You know movies are junk and have been junk (on average) for years when all that's talked about for success is revenue. No mention at all in that article about substance, only money. Granted, that's all studios care about, but it's not what makes a movie good. Critically acclaimed means nothing, especially when critics push agendas, and double especially when critics' views of things are different than vast swaths of average viewers/fans.
Critics are being used as advertisers and peer pressure for movies rather than actual reviewers of the substance in those movies.
You know movies are junk and have been junk (on average) for years when all that's talked about for success is revenue. No mention at all in that article about substance, only money. Granted, that's all studios care about, but it's not what makes a movie good. Critically acclaimed means nothing, especially when critics push agendas, and double especially when critics' views of things are different than vast swaths of average viewers/fans.
Critics are being used as advertisers and peer pressure for movies rather than actual reviewers of the substance in those movies.
You know movies are junk and have been junk (on average) for years when all that's talked about for success is revenue. No mention at all in that article about substance, only money. Granted, that's all studios care about, but it's not what makes a movie good. Critically acclaimed means nothing, especially when critics push agendas, and double especially when critics' views of things are different than vast swaths of average viewers/fans.
Critics are being used as advertisers and peer pressure for movies rather than actual reviewers of the substance in those movies.