What did """critics""" mean by this?

>based on 5 ""critics""

File: 1460391080856.jpg (39KB, 600x568px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x568px

>>80724112

File: 9048902090211212.jpg (772KB, 1680x1417px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1680x1417px

>trusting """critics""" to be non biased or without agenda

>>80724112

Criticism used to be taken seriously, and critics were lovers and students of the thing they were critiquing. The new generation swallowed too much critical theory, and view things in context of social movements and traditional power struggles. To them, you can't give an honest appraisal of an Amy Schumer comedy special without consideration of the history of women in comedy, and her particular place in the feminism of today, just like you can't give a rating to Iron Fist that doesn't reflect the history of subjugation and appropriation in the relationship between Western entertainment and Asian culture. It's not a coincidence that the new Karate Kid starred a black kid.

It's not their fault. There used to be local newspaper critics, and then a few national critics like Leonard Maltin, Siskel and Ebert, and magazines like the New Yorker, Entertainment Weekly. With the internet, jackasses with blogs are competing with the majors, and there's less money and prestige to go around. It used to be that the only critic you'd read with any consistency was whoever was writing in the local paper, unless you subscribed to a national publication. They had to serve everyone in a geographic area, so they couldn't get too particular with their slant. Now that you can have hyper-specialized critics drawing an audience from all around the world, it's totally different.

>>80724112
check out the profiles of the (((critics))) and see what they look like, do they look like somebody you would take seriously irl?

>>80725148
>they're insulting me in their review so they have an agenda

The only agenda I see is the manchildren voting it a 1 on IMDB

>its a reddit tomatoes episode

File: 2990379.jpg (209KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 500x750px

>>80725587
>movie critics not reviewing the actual movie

>giving it a positive score because of reasons like "female empowerment", totally non cinema related

>somehow fanboys are the problem here

>>80725587
>implying it wasn't deserving of a 1 rating.

>>80725680
They are reviewing the movie though, just because they mention something related to politics doesn't mean they aren't reviewing the movie. You're obese and stupid.

>>80725760
touch your heart and tell me fembusters was "far funnier than the original"

>>80725519
Pretty much this.

I'm so sick of seeing an LA Times or Entertainment Weekly review listed and then some dipshit from a bedroom somewhere in Iowa with "mike's movie blog" right up there with them on RT.

>>80724112
Critics vote with their brains.

Fans vote with their hearts.

>>80725954
2/10 got me to reply.

>>80725760
>gamergate trolls
>brobabiez
>haters gonna hate

I know it's your job to be sjw but at least try harder man