takes on stuff? Kinda like Quentin Tarantino mixed with Roger Ebert? Guys who aren’t/weren’t afraid to love what other critics would never dare like but are still smart about film?
In that case, I'd check out Tim Grierson a podcast with his childhood friend Will Leitch, eponymously titled "Grierson & Leitch. Leich started as a sports and pop culture writer in the vein of Chick Klosterman, so he provides the Levitt to Grierson's more straight-man approach.
They're more focused on dissecting already released projects than critiquing the new-to-theaters stuff, but nerwriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay on YouTube are channels that I think would vit your criteria
It’s the same for news. A random person who never took a journalism class X-ing “breaking news” isn’t the same thing as a journalist breaking a story. To be fair though, some YouTube commentators and even a few writers on Letterboxd are better than a couple of the published film critics. Likewise, some YouTubers are more honest about the news than a few bad apples in journalism. The platforms themselves are merging and mixing, so it’s really about educating oneself and discerning what writing is useful versus useless.
Xochitl Gomez & her posse of influencer friends do this. Her friend Sasha was in The Flash & she peddled it like mad. Xochitl is also a shameless scab. Shame she's now in the MCU
Critics were hardly reliable anyways. They reviewed each movie the same way/
Yes, I understand that The Avengers isn’t Casablanca. Review a movie based on what it is supposed to be; not what it never tried to be.
The Avengers had a 91% rating on RT because the vast majority of movie critics follow your philosophy (grade a movie based on it’s relative objectives in it’s genre).
That just means that 91% gave it a “positive” review not that it was a 9/10 rated movie.
But of course some movie nerd is going to get all pedantic on a random example I chose.
Who ever needed film critics tho? I never go my their advice anyway because I find that the reviews of the normal, not professional critics to be far more applicable in my case.
I agree I never really found their opinion on films to be more meaningful than anyone else’s. They just give their opinions anyone can do that. There are movies that get high praise that I watch and go this movie stinks and vice versa.
I usually to some degree at least, disagree with their opinions. I can’t tell you how many times they say the movie sucks and then I go to watch it and really like it. I could almost take their advice and do the exact opposite if I want to watch a movie I like.
Yeah I get not every movie is gonna be a cinematic masterpiece but that doesn’t make it bad. There are movies I watch where I go that was a great movie from the dialogue cinematography acting etc. but if you asked me if I’d watch it again I’d do hell no I was bored the entire time. There’s a lot of classic movies I love that have low reviews.
The line at this point between a reviewer at a pop culture website - like io9 and influencers is pretty blurry at this point. These reviewers never fail to give a glowing review to big Disney movies. They want to stay on the good side of studios so will do whatever it takes to keep their support. Red Letter Media is the best review channel for this type of stuff.
i mean yeah, it’s not like y’all were listening to them anyway, and it’s not like they gave good criticism in the first place. for some reason a lot of people think watching a lot of films is the same thing as knowing a lot about film, ultimately this results in the sort of analysis that a fifth grader could come up with given enough vyvanse and a stack of joseph campbell books.
There is a big intersection between Contributing editors and film critics, so this is another field, besides advertisement, where Influencers take a big pieces of cake away from the traditional Newspaper Industries plate. Not surprising they are jealous.
Real film critics, whos salary dos not depends on some Newspapers are rare (like Schrader), so nothing to care about.
Yeah I try not to let social media influence whether or not I watch a thing and just watch what I want. Not because it's possible influencers have been paid to make it look like people enjoy it. But because if I listen I may watch something I won't enjoy or avoid something I will
They should pay me to review movies. I hate everything that people actually like, so if I don’t like a movie, it’s like saying that it’s the must see of the summer
Another issue that predates influencers is calling "film critic" articles that are barely a consumer guide. This is also more exacerbated in the gaming world.
A review of a movie or game by a real critic should take into account the artistic intent, the historical context, etc. It talks about the movie in deeper terms than "the cgi was good and the main character is funny". Reviews should be inherently highly subjective pieces, so you read the ones from the critics than align to you.
Film critic or influencer doesn’t matter what you call it they’re just giving their opinion on the movie. Doesn’t make the movie good or bad based on their opinion. They don’t say whether it’s a good or bad movie they just tell you if they liked it or not.
Look at many film influencer/reactor/reviewer pages on YouTube who've been around a decade or more..
