Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrischen | Hacker News Reader

But telling a person what they will like is a much more personalized endeavor suited for automated recommendation systems.

Any random person could like objectively bad movies.

But a critic can only recommend things objectively good. That means they can only try to filter out good movies, which are movies you should watch but may not like because your tastes are not objectively universal.

View on HN

Critics are not qualified to tell me what I should watch towards developing my own character. The disconnect between what they push as best and what audiences like as good, illustrates the postmodern critic's lack of relevance. Critics are pushers of entitled cynicism and ideology, not meaningful content.

But critics should be experts in the field (of movies), and at the very least have seen it all. Therefore they can commentate on what's been done before and what is actually new.

> Critics are not qualified to tell me what I should watch towards developing my own character.

Well yes since everyone is different critics can never satisfy that for everyone.

Requiring to have seen it all is a big problem if you identify as a critic, in all senses of the words. It's easy to be pulled in by irrelevant novelty that is not meaningful to viewers, or become disenchanted and find your critical sensibilities turn against what viewers find meaningful. There's an ideological and philosophical component here that is at the rift between critics and viewers.

> suited for automated recommendation systems.

Realistically, current automated recommendation systems all sux.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com