Critic & Audience

By Lukas Kanics '26

In our modern age of media, we often seek out reviews from sites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to help determine which films, shows, and other forms of media we should spend our limited time on. However, these sites often make a decision to separate the reviews into two groups, “critics” and “audience,” sparking discourse over which is more valuable. On one hand, one might argue that critics are clearly whom you should trust to report professional opinions. Plus, audiences can get upset easily and “review-bomb,” leaving an influx of negative reviews. On the other hand, one may argue that what a couple hundred snobs think is irrelevant to what the average person will like. In this article, we’ll explore both sides of this debate.

First, some may argue that critics are far more trustworthy than an often more biased and less knowledgeable audience. The fact that anyone can leave a review on anything they’d like, often having the need to create an account be the only barrier to critique, means that any half-baked take, prejudiced reaction, or joke can influence the numbers. Furthermore, the crowds can act in waves, often “review-bombing” anything they deem to have “forced diversity” or messaging they disagree with. For example, Doctor Who (1963-1989, 2005-present) was review-bombed for its “disneyfied” adaptation of the beloved series, containing Ncuti Gatwa—a queer Black man—playing the titular Doctor and loads of LGBTQ+ representation throughout. Many denounced this new version of the show after one episode contained a scene where the Doctor kisses another man, calling it completely out of character and demanding the show go back to the past version; however, nearly twenty years earlier, an episode of the show aired depicting a very similar scene. In contrast, critics provide insight into what is a worthwhile watch and what is a waste of time. They take their time to ensure that their input is valuable and their opinions are clear. They have knowledge beyond the average person that allows them to give detail beyond simply stating whether they enjoyed something or not. Overall, many would argue that the refined and filtered views of critics are far more useful than that of the unrefined and unfiltered audience.

Next, the other side of the argument—that the audience is far superior to critics—does have some evidence behind it. To begin, the “wisdom of the crowd” is a real phenomenon where when a large group of individuals is sampled and asked to provide a number, for example, a guess of how many jellybeans are in a jar, the average of their results is often very close to the actual number. Apply this to reviews and it does seem reasonable that the larger, more diverse sample would provide a better metric than critics. Additionally, platforms such as IMDB filter their reviews to try to eliminate botting and “review-bombing” from influencing their scores. Finally, critics often prefer more “artsy” films and often dismiss most of what's found in the genres of action and comedy, despite the mass praise of such genres, and there are various cases where successful and beloved films have gotten deserved praise from audiences but none from critics. For instance, Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) received praise from critics, but is now seen as one of the most hated movies of all time, and its sequel, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) was trashed by critics but deemed relatively enjoyable by audiences. All things considered, plenty of people prefer the broader sample size and more relatable views of the audience over the critics.
​
All in all, the question of whether you should listen to a knowledgeable but small group of people or a more diverse and large group that may suffer from more  bias goes far beyond reviewing movies and tv shows. It is a very prevalent question in politics and government, with it being asked all the way through the chain from local to federal government. From asking “Should we make it so more people can vote in our elections?” to “Are there too few seats on the Supreme Court?”, it is important to see both sides before we, as a nation and as individuals, decide what our answer will be.