Scott,

I think a lot of the problem has to do with the homogenization of criticism.

Today you can go to Rottentomatoes.com or Metacritic and look up any film that's out. You will see a number. The problem is that the number doesn't mean anything specific.

Kill Bill received an 85%. I would go see any movie even remotely similar. These are the kind of movies I like. Inception received an 87% -- and it's not the type of movie I'd like to see again.

The numbers don't mean anything.

In the 80s, at the advent of the video it was common to see a shelf that was "John's Picks" wedged inbetween "Sherry's Picks" and "Stuart's Picks."

These choices actually meant something. Maybe John was the action genre guy, so you'd know if he put something up there, it'd most likely be a good action flick. Sherry was a Romantic Comedy queen and Stuart loved the arthouse.

The point is -- the criticism meant something.

The problem with today's system is that it equates itself to a grading scale -- where the higher the number the better the movie. The problem becomes that "better" is completely subjective.

When millions of dollars are riding on a project, why does someone like the Scriptshadow have more say than anyone else? I have no idea what movies he likes, how literate he is, whether he even passed high school -- and yet his 5 tiered system of whether he likes a script or not can decimate a movie deal that has otherwise miraculously made it through all the gates to the point that Scriptshadow is even considering looking at it. Cause, let's face it -- his site works on getting scripts that have made it through an overwhelming number of entertainment industