They are Just Like us

Rewards, 'good, bad', etc, etc. should never depend on critics.
Though I said 'not always' which means I am probably saying that sometimes they are. But you know what? Aren't they all just opinions like anyone? Isn't everybody a critic (Yes, fans count)?, etc?

I guess by 'not always'. Sometimes a critic can maybe indeed make a good point, such as missing some stuff, bringing in actual legit non-bias fault (Bugs, glitches, plot holes, graphic comparison within the same movie or game, and maybe some more.), etc.
Sometimes there is basic feedback where an artist (or company) might find something 'better' personality.

The thing that does upset me a lot is that some people treat critics as "superior" to all other, that all 'good' or 'bad' must depend on them, (especially that stupid 'Rotten Tomato' score crap) etc. but when I see some reviews (e.g. on Alpha and Omega, Untraceable, Man of Steel, etc. it sounds like "We seenz this beforez", "I personality hate art-style, flaw flaw!", "Why the Super Man have to be this way, can't it be like the old Super Man!!" "I hate Untraceable's story because it ends happy or umm.. something"), then I realized something.
Why the hell do we need critics these days? "All" they do is probably harm and spoil something that may be great to someone, and have someone avoid it, when they could of liked it. And can make the artists feel bad, etc.

I would say, there is one reward that could depend on critics and I think that's called a 'Critics Award'?



Want proof that critics can harm a reputation of a movie, game, etc?
Here:

Not only there was some criticism against critics but I experience this myself:
I was in a comment somewhere of something I don't remember. I was talking about something, and sometime later (probably due to something I said), someone said that they avoided a movie called 'The Nut Job' (I think) because they saw the score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Then told me that he/she got the movie some time later, and said to me that listening to the score was a mistake or something. He/she liked it.
Note: I apologize if this story came out false.

Seeing this shows that critics can indeed harm what would be possible to be enjoyed by maybe much more people.
The comment also reminded me of this: filmschoolrejects.com/features…
or wait, it may have reminded of a VERY interesting comment I found... Mainly the last part...
filmschoolrejects.com/features…

"and in those rare occasions like this, do i feel angry at these no-name individuals, and RT for giving them a safe haven for their hate by ruining a movie for millions of other people who possibly would have enjoyed the movie if they watched them on their own."

Did anyone get the last part of that quote? I think that's what that comment I got on Youtube reminded me of.

===========

One other worst part is that some people are biases, and basically dictate over an artist of when something is good or "not". Some people I believe abuse an actual 'critique' by attacking artist creative intentions and unfairly compare it to things the artist (or company) either wanted or wanted to avoid.
THIS STIFLES CREATIVITY.

Another very bad thing, is that I've seen artists stand up against critics and many people attacked the artist for defending their own work by pretending that the critics opinion was "right".



Gee, I thought it was 'all opinions'? That wouldn't be so fucking hard to deal with if the above of everything I said never happened and that people didn't actually directly act like their personal opinion is "fact" when it comes to bringing out artist intentions.

It's fine to have personal preferences, but if you start judging (and for example) an 'art-style' of something, as a "flaw", or "better than another", then aren't are treating your personal preferences as a "fact"?
Edit: 12/10/2015: I meant to say "then aren't you treating" instead of "then aren't are treating". Edit done.