What do you think is the meaning of the existence of film critics?

Any benign cultural industry is in a state of swaying, and there must be "bad movies" that flatter the audience, and there are also "masterpieces" that are high and low. Without kitsch works to grab money and use it as fuel for the industry to move forward, it is difficult for the industry to develop. At this time, criticism from the masses is necessary.

We can't let bad movies continue to accumulate the value of the film and television industry, and let bad movies simply make a lot of money. We are the general audience of film and television works, and we have the right to praise good works and criticize bad movies, and film critics are the head audience, they know how to express themselves, so to speak, they are the spokespersons of our public opinions, and they are one of our voices. The continuous voice of film critics and the driving of public opinion can allow filmmakers to seriously think about the story and think about the techniques, less boring clichés, to better meet the increasingly discerning tastes of our audiences, and to create more high-quality head works.

The role is to construct a complete set of modern cognition of film and television aesthetics. The period when Western painting shifted from realism to abstraction also coincided with the emergence of a large number of art connoisseurs. What is artistic, what is beautiful, and what is valuable, perhaps the artist himself is not very clear.

It is precisely with the continuous iteration of theoretical knowledge accumulated by these so-called art critics, who seem to have left no works, that the "beautiful" art is selected, and our modern art aesthetics are constructed step by step. It can be said that in addition to the continuous creation of talented artists, the continuous iteration of art theories by art critics is also an indispensable part of making art aesthetics constantly close to modern orientation. Not only painting, but also literature, film and television and other cultural industries are applicable.

It's definitely not a bad thing to be strict with the industry, and they will eventually feed back to the cultural industry itself.

The essence of film criticism is for the viewer to describe his or her viewing experience and give an explanation: this **** is good, why is it good; Not good, why is it bad; Touching, what touched you; **Amazing, why do you feel amazing; There are loopholes, what is the plot design that makes you feel illogical. Therefore, the objectivity of film criticism is that certain characteristics of a film can cause the same experience for the vast majority of people.

Ordinary people will directly make brain-dead remarks about good movies under normal circumstances, while film critics pretend to be calm and make brain-dead remarks while picking bones and pointing out deficiencies. Ordinary people directly express straightforward criticism and disgust for watching movies, while film critics want to promote the correct plot story first, and then poison it to death. All in all, it's a decent black and beautiful.

The emphasis is on personal criticism of the film rather than the statement of the film's content, and the entry point is often the evaluation of the use of the film's language system (such as cinematography, scene scheduling, editing, acting, directing, screenwriting, etc.).

Narrowing the aesthetic gap between the public and "storytelling" practitioners is of no significance to the filmmakers themselves, because the creation itself does not need criticism and encouragement.

The vast majority of U.S. film festivals will have something like a pre-screener committee (jury?). It always feels strange to translate like this) Such an internal audit department, as the name suggests, its function is to screen out excellent works from hundreds of films like a sieve, so as to ensure that everyone has a good viewing experience at the festival.

I think the evaluation of a movie is good or bad, probably both of which should be referred to. The objective evaluation of film critics will explain and evaluate the film from some more professional perspectives. And the viewer's feeling is the most direct way to see if this movie can move the audience and evaluate whether this movie is good or not.

Of course, the most important thing is to look at the personal feelings, the evaluation of moviegoers is only their own professional perspective, or personal perspective to evaluate the movie, and whether a movie is good or not, the evaluation of a movie may be a different feeling for everyone after watching the movie, and then the audience has a rating for this movie. And I think it's very important for a movie to be able to intuitively bring the audience a good and bad feeling. Therefore, the subjective evaluation of the natural individual is very important.

But sometimes, this subjective evaluation will inevitably be affected by personal preferences, as well as the type of movie, and various aspects. So this subjective evaluation is sometimes inaccurate to evaluate a movie. So at this time, an objective evaluation of moviegoers is needed.

So I think the two need to be combined to judge whether a movie is good or not. Sometimes, one-sided evaluation can't fully show the good and bad of the movie. Whether a movie is made well or not, the audience can sometimes intuitively feel it, but of course, this is also related to the audience's appreciation ability and personal preferences.