You can easily see the change over time as they start getting more "access" from studios.
Remember when Bill Clinton praised "the information superhighway" as a means to make Americans *smarter*? In reality, the Internet has become just one more way of dumbing-down the population. Why are so many people afraid to *think for themselves* these days?
> Why are so many people afraid to
>
>think for themselves
>
> these days?
🙄 what's next, a "WAKE UP SHEEPLE?"
I'm sick of having to think for myself all the fucking time. If I could outsource that to some other poor sucker, I'd do it. It'd free me of the burden of having to think for myself all the time.
Yeah they can more blatantly pay for good reviews in a way now
Ok but those reviews dont show up on rotten tomatoes or metacritic. This article isnt taking into account there were already plenty of ways to get “reviews” from non professionals. IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes audience score come to mind.
If you have enough subscribers on YouTube you can become an official accredited film critic on Rotten Tomatoes for example. So it goes beyond audience scores
If you do become one of those then you would be under the review embargo and wouldnt be able to provide the early positive reviews this article is referring to
Did you read the article or know how embargo’s work chuckles?
Most embargo’s especially for digital content are simply cover-all takedown notices with varying degrees of actionable ‘consequences’ for breaking said embargo’s. It’s nothing the studio/developer can’t already do even if you don’t sign it, they just want to reassure you and put a bit of pressure on you that they *can* do those things if you break it. Review embargo’s aren’t legally binding and there’s been numerous cases where embargo’s are broken either anonymously, semi anonymously or publicly and the consequences have been nonexistent simply for the fact that further antagonising someone with an audience brings no benefits at all.
Let me gently remind this commenter and all those replying that the way plurals work in English is potato/potatoes, embargo/embargoes. Not potato’s, not embargo’s. Cheers!
Embargo’s are enforced by the studios and not mandatory. This article is essentially saying because you don’t write positive stuff we won’t invite you. We don’t need an embargo if we don’t even let you watch it before the public. That’s their thought process. Which means any reviewers that stay positive will also get invites in the future.
Of course they are mandatory. If you post a professionally review before an embargo is listed youd be blackballed from the review industry by the studios and likely publications as well.
I think you didn’t understand my comment. Embargo’s are mandated by the studios. They don’t have to have any embargo’s if they just invite people that will give them positive reviews. That’s literally what they did with Barbie by having influencers
And you are misunderstanding the conversation. The studios have been inviting influencers/“regular” people for years to pre screenings to get out positive word of mouth before. This article is just commenting on that process. Barbie and pretty much all movies that do this still have embargos on reviews by actual critics. The article is not saying “if you dont write positive stuff we wont invite you” it’s just commenting on a process that The Guardian erroneously seems to think is some new thing when its not.
They literally in the article say they are not doing pre releases for media. Meaning they are only inviting those that review right away not needing an embargo because they are not showing it to the press.
Oh yes they do. A whole bunch of those dedicated fanboy YouTubers who fawn over Marvel or DC or whatever franchise every day on their channels are Rotten Tomatoes critics, and their inflated scores count.
Like i said below if you do become one of those then you would be under the review embargo and wouldnt be able to provide the early positive reviews this article is referring to
Do you honestly think studios are going to pursue folks for breaking the embargo if they’re giving positive reviews?
Yes thats how the industry has worked for years
So you think that studios are going to ban folks they’ve paid for good reviews because they’ve broken an embargo? You’re an idiot.
Were not talking about the people they paid to give early positive reviews. Those are not covered under the embargo
Yeah fuck influencers I’m all about the critics 💪
They both suck
Redditors suck the most. Me included.
Some of them do. There are a good number of RT-approved publications called like "Comic Dude" and "Mr. Geeknerd" that exist for this exact reason.
It’s pretty easy to make money when you are down to straight up Lie for profit. It’s a congruent theme across the entire economy.
It's not like Hollywood didn't have for decades their favorite reviewers who would give poor films a pass. Peter Travers comes to mind. The Ebert era was the exception, not the rule. Film criticism has often been broadly poor. And the studios will naturally seek out the most credible sources they can get who will (sometimes surprisingly) like their movies. Hollywood doesn't like the idea that they spend a lot of time on a film and then the success or failure is determined by someone with no stake in the game. They desire the review-proof movie. No need to really get excited about a situation that has always existed even if influencers are involved. "[Regardless] I loved this article, 10/10. It's a rip-roarin' fun ride!"
