My rating of a film will never appear on the poster for a film. Nor (I imagine)will Jeremy Jahns, Chris Stuckman, Moviebob or any of the other film critics that inhabit YouTube. And yet, if I worked for a newspaper or magazine, I imagine that my musings on the latest Hollywood offerings would (if favorable) wind up on the poster thus hopefully ensuring more attention for me and bigger box-office takings for the film.
I bring this up because I saw a poster for Terminator:Genysis in my paper yesterday, and the sole quote for quite a large blockbuster assuring me that I was going to ‘love this.’ came from a Mr. James Cameron. Aka the Directer of the first two films. A person who if you want a neutral viewpoint about whether or not this film is good or not would, I imagine probably be quite low on the list of people that I would trust to be impartial.
But this got me thinking, why do people trust newspaper critics more than others? To the best of my knowledge we have no guild, no formal training scheme or qualifications required to be a film critic, just write/video/tweet/speak your opinion and there you go, your a film critic!
Or maybe its an experience thing, newspaper film critics have been doing this for decades and have probably watched a wider variety of films then myself or many other internet film critics have had the ability to do. But this experience comes with time.
Also, I don’t trust all newspaper critics the same. I know that some are more, shall we say enthusiastic than others with their high ratings and indeed if I see only some newspapers on the poster than I know already that a certain film is probably going to hurt.
At the end of the day though, my personal opinion is that people have always trusted newspaper critics, they are seen as more respectable, dedicated and somehow more honest than people such as myself.
What do you guys think?