ShadowBoxing said:
Actually critical opinion is in higher regard than "lay person" opinion. Lay people tend to justify their own opinions through logical fallacy for one, especially when disregarding critical opinion. You would not trust the opinion of a poster over that of a doctor in medical matters, however people seem to disregard political, artistic and social opinions of people who are learned in those fields quiet often.
Actually it's not, that's a typical fallacy; and I gave logical reasoning for why I disregard critical opinion(which you conveniently failed to include in your little bold print).
Medical matters aren't subjective, film quality is(a difference I often find the people that claim critical opinion is of more worth have trouble distinguishing). Whether you can cure an illness is factually measureable, whether you can make a good movie is not.
Some may choose to put critical up on a pedestal, but that's their business, it still proves nothing about film quality. Discussing it as though it does is merely a sign of insecurity in one's own beliefs and falling back on others to try to validate them for you.
There are plenty of movie fans (so called "lay people") that can give reviews with much more depth than critics can(who often spend the bulk of their reviews trying to come up with what they think are witty ways to pan something and repeating the same point over and over while slightly rewording it to try make it seem like a new point).
Awards, box office, reviews, popularity...these are all entirely different issues than how
good a film is, which is up to each individual to decide for themselves. Film quality is not about statistics(something that people that think critical opinion adds validity often steer off topic into without even realizing they're off topic, like right now).
I don't trust the opinions of other fans either, I don't need to trust anyone else's opinion, I can decide for myself.
)