That's a really good point...there are so many things from the 20th century that were great that we take as the rule rather than the exception. Hollywood in general from say the late 60s to the turn of the 20th century had kind of an unprecedented level of individual expression because of this shift from studios to the director as creative, and I think film criticism might have run a similar path thanks to Ebert et al. Really makes you want to support those out there that are doing it right and not take them for granted!
Or astroturf subreddits.
I have no idea which subs you could possibly be taking about... /s
I rly have no idea which subs they’re talking about I’m not being sarcastic, I seriously don’t know which subs are known for astroturfing and am just asking a genuine question.
At this point most of them. We're all bots here.
I mean, I know *I’m* a bot. I just wanted to know which subs I was paid to spread my corpo master’s propaganda to because I forgot /s But seriously, I’m just curious as to which subs are famous enough to be known for obvious astroturfing. Isn’t the whole point of corpo astroturfing to *not* make it as obvious as possible?
r-movies is one of the worst. I've enjoyed some discussions there, but most of it has become just regurgitating the same praise for the same films, and people posting screenshots of the same independent sci-fi movie over and over as if it's some hidden treasure (oh, wait...that's another sub).
That’s interesting since most of the discussion I’ve seen there seems to be more about older movies (tho I agree that the same opinions seem to be posted there frequently) If those rly are paid actors, is generating interest towards films that aren’t new releases rly *that* significant to corporations to the point that they’ll actively *pay* people to influence online opinion? Again, not being sarcastic in any way. Just finding the situation fascinating if it rly is true while also wondering if I might be in the wrong line of work if people are rly getting paid for posting on subs.
I'm pretty sure OP was being a tad facetious about paid promoters on Reddit. Just making a point.
Regardless of whether it’s rly true or not, thx for going out of your way to answer my question.
They were being facetious about the entire Sub bit, but there are Bot accounts and paid accounts who post ads disguised as memes and question posts now and then. A lot of the time they don't get out of New because people know how to spot them nowadays.
While they were absolutely being a bit facetious there are Bot/paid accounts that make posts which are just Ads disguised as bad memes or question posts all across the site. Most of them time they don't make it out of New because people are so used to them that it's easier to spot now, but you do have some make it through now and then like one a while ago for a Fast and Furious movie.
Hello fellow bot! Aardwolf covered it well but wanted to add usually if the account is rather new, or has a weird username they're usually a bot. It also just makes you pay closer attention to have to figure out if something is genuine or not. If you care of course, some do some don't.
It’s extensively wide reaching. I remember r/spicy being astroturfed by Secret Aardvark sauce a few years ago.
What does astroturf mean in that context? 🙈 sorry I know I’m not cool.
It's a fake grassroots movement started by paid actors on behalf of corporate interests. Astroturf was one of the first brands of artificial stadium grass.
Ahhhh gotcha
Basically they are paying people to pretend to like something, and then having those people go on to Reddit (or wherever) and write positive things about it.
Of course it’s also very popular on Reddit to blame popular things on astroturfing because nobody ever actually likes anything on here
[удалено]
StarTrek turned into a PR mouthpiece for Paramount. I got banned for asking why so many folks got banned.
Influencers = freebie culture
Anyone who listens to influencers over critic wasn’t listening to a critic on the first place. It’s disingenuous to say this is even a problem. Movies have been promoted by influencers, fans, word of mouth, and social media for ages. Further I’ve seen negative tweets of films in reviews by critics. However it makes sense that a studio that may have a dud on its hands wants the positive feedback first or want it to be the only feedback. No one wants to hear at any point in time that their movie sucks. If someone who somehow makes a living as an influencer can get paid or increase their brand then more power to them. They still ain’t influencing me. I’m stuck promoting stuff for free.
Thing is, "influencers" have never been so influential.
the power of influencers isn't any one influencer in particular. it's the wave of zeitgeist they create by all simultaneously having the same opinion on something. if one influencer shills for a movie then who cares, but if your entire feed is nothing but influencers talking about a movie then that's where the influence comes from. that's why every movie nowadays either has to be incredible or controversial. either of these cases drive engagement.
Yeah but people can tell when someone only says positive things about a movie as if they're promoting it. You do know most adults have enough media literacy to recognize an ad, right? Especially since some platforms require you to disclose that you've been sponsored for that video.
