Originally Posted by Timmy D for MVP
No you're assuming that all critics are movie art house snobs. They are not. They don't look at every movie thinking: "where will this fall on my Oscar list?" I would bet hard money that any real critic was not walking into Scott Pilgrim wondering if this would be Oscar worthy.
But they recognize a shit movie when they see one. It's a tired argument as I said before because there are plenty of "stupid movies" that both fans and critics alike agreed upon as good.
In fact what does that say about the fan base you speak of if they feel like a little effort project is what it's base wants.
Lemme put it this way. Do you think Underworld could be improved? Maybe greatly so? How could that happen? Where did it go wrong?
That is what the critics look at.
just about every movie ever made could be improved upon...
look, all I was trying to point out is that the audience score more reflects the people looking forward to whatever the subject matter of the movie is, where as the critic score reflects someone's opinion that doesn't necessarily give a rat's ass about the subject of the movie, that's all...
it makes PERFECT sense that the audience would rate Twilight high and the critics would rank it low...the audience is teen girls (their target demographic) and the critics are not...THUS a teen girl going to see Twilight should ignore the critic score, their opinion doesn't represent hers very well.