Comments on: Two star review of Avatar by Guardian journalist: But does anyone care for old media reviews any more?

By: Ajit Jaokar

Ajit Jaokar — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:23:28 +0000

facepalm
I dont claim to know more about films but I dont think that the credientials of the guardian critic are clear as well. If Steven Spielberg said the same thing, I would listen. But not some critic writing for a newspaper. and their impact grows lower due to the sheer volume of feedback(positive and negative) on the web. Thats what I mean by ‘who cares’ hope that helps rgds Ajit

By: Stompy

Stompy — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:13:14 +0000

“Who cares”? You obviously care, because you are writing about it.
You obviously care that somebody who knows more about films than you thinks that this particular film was not very good. And you are angry about this, because you don’t want to accept that other people can think you are wrong.
So you write a blog showing yourself, and the rest of the world, that you can invalidate your own comments within such a brief and poorly written post.
/facepalm

By: yosko_s

yosko_s — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:39:07 +0000

“But with social media, I don’t think anyone cares for them any more since there is too much choice.”
I wouldn’t go as far as claiming no one cares for them. I, for one, trust a rottentomatoes.com rating over an IMDB rating. The fact is that “expert critics” have a much deeper view on movies than the average tweeter-Joe.
You can claim that the voice of the lone critic is lost among the “noise” of the internet. But by aggregating (crowd-sourcing?) multiple critics, you get a more complete, “rounded” view.
Btw, Avatar has a 82% on RT compared to a 8.5 in IMDB.
The main difference is that RT is based on 250 film-critics, while IMDB is based on 200,000 users.
Which one is more powerful? I don’t know.
Saar