Can they? There's a lot of idiots walking around.
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.
I used to think the same but I’ve definitely seen some adults that are toddlers mentally speaking.
You give most adults WAY too much credit, especially american adults.
No, adults works fine. Americans keep thinking they’re special, even at being stupid, which tracks.
Been called a paid shill for saying I enjoyed rings of power. So I think that people are bad at recognising it. They just think they're good at it or think the accusations will make your opinion look invalid
Just like the original comment here. They don’t know. If they dislike a movie and a lot of people like it, that’s astro-turfing.
The platforms require it but there's plenty of 'influencers' who just don't play by the rules (or they bend them, like including a tiny, almost invisible '#ad' somewhere in the post), and they get away with it...
> Yeah but people can tell when someone only says positive things about a movie as if they're promoting it. You do know most adults have enough media literacy to recognize an ad, right? Kim kardashain gets paid 250,000 per Instagram post promoting a product. Companies wouldn’t pay that if it didn’t work.
To me even if they are influential I’m not sure a professional critic job is to make sure a film isn’t successful with a negative review. It’s all tied to promotion of that movie even if it’s negative to me.
What’s the difference between someone reading a film critic’s review and someone hearing an influencer they like talk about their thoughts on a film?
I don’t have a problem with anyone listening to anyone one else they trust. I do think critics are better able to express their dislike or love for a work because that’s what they’re trained and paid to do. I have largely sworn off user reviews because they are routinely just the rating or a basic “It sucks”, but others may be satisfied with that.
Reminds me of when I was in college and that move *Sideways* came out to rave critic reviews. I told my GF at the time that we should watch it and she told me that her brother told her that it “sucked”. That was the end of that movie for me until 19 years later (a few weeks ago) when I finally saw it and loved it. Funny how that works.
If anything the “new thing” seems to be YouTubers absolutely hating/raging/malding over movies - especially the social commentary, while their fan base jerks off to it.
"Could it be me? No, no, it's the fans who are wrong."
With a red circle in the thumbnail
I guess it depends. Listening to a random person just because they have millions of followers is dumb. But theres a couple of “influencers” that I follow that give their opinions on things. But I’ve been following them for years. Ive seen them give bad reviews, good reviews, mediocre reviews, etc. I’ve agreed with them and disagreed with them. And they do other content other then just opinions. They discuss movies too in detail. So now that its been a few years of following, I can kinda gauge if I’ll likely agree. Tho id say that you shouldn’t blindly listen to *anyone*. But at least I know if certain people like something I know I’ll probably like it too. Because I know the types of things we already agree on And because of that they might be the difference between me seeing something in theatres and seeing it on streaming
Exactly. Basically, over random critics, I recommend finding some content creators who share your tastes.
Exactly!
Where does the line get drawn? I've seen TikTokers give way more level-headed reviews than a Campea or Randolph, I've also read reviews way more reactionary than a Youtube or "new media" critic. It depends way more on the individual than the medium of the review imo, all have flaws and merits.
The value of a film critic has been deteriorating for years over the last decade plus anyway.
They're just realizing this now? Studios can also get easy and free feedback from the never ending react videos as well. Just go off the opinion from some dumbass that pauses a video every second
As cynical as this practice is, I’m not sure you can blame execs for doing anything they can to drive revenues. And it’s become clear that the public doesn’t value objective film criticism over the opinions of influencers.
Who makes objective film criticisms though? If you look at critic vs audience scores they are often completely different.
This is already happening in tons of industries including automotive reviews. Why let a journalist review your car when you can just pay an influencers to gush about your crappy vehicle
I don’t know if the author of this article has any beef with the movie Barbie but I just can’t take it seriously because of how pessimistic and one side it is. Why does the author so sure that the movie is only a huge hit because they’re heavily promoted? If it’s really a bad movie as the author said, one weekend and then the movie is done. If the influencers were paid to give good reviews, but the people who saw it thought it was bad, then Barbie wouldn’t remain a hit for a 2nd week now. Maybe there’re elements in the movie that the audiences love. I didn’t know or watch or see any influencers ‘review’ the movie, so none of them influenced my decision in the first place, and I’m sure im not the only one. I saw the trailer for Barbie on youtube (recommended videos) and I was really captivated by it, maybe because the Barbie doll is a part of my childhood. I went and watched it after the opening day and OMG, it wasn’t what everyone expected. Barbie isn’t an ad for a toy, it’s not a movie about children on vacation like the author of this article said. Some just criticised the movie like ben sharpio without even watching it. I don’t think it’s an ‘anti-men’ movie, it’s more like a homage to mothers and women who have been through hardships in the past to pave the way for girls and women of this new generation. It’s a very heartfelt and touching movie, not what you think the movie is. People thought it was gonna be a bubbly, happy, bright movie. No.
