| 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 | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Criticizing Metacritic - WaymanWong 11:24 am EST 12/19/17 |
| Next: | re: The Pros and Cons of Metacritic - WaymanWong 12:50 pm EST 12/20/17 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.009531 seconds.