Hacker News Reader

One counter-example to your second point is Don't Look Up

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dont_look_up_2021

55% Tomatometer, 78% audience score

My take with this movie is that the opposite of your #2 happened. Lots of regular folks who are concerned with global warming rated the movie highly, because they care about the political message it sends. Critics saw it as a pretty mediocre movie even though the message might be good.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think it can go both ways.

EDIT: I looked again, and I realized the "Critic Consensus" and "Audience Says" sections on that page actually match my theory. For whatever that's worth.

Critic Consensus: Don't Look Up aims too high for its scattershot barbs to consistently land, but Adam McKay's star-studded satire hits its target of collective denial square on.

Audience Says: Although it can be heavy-handed with its messaging, Don't Look Up tackles important subjects with humor and heart.

> 1) The corporatization of social media is a big factor.

Yep. There was a time when I trusted internet/social media reviews because they weren't bought and paid for access media. But now, it's clear that they are also bought and paid for. They are now invited to press screenings and follow disney rules on release of spoiler reviews. Not only influencers but entire social media platforms are now arms of corporate PR.

> 2) Everything has become political

It's always been political. The only difference now is that ordinary people have a way of voicing their opinions. Hollywood, media, film critics, best sellers list, award shows, etc are all political propaganda. Always have been.

I think part of why this happens is that critics are part of the "creative" class of people. Creative people are more likely to be open to new ideas and explore, which is more likely to lead them to scenarios in their lives that look something like the non-binary vegan sex worker side of our world. And so, they find the dramatic look into the lives of marginal characters fascinating. I'm going to point to Silence.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/silence_2017

To be a Christian in Japan during this part of the Edo Jidai is an especially marginal identity. It's not hard for a creative type who has seriously been on the margin at some point in their life to relate to that even if they are not Christian. It also doesn't hurt of course that the final message delivered is a pan-out view of his faith in its unconfessed nature which does indeed comport to a contemporary agenda summed up well in the movie's title; "Silence", as an imperative. "It is virtuous to make your sacrifices to Caesar/The Emprah, step on the fumie, and never speak about your religion in public because it causes other people pain and discomfort."

You bring up a good point and there's possibly an additional, simpler, effect: producers of big-budget films pay for good reviews, both by critics and by IMDb users.

> The corporatization of social media is a big factor. There's big money involved in controlling reviews. Critics and influencers devoted to certain fandoms inevitably get influenced, pressured, infiltrated by studios who expect favorable treatment towards their product or that entity loses access, gets attacked, etc.

Remember the online rehabilitation of the Star Wars prequels when Disney was spinning up their crap?

>A critic is going to want to rate some drama about a queer latinx non-binary vegan sex worker thats trying to come to grips with his atheism while interracial dating higher than the story deserves just to appear to have the "correct politics".

I like reading books which teach me new experiences, or ways of life I've never really thought about.

These types of movies are great because they expose me to subcultures and issues which aren't a part of my daily life. Even if I'm aware of them statistically understanding the emotional component to these kinds of stories is a worthwhile experience.

As long as the movie isn't simply bad, I'd give it a good review as well.

Only "1" is correct here.

As for "2,", come on, it's ALWAYS been political. It's mostly always been this way except for changes in which particular groups you've named.