zlacker

>>exitb+(OP)
This is likely being blown way out of proportion. I'm not defending this behavior but the article listed exactly one example: Irish Wish. I'm sure it appeals to a certain audience but it's not what I, personally, would call peak cinema.

My guess is that this guidance was given to a specific writer or person in charge of a specific genre.

>>ryanac+73
Exactly. The one example they use gets a 5.2 on IMDB and 42% on rotten tomatoes.

Not all movies are high art, nor should they be. It’s for a certain audience. We’ve had crappy made-for-TV movies since long before streaming and it hasn’t been the death of cinema.

>>paulgb+B3
42% means that some professional critics considered it “fresh.” That’s scary to me.

>>briand+b7
To be fair to the professional critics, they are writing prose that helps their readers decide if they will like a movie, not just giving it a good/bad review. Looking at the reviews that RT considers fresh, most of them are honest with their readers about what the movie is (“hallmark”, “formulaic”), but consider it a watchable entry in that genre.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/irish_wish/reviews