What caused such a great disparity in opinion between Critics and the General audience with this show?
Why do career critics consider this show trash while the majority of viewers think its above average.
Personally i thought the show was average, not great or terrible.
Critics hate middle-of-the-road opinions because it doesn't get them as much attention. If they're neutral about a movie, they have to decide which extreme view to take--most likely negative so it seems like they're doing their job. I don't know why it's rated so highly with the audience, I thought it was pretty average myself.
The show is average in many aspects like plot and dialogue, above average in design, costumes, lighting, use of colour, and below average in pacing and stereotypical blind kung-fu man.
Critics are strange contrarian fuccbois, who knows what caused them to shit on it like they did.
I speculate it's because critics only rated based on the first few episodes. Though I haven't seen it myself, maybe this is one of those shows that gets really good in the later episodes.
The same thing happened with BoJack Horseman Season 1, another Netflix series. The first few eps were widely regarded to be shit, and that's what the critics rated based on. Everyone who watched the full season (the viewers, not the critics) gave it positive reviews. When Season 2 rolled around, all the critics gave it great reviews. One professional critic even vowed to drop their "review based on the first few episodes" policy, since they knew that's what had happened with Season 1.
>Critics basing their opinion on a fraction of released content
>getting paid handsomely for doing so
why is this allowed
It's just the way the industry works.
The first four episodes of Game of Thrones Season 5 were the "screener episodes" sent to critics. These were the episodes that the critics base their season ratings off of, that are then collected for websites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It's kind of dumb, since as a general rule (ignoring season 4) the first four episodes of any Game of Thrones season are going to be way less interesting than the final 6 episodes. And if you wanted critics to give an accurate, honest appraisal of the season, you would want them to see the whole thing, right?
Every one of the episodes leaked prior to the season's live broadcast. Had they given the critics the whole season in advance, the entire season's live viewership would have been diminished. While this might not matter as much for an advertisement-free network like HBO, it's certainly a concern for other networks. There is simply too much risk involved in giving critics the entire season in advance.
And these networks aren't going to stop sending screener episodes out either. It's free advertising for them. So they're going to keep sending incomplete seasons to critics, who will in turn rate the incomplete seasons in advance of the show.
Never trust critic reviews of TV shows. Very rarely are they right. Just look at the ratings of Scream Queens. It is literally the worst show ever aired on primetime for a full season and it has overwhelmingly positive reviews.
Jessica Jones is another, its boring, predictable, and shallow but yet if you ask a tv critic its the greatest thing ever. TV critics are panderers of the worst kind and i never listen to reviews of TV shows.
Movie critics arent much better but at least i can agree with them fairly often.
>he didn't like Scream Queens
Find a dozen Star Wars threads and stay there
I can't decide if I like her face or not. She looks like one of those preppy stuck up high school chicks that thinks she's way more attractive then she is.
I can't tell if she's actually attractive or not.
critics are a universally deplorable bunch regardless of industry; they make their living on regaling or lambasting actual work while they produce nothing of actual value
those that can't do, teach
those that can't teach, criticize
>women are not treated with enough respect
>too many naked women in the emperor's harem
>phrases are too complex at times
>it isn't fast enough
>I think camerawork and cinematography was good but it was difficult to tell from my 11 inch laptop
>there's a swimming pool name called marco polo I enjoyed more than this show called marco polo
How the fuck are people paid to write this shit.
Okay, 'universally deplorable' is a hyperbolic statement; critics can make careers as well as break them.
Still I find the enterprise to be overwhelmingly a negative and petty affair, and the supposed integrity of crumbles when you see critics repeatedly reverse their judgements in the face of overwhelming public opinion.
That being said the public opinion isn't necessarily (or often) the correct one, but it's a decent barometer to measure your work or that of anyone else by.
Critics really have almost no power though honestly. Just look at how many movies with shit reviews do well at the box office. Critics are really just professional bloggers. If you dont like them then its best to just ignore them, because they dont really affect much honestly.