Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Reviews: Metacritic Scores "A Christmas Story: Live!" 61 Out Of 100 | |
| Last Edit: pierce 02:51 am EST 12/19/17 | |
| Posted by: pierce 02:49 am EST 12/19/17 | |
| In reply to: re: A CHRISTMAS STORY LIVE! - mattyp4 01:18 pm EST 12/18/17 | |
|
|
|
| The reviews were all over the place for A Christmas Story: Live! But Metacritic has catalogued them and, based on their rating system, given the telecast a score of 61 out of 100; this places it in the category of receiving "generally favorable" reviews, although just barely - if the point total had come to 60, it would have landed in the "mixed or average" reviews category. As the linked reviews indicate, the telecast wasn't universally panned; indeed, there were some very favorable notices - just as there were some very negative ones. However, there's no question the show was a ratings dud. |
|
| Link | A Christmas Story: Live! |
| reply to this message | |
| Criticizing Metacritic | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 11:28 am EST 12/19/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 11:24 am EST 12/19/17 | |
| In reply to: Reviews: Metacritic Scores "A Christmas Story: Live!" 61 Out Of 100 - pierce 02:49 am EST 12/19/17 | |
|
|
|
| One of my issues with Metacritic (or Rotten Tomatoes) that it reduces ALL reviews to the same numerical weight. So a review from Variety or the N.Y. Times counts as much as a review from some obscure website? Not in my book. Also, the score will vary on how many reviews Metacritic collects. As you point out, the Metacritic score for ''A Christmas Story Live!'' got 61, barely getting a ''generally favorable'' rating. And yet missing in Metacritic's compilation (of 11 reviews) is Jeremy Gerard's pan at Deadline.com (''180-minute slog''), which clearly would've driven its rating lower. But another issue is who rates or scores these reviews? ''At three hours, it kind of felt like the Christmas parable that would never end. Though the music is written by Broadway’s golden team of Benj Pasek & Justin Paul (Dear Evan Hansen), the score never really rises above feeling like a passably generic theme-park musical.'' That's from Caroline Siede's review from the A.V. Club, which was clearly mixed, but labeled as ''positive.'' And Hank Stuever's withering pan from the Washington Post, calling the show ''tedious'' and ''overblown,'' was scored as simply ''mixed.'' |
|
| reply to this message |
| The Pros and Cons of Metacritic | |
| Posted by: pierce 02:29 am EST 12/20/17 | |
| In reply to: Criticizing Metacritic - WaymanWong 11:24 am EST 12/19/17 | |
|
|
|
| So a review from Variety or the N.Y. Times counts as much as a review from some obscure website? Don't know what you're talking about. I've seen obscure websites on Rotten Tomatoes (with absurd names like "Planet Sick Boy" and "Too Much Caffeine") but I've never seen anything remotely comparable on Metacritic. Some sources are certainly higher profile than others, but at least I recognize all of them. And though I never program my brain according to reviews, I do appreciate the fact that Metacritic has five categories for a film's critical reception (they are "Universal Acclaim," "Generally Favorable Reviews," "Mixed or Average Reviews," "Generally Unfavorable Reviews" and "Universal Dislke"). These categories, though imperfect, do a better job of describing how a film has been received than by simply labeling them as "Fresh" or "Rotten" - as Rotten Tomatoes does. In addition, I've linked the page Metacritic provides which explains their rating/scoring system. One can always quibble with aspects of that system, but at least they're offering a glimpse into how they score the reviews. As for the reviews from the AV Club and Washington Post, I can see why they've been placed in their respective categories; you've cherry-picked various criticisms but left out the positive things mentioned by both critics. And while I believe the numerical score for the AV Club review is generous (I'd put in in the low 60s and not 75), I still believe it's a favorable review - though definitely a mild one. The review's headline states that A Christmas Story Live! "At least manages not to shoot its eye out' and quickly qualifies it as "a pretty good production of a so-so musical." Finally, after carping about numerous elements while allowing that most of the cast is "suitably adorable," the review concludes with "As reheated holiday leftovers go, A Christmas Story Live! just about hits the spot." As for the Washington Post, I don't believe it's a "withering pan," as you called it - I think it's a mixed review, but definitely on the lower side of that scale (as the numerical score of 40 indicates). Stuever's objections to the production are clearly stated, but he also says "Still, no permanent harm done; the musical didn't commit any outright heresies against the original film". Toward the end of the review, in describing the show's Chinese restaurant sequence, he notes "and this is where A Christmas Story Live! finally found its voice." He also adds that, to the telecast's credit, that it "successfully made room for all Americans." As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out I didn't see the musical version of A Christmas Story (either on stage or on TV), and - facts be known - I never cared for the 1983 film it was based on. All I wanted to do was point out that Sunday's television broadcast received some good reviews - which it did, as the link in my original post proves. |
|
| Link | The Scoring System for Metacritic |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The Pros and Cons of Metacritic | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 12:56 pm EST 12/20/17 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 12:50 pm EST 12/20/17 | |
| In reply to: The Pros and Cons of Metacritic - pierce 02:29 am EST 12/20/17 | |
|
|
|
| The Washington Post was predominantly critical, so I excerpted what I thought reflected the tenor of the review. (Nor did you address the omission of Deadine.com's unflattering review, which would've lowered the score.) I never denied that the TV ''Christmas Story'' got ANY good reviews, but a number of the major ones were indeed negative. As my disclaimer, I've written and edited theater reviews during a lifetime on major newspapers, so I view this through my prism. For the record, I've seen the original ''A Christmas Story'' movie, the Broadway musical and, of course, the TV adaptation. ;) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Pros and Cons of Metacritic | |
| Last Edit: pierce 04:57 pm EST 12/20/17 | |
| Posted by: pierce 04:50 pm EST 12/20/17 | |
| In reply to: re: The Pros and Cons of Metacritic - WaymanWong 12:50 pm EST 12/20/17 | |
|
|
|
| The omission of Deadline.com is a matter for the creators of Metacritic to deal with. But given your earlier complaint about obscure websites being judged on the same level as major publications, it's funny to hear you pushing for the inclusion of Deadline.com; I know who they are, but they're the closest thing to an obscure website that might appear on Metacritic. And no, you didn't deny that A Christmas Story Live! got good reviews. I never said you did. But as this thread confirms, you posted the first negative review the show received, then followed that up with another one (adding that it received a number of negative reviews). There's nothing wrong with reporting that a show got bad notices, but why not give equal time to the positive ones? It's only fair. And you did omit the grudgingly favorable comments in the Washington Post review that clearly influenced Metacitic's decision to label it "mixed" (albeit with the lowest possible score in that category). You may not be aware of it, but you're coming across like a cheerleader for the bad reviews. Like I said, I don't think Metacritic is perfect. I do, however, feel it's the best game in town; it's definitely a better barometer of a film's critical reception than Rotten Tomatoes. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| As For Broderick's "Creepy" Narrator... | |
| Posted by: pierce 03:22 am EST 12/19/17 | |
| In reply to: Reviews: Metacritic Scores "A Christmas Story: Live!" 61 Out Of 100 - pierce 02:49 am EST 12/19/17 | |
|
|
|
| A staff writer for Yahoo News wrote a goofy, tongue-in-cheek examination of Broderick's sinister character. And it's pretty funny... | |
| Link | A Terrifying Descent Into Madness |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
Time to render: 0.015086 seconds.