SF and tv/film critic attitudes....

[Warped9]

For years there's been something that bugs the hell out of me: the frequent smarmy attitude of many TV and film critics towards SF.

Whenever they're reviewing or reporting on a forthcoming project many of them often have this thinly disquised dismissive and denigrating attitude towards the subject matter and its fans that I find insulting. It shows itself in remarks that creep in throuighout their articles as if talking about anything related to SF and its fans are subjects somehow beneath them and worthy of open mockery. Smart-ass derision isn't the same as fair minded critique or humour born of a genuine appreciation.

 

[T'Baio]

The problem is, while in my opinion sci-fi has told some of the most amazing stories ever, the majority of it does totally suck. Like 95% of it. So that attitude and stereotype is unfortunately somewhat earned.

 

[AviTrek]

Also, most Sci Fi ends up in the summer action boat. Critics don't really think much of Michael Bay films, even if they aren't Sci Fi. There's a reason all the "serious" films come out in December. They are what the critics like, and the critics are the ones voting on the Oscars.

 

[Warped9]

The problem is, while in my opinion sci-fi has told some of the most amazing stories ever, the majority of it does totally suck. Like 95% of it. So that attitude and stereotype is unfortunately somewhat earned.

This doesn't wash for me because most of everything else sucks as well.

 

[Mistral]

Also, most Sci Fi ends up in the summer action boat. Critics don't really think much of Michael Bay films, even if they aren't Sci Fi. There's a reason all the "serious" films come out in December. They are what the critics like, and the critics are the ones voting on the Oscars.

Yet stories like Children of Men get ignored too. Nominated for a best screenplay adaptation, it was ignored in the voting...

I remember seeing Miracale Mile years ago. I left the theater going, "Whoa! That movie put my head in a whole new place!" And no real awards.

 

[SinglePurpose]

They are what the critics like, and the critics are the ones voting on the Oscars.

No, they don't. Members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences vote on the Oscars and that's made up of people who actually make movies.

 

[Klaus]

I expect "mainstream" critics to fail to get most sf/f, so I discount their negative reviews quite often -- but when they like something sf/f, then I get excited that it may have crossover appeal.

Plus it's fun to watch them embarrass themselves, like when John Simon of New York magazine said Leia Organa meant "a natural lay."

 

[Harvey]

It comes down to one thing: most filmed science fiction isn't very good. Most of it falls into the summer movie bracket, and at best is big, dumb, and a little bit of fun. At worst, and far too often, it's big, dumb, and stupid. Occasionally it's not--in recent memory, Children of Men, Primer, and Dark City have all received very positive notices from critics. But when the rest of the year's science fiction fare is on the level of an unnecessary remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still, a lifeless and repetitive comic book prequel in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, or even Watchmen (a movie that should have been smart, but wasn't), what do you expect?