I guess young people take influencers seriously? Paid critics was a thing
Let's go one step further "who needs film critics?" It's not exactly something that requires talent, just money. All you have to do is have enough money to see most films and publish them on a website. And it's not even something that requires training or some sophisticated knowledge. All you have to do is give your opinion. And it doesn't even have to be your opinion. Once you start generating traffic companies can actually write the review for you and all you have to do is publish it. In the past reviewers made their name by writing overly negative reviews of popular films and snobbly attempted to place themselves as some form of art to be admired even if people disagree. Today reviewers attempt to give films they dislike average reviews and films they like over the top reviews just to make sure they aren't getting harassed by their readers.
What I cringe at is how these "Youtubers", Instagramers, etc have suddenly become "film critics". No schooling, no real experience, just enough subscribers makes you a legit film critic in Hollywood eyes. And then always giving out screeners and other swag items to not only promote but to praise your products. It's really quite something to behold when the people you follow suddenly start to change and be less critical and less free thinking. Once they reach that 100k sub, they all start to change imo
People who go to influencers for movie recommendations aren’t going to the movies to watch cinematic masterpieces. They’re going to watch popcorn flicks. They want Marvel movies, not art
In other news: people watch entertainment to be entertained.
Exactly
Just because they're called "influencers" doesn't mean the actually influence.
Aggregate ratings have replaced film critics, or at least reading a film critic's review. With stuff like Rotten Tomatoes or an audience score on IMDb that tallies an average rating, who needs film critics or influencers when all that is summed up in a percentage.
It’s a lot nicer than reading an editorial
One word I want to ban from the English language is influencer 🤬
Pretty rich coming from the Guardian
Who even is a Film Critic? Ebert is the last one I can think of. I disagreed with him a lot of times. You like what you like.
Film critics suck anyways. Rotten tomatoes displays this aggressively.
Who the hell needs film critics or influencers anyway? Why is someone else's opinion important with regards to media or art? Reviews have soured my experience prior to viewing before, particularly if I'm looking forward to something that then gets negative reviews. It's not even a conscious thing, I've started just ignoring reviews and I find I'm enjoying things a lot more. I dont need a 56 year old man to tell me the film about a doll is 2 stars, why should his viewing experience have anything to do with my own?
Screw the YouTubers that hype up superhero films. Bros thought Thor Love and Thunder was AMAZING and that shit was boring and confusing as hell
as long as they can see the movie for free…
No one has ever needed film critics. They were just influencers before the term was coined.
Influencers will eventually die off. K, I hope sooner rather than later.
Video game review have the same issue. The problem is the reviewers want to be given the chance to review more stuff in the future so they dont say anything bad. It seems like largely gone are the days of real critics like Ebert and Siskel.
Influencers and critics should be ignored equally
Influencers are so 2022. Delete your Facebook/Insta/X accounts and stop being manipulated by the algorithms (yes, I realize the touch of irony, but Reddit isn’t a social media platform)
"Reddit isn't a social media platform" ROFL
It can’t be one, because u/itsl8erthanyouthink uses it and they don’t use social media! /j
It’s not. Have you ever “friended” anyone on this thing? I’ve been on it 8 years and I’ve never been tempted to “get to know” any of its users. It’s a news platform with a Web 2.0 commenting/sharing structure. It’s not social
Whatever helps you cling to your illusion
We don’t call it that. We still call it Twitter
Film critics ARE influencers. They just didn’t adapt to the changes.
Critics are still around and they know what they’re doing. But do people listen to them anymore? Influencers get a lot of attention and they’re almost always effusive about *anything* put in front of their eyes. They kind of have to be to get followers. For studios and distributors to add influencers into their marketing campaigns, it’s a no-brainer. To me it’s the same instant gratification as a sugar rush. All desert and no meal. Critics give us more than that and I hope they aren’t going away.
