zlacker

>>tortil+(OP)
To me, RT turning to shit is just Goodhart's Law in action - "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

Originally, RT was more or less a 'good faith' measurement of the general sentiment\quality of a film, but it is so easily manipulated it was inevitable that it would become meaningless.

>>smiley+hX2
Which became more and more obvious with the plethora of examples today of disconnected Audience and Critic scores.

While they definitely measure on different metrics, the goal of a critic is supposed to be to measure films worth watching (even if only for a subset of the total audience). When 95% of critics tell you to see a movie that only 10% of people enjoy, something's broken.

>>deaddo+263
There are plenty of things that are worth doing that people often don't enjoy - Exercise, eating healthy, etc. Critics job is sometimes to tell you if you'll enjoy a movie. It's not the only job and it's not the only reason movies are made.

>>Gauntl+v93
> Critics job is sometimes to tell you if you'll enjoy a movie. It's not the only job and it's not the only reason movies are made.

I believe I addressed this. I specifically mentioned that they have different metrics so you wouldn't expect it to fully lineup. It's the drastic disconnect that is the problem. If critics love a movie but literally no one else does, what are they seeing? Or, more directly, what is the point of me putting any validity into their words?