1. Fair enough, but I just need to restate how a lot needs to and should be ignoredOnderhond on Jan 5 2018, 10:31:05 AM wrote:1. As an example of a large selection of available films they're completely ignoring.St. Gloede on Jan 5 2018, 09:59:42 AM wrote:1. Gone from critics need to explore and find films from accross the world and genres to - Critics should keep up with Netflix
2. Critics have a collective pool of 20-30 film to Critics have a pool of hundreds to thousands of films
3. Critics only pick the same films from 2-3 pools to there are legions of pools
2. First number was in relations to top 10s, second to watched all year. And I went with hundreds, not thousands. Before long you'll be saying that I'm agreeing that they're covering millions of films each year.
2A. Well, the one disproves the other, plus if you are still holding to it after I demonstrated it incorrect with the S/S stats you are denying reality.
2B: You don't think critics around the world sees a larger variety than a few hundred? Each (full-time) critic is likely to see a few hundred each, throw in the varying focuses, location, festivals sent to, etc. the tally gets quite high.
3. How? (Well, I guess we will never know)
No we did not agree on it, but I am restating it, as you don't seem to get that this is the most important and main focus of a regular publication critic's job, as it should be.And I know we covered several things before, but writing about it as if we agreed on it is kinda weird. I never agreed that the primary function of critics is writing about films that are already getting exposure. In fact, that's the opposite of what I think they should be doing.
I guess this is getting us nowhere, so I will just repost the main arguments I previously made, which I don't think you contemplated/gave a reply to, despite being the main issue at hand.
This is an absurd truism, that given your criteria and definition is impossible. A critic could list something ultra commercial like Dunkirk, next to something creative like Song to Song, and even throw in Get Out and something like Happy End, and you would not be surprised by the extreme diversity. You would reject it because these films, appealing to 5 entirely different disciplines and audiences. This is because your standard for this is measured against your own extreme diversity – and you don’t seem to understand that this is very, very rare.Onderhond on Jan 5 2018, 08:35:57 AM wrote:The "exceptions to the rule" concept is extremely human and should be expected always. Unless one limits himself extremely strictly (or has incredibly high autism marks), these things pop up. You might feel bad disclosing them maybe, but let's not even go there.St. Gloede on Jan 5 2018, 08:35:57 AM wrote:This is not something you can in any way expect. You won't find much if anything matching your description among the forum users here either.
The only thing you replied to the last comment was that your taste must be normal as Netflix had one film you like, needless to say thousands of films that don't appeal to critics, most audiences or even curators, get some kind of release. And how do you know no one wrote about it? Niche horror sites might have, but if it didn't wow them the buzz probably didn't hit outside the bubble (and if it never reached the bubble that is a marketing/curator issue).What you don't understand is that a massive variety of tastes are being explored through these festivals, not a standalone taste. Almost everyone are being served. Whether you like contemplative, minimalist, essayist, ultra violent, meta, surreal, traditional, heartwarming, easy, etc. films, and essentially any combo, you can find it.Onderhond on Jan 2 2018, 07:59:28 AM wrote:It's not that I'm personally looking for people to represent my taste, it's that all their lists are copies or at least picked for a pool of maybe 30 films tops. I don't believe that kind of consensus is realistic and if it is, I guess that means "different strokes for different folks" is a big fat lie I just want to see a little diversity so that it might trigger people to watch more stuff outside of their own comfort zone. Availability isn't that big of an issue anymore. Hasn't been for the past 15 years or so, but now it's even legally possible.St. Gloede on Jan 2 2018, 07:59:28 AM wrote:and that you are one of the extremely few people with a deviating taste. This is not meant in a negative way, but more most cinephiles this is not a negative as they can find the school of thought they are closest to, and see what like minded people agree on.
The problem is that your taste is so far outside of the realm of tastes that you cannot really get cover.
But the main point there was the massive amount of tastes and styles represented, and how you keep denying it/refusing to see it, and set impossible standards.
And that's what this is really about.
Because of a very specific and rare bias you have invented a largely false problem, and are even trying to enforce a non-needed, and even destructive function onto critics (see everything, promote everything, discover everything). This would just dilute their attention from what really matters in their work.