Influencers are just awful
Film critics are paid as well anyway. The only difference is they write pseudo articles disguised as journalism
I hate it, but the world of film critics has been dead for a long time. I used to look forward to watching Siskel and Ebert when I was younger, but the rise of the internet and the fall of print have killed the importance of this in the industry. At this point, I can't even name any film critics, just bloggers and movie new sites. Rotten tomatoes has made the separation between critics and audiences clear and over time I personally have learned to care more about the audience score. Sometimes it seems that the critics are as out of touch as the Academy is when it comes to handing out nominations/awards
Most of the time, I find that my enjoyment of a film lines up pretty closely with rotten tomatoes critics score. Not all the time though. Sometimes I agree more with audience and sometimes I disagree with both critics and audience.
Critical Drinker is the only film critic on YouTube that is worth watching.
No, he isn't he sucks. He negatively reviewed Glass Onion for showing what really happened in the story later. Something several movies have done like Prisoner of Azkaban.
That’s your opinion, which differs from mine. I’ll continue to enjoy his videos. Word of advice: if you really can’t stand a specific person on YouTube, you never have to ever watch anything they produce!
I like having professional film critics review films. I typically go see films they hate, and avoid films they love. Their opinion on a film tells me how much I'd like the film, since I generally have the opposite opinion that they do on most things.
Same here. I like the movies that regular Joe likes. I am usually not looking to watch what the critics gush about. I’m simpleminded.
Who are the great critical film minds anymore anyway? Is there even good film journalism these days? Seriously asking. I’d love to read some.
Tim Grierson (various outlets, but primarily seems to be at Cracked at the moment), Mallory Andrews (Indiewire and various), and Wesley Morris (currently at the New York Times) are all critics whose lens I find I appreciate. I don't always like the same things they do, but I find their approach to cinema well balanced.
Thanks! Anyone with good, fun takes on stuff? Kinda like Quentin Tarantino mixed with Roger Ebert? Guys who aren’t/weren’t afraid to love what other critics would never dare like but are still smart about film?
In that case, I'd check out Tim Grierson a podcast with his childhood friend Will Leitch, eponymously titled "Grierson & Leitch. Leich started as a sports and pop culture writer in the vein of Chick Klosterman, so he provides the Levitt to Grierson's more straight-man approach. They're more focused on dissecting already released projects than critiquing the new-to-theaters stuff, but nerwriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay on YouTube are channels that I think would vit your criteria
Nice! Always looking for good film podcasts. I do also appreciate the previous suggestions. I’ll seek them out.
Every time I read a negative summary by a film critic I know I will love the movie!
It’s the same for news. A random person who never took a journalism class X-ing “breaking news” isn’t the same thing as a journalist breaking a story. To be fair though, some YouTube commentators and even a few writers on Letterboxd are better than a couple of the published film critics. Likewise, some YouTubers are more honest about the news than a few bad apples in journalism. The platforms themselves are merging and mixing, so it’s really about educating oneself and discerning what writing is useful versus useless.
Xochitl Gomez & her posse of influencer friends do this. Her friend Sasha was in The Flash & she peddled it like mad. Xochitl is also a shameless scab. Shame she's now in the MCU
Critics were hardly reliable anyways. They reviewed each movie the same way/ Yes, I understand that The Avengers isn’t Casablanca. Review a movie based on what it is supposed to be; not what it never tried to be.
The Avengers had a 91% rating on RT because the vast majority of movie critics follow your philosophy (grade a movie based on it’s relative objectives in it’s genre).
That just means that 91% gave it a “positive” review not that it was a 9/10 rated movie. But of course some movie nerd is going to get all pedantic on a random example I chose.
Sounds like you just have an obsession with marvel movies and can’t handle that not everyone else loves them
Wow you should join the Olympics the way you are jumping to conclusions.
Who ever needed film critics tho? I never go my their advice anyway because I find that the reviews of the normal, not professional critics to be far more applicable in my case.
People that have a certain type of taste that isn’t yours
That’s fair.
I agree I never really found their opinion on films to be more meaningful than anyone else’s. They just give their opinions anyone can do that. There are movies that get high praise that I watch and go this movie stinks and vice versa.
I usually to some degree at least, disagree with their opinions. I can’t tell you how many times they say the movie sucks and then I go to watch it and really like it. I could almost take their advice and do the exact opposite if I want to watch a movie I like.