For example, there are some very good and classic movies, which may not be the genre that the audience likes, and not many viewers watch them, but it is undeniable that after the objective evaluation of some moviegoers, many of us will find that this movie is a good movie. And some movies have good reviews, and some moviegoers don't have good reviews. At this time, it may be that we are mainly based on everyone's evaluation.

I think it depends on the objective evaluation of the film critics, because they will look at the movie with a professional eye and give a very pertinent evaluation.

The quality of a movie is, of course, based on the subjective evaluation of the viewer, because everyone has their own experience and will judge it from their own perspective.

I think it should be largely determined by the subjective evaluation of the viewer's intuitive feelings, the objective evaluation of the film critic seems to be objective, but in fact there are too many non-objective factors, but the subjective love of the moviegoer really represents the quality of this movie, a movie that makes people cry, who dares to say that this is not a good movie!

The quality of the movie is determined by the subjective evaluation of the viewer, because the presentation of the movie is for the audience, so that the audience can feel another life.

I think it's a subjective evaluation of the moviegoer, because if the audience doesn't like to watch a movie, no matter how good the critic says, it's useless.

I think both film critics and moviegoers have their own subjective and objective evaluations. And I think the evaluation of moviegoers is more important, although film critics are more professional in this area, but the angle of moviegoers is wide and not easy to be limited.

Film critics are only talking about their own opinions, so the audience does not need to rely on the evaluation of film critics to judge the quality of a film. Every audience has their own aesthetic ability and their own subjective feelings, so the audience can judge the quality of a film by relying on their own feelings. I hope that everyone will express their opinions more in life and trust themselves more.

Many audiences rely on the evaluation of film critics when judging whether a film is good or bad. Does the audience need to rely on the critics' evaluation to judge the quality of a film? Here's what I think:

1. What the film critic said is also his own law.

In fact, even the most professional film critics are, they only express their subjective opinions when evaluating the film. This subjective perception will not be used as a criterion for judging whether a film is good or bad. Therefore, the audience does not need to rely on the main ** of the film critic to judge the quality of a film.

Second, every audience has the ability to appreciate beauty.

In fact, every audience has their own ability to appreciate beauty, and they also have their own subjective feelings about the quality of the film. If the audience thinks this film is good, then this film is good, and if the audience thinks this film is not good, then this film may not be any better. Therefore, the audience can judge a film based on their own subjective feelings.

3. I hope you can trust yourself more.

In today's world, because many people are able to express their opinions on the Internet, these opinions fill everyone's mind. It is precisely because the opinions are very chaotic that many viewers lose their ability to judge. As viewers, each of us must trust ourselves and our ability to appreciate beauty.

Only then will we be able to find our favorite films.

Personally, I don't think the audience needs it, because the quality of this film can only be judged whether it is suitable for them after watching and feeling it.

No, because the audience has their own feelings after watching the movie and can appreciate the good and bad of the film, so there is no need for film critics to influence them.

The evaluation of professional film critics can give the audience a valid opinion. Because film critics can give objective evaluations from the plot, the director's shooting and the actors' acting skills, so that the audience can know whether the drama is worth watching.

I don't think the audience needs to rely on the evaluation of film critics to judge the quality of a film, the audience has their own evaluation standards, and they also have certain aesthetic standards.

I think ordinary people will evaluate this movie directly according to their intuitive feelings, because everyone's hope for the direction of the movie is different, so if the fruit store in Suizhou does not develop according to the inner direction of ordinary tourists, then this movie may be complained by ordinary people. However, professional film critics will evaluate this movie from a professional point of view, whether it is from the development of the film's plot, or the actors' acting skills and line skills, or even the filming techniques, which are all factors that professional film critics should consider.

Ordinary people just watched the movie, and professional film critics will ** every detail, and then give an evaluation, and ordinary people forget about it after watching it.

The difference is still very big, ordinary people are more concerned about whether the plot is good-looking, whether the special effects are cool, but when film critics watch the movie, they will pay attention to all the details in the movie, we ordinary people think the plot is good-looking, and the film critics will analyze why it is good, as well as the camera movement in the movie, storyboarding, etc.