Why do people give credence to the opinion of "professional" movie reviewers?
Literally what is it that qualifies these individuals as experts in this field?
How can we be sure they aren't just pushing whatever agenda they're being fed?
>>63272463
They watch movies good
>>63272463
anything that is published or broadcast through professional channels gets an automatic stamp of authority. human beings are still cavemen; we are impressionable and easily led.
>>63272667
Real good
because for the most part they're generally pretty spot on
They use big words.
How many big words do you even know little dog?
Do you even know what pusillanimity is?
>>63272463
At least they aren't Youtube reviewers
>>63272742
>>63272742
They are not spot on you mindless drone. They influence your decision by a little or by a lot depending what type of mind you have. Whether you like to admit it or not it has an effect on you subconsciously due to the "professionalism" that they try to convey through it.
Thats why faggots now think that a film or game that is less than 8/10 isnt worth watching, even though 6 and 7 is still above average.
A person becomes a critic by being good at articulating why they think something is good or bad. Not necessarily by being right about what is good or bad, but if a critic constantly has bad opinions, they usually get a reputation for it.
General critics consensus matters because critics are the demographic that watches and thinks about movies the most. Of course sometimes they get it wrong as a whole, but their consensus still holds some weight most of the time.
What you're supposed to do is find critics who write well and who you find to be right more often than not, and those are the ones whose opinions you take into consideration.
>>63273192
>What you're supposed to do is find critics who write well and who you find to be right more often than not, and those are the ones whose opinions you take into consideration.
If they can watch a stinker now and then so can I.