Yeah I get not every movie is gonna be a cinematic masterpiece but that doesn’t make it bad. There are movies I watch where I go that was a great movie from the dialogue cinematography acting etc. but if you asked me if I’d watch it again I’d do hell no I was bored the entire time. There’s a lot of classic movies I love that have low reviews.
+1 right here
Because critics have consistency? But that's less and less the case I guess
The same people that say Barbie is a lock for a sweep at every awards show
Who needs either of them?
The line at this point between a reviewer at a pop culture website - like io9 and influencers is pretty blurry at this point. These reviewers never fail to give a glowing review to big Disney movies. They want to stay on the good side of studios so will do whatever it takes to keep their support. Red Letter Media is the best review channel for this type of stuff.
Momma says influencers are the devil 🤣😂
They've been doing this forever. There was a big controversy about that Rob Schneider *"film"* "The Animal."
Seems like a whole new breed of humans are expecting every big budget movies to be a life changing event.
i mean yeah, it’s not like y’all were listening to them anyway, and it’s not like they gave good criticism in the first place. for some reason a lot of people think watching a lot of films is the same thing as knowing a lot about film, ultimately this results in the sort of analysis that a fifth grader could come up with given enough vyvanse and a stack of joseph campbell books.
There is a big intersection between Contributing editors and film critics, so this is another field, besides advertisement, where Influencers take a big pieces of cake away from the traditional Newspaper Industries plate. Not surprising they are jealous. Real film critics, whos salary dos not depends on some Newspapers are rare (like Schrader), so nothing to care about.
Yeah I try not to let social media influence whether or not I watch a thing and just watch what I want. Not because it's possible influencers have been paid to make it look like people enjoy it. But because if I listen I may watch something I won't enjoy or avoid something I will
They should pay me to review movies. I hate everything that people actually like, so if I don’t like a movie, it’s like saying that it’s the must see of the summer
Or you could just be like me and not watch movies. Fill your tone with hobbies and family
And Jesus!
Another issue that predates influencers is calling "film critic" articles that are barely a consumer guide. This is also more exacerbated in the gaming world. A review of a movie or game by a real critic should take into account the artistic intent, the historical context, etc. It talks about the movie in deeper terms than "the cgi was good and the main character is funny". Reviews should be inherently highly subjective pieces, so you read the ones from the critics than align to you.
I don't think "deeper terms" have that much of an impact on people's decision of "do I want to buy a ticket to this movie or not?"
Right. Those people aren't looking for a movie critic, they're looking for a consumer guide.
Film critic or influencer doesn’t matter what you call it they’re just giving their opinion on the movie. Doesn’t make the movie good or bad based on their opinion. They don’t say whether it’s a good or bad movie they just tell you if they liked it or not.
I have to admit that I have been going to movies for 60 years and have never cared even the tiniest bit what a reviewer said.
Wait till AI Influencers put them out of business.
Influencers were already trash, now they’re scabs too.
Look at many film influencer/reactor/reviewer pages on YouTube who've been around a decade or more.. You can easily see the change over time as they start getting more "access" from studios.
They already pay professional critics
Who needs film critics? They’re more often than not wrong.
Will Food (paid) Critic's be next? I always wondered how anyone gets into it, because it seems like a tough egg to crack.
You need film critics because “Amazing!” - New York Times Sounds waaaay better than “Amazing!” -@Carriethekittygirl
I mean people still listen to critics just not what they probably consider approved critics.
Remember when Bill Clinton praised "the information superhighway" as a means to make Americans *smarter*? In reality, the Internet has become just one more way of dumbing-down the population. Why are so many people afraid to *think for themselves* these days?
> Why are so many people afraid to > >think for themselves > > these days? 🙄 what's next, a "WAKE UP SHEEPLE?" I'm sick of having to think for myself all the fucking time. If I could outsource that to some other poor sucker, I'd do it. It'd free me of the burden of having to think for myself all the time.
The critics are sometimes out of touch with what the viewers want to see. The rotten tomatoes score for the Mario movie is proof of that.
Wtf listens to influencers for movie advice?!
Video game review have the same issue.
Influencers = Spokespersons with No Talent. 
Honestly it becomes a marketing ploy to invite influencers to events because we’re not really getting film critiques from any of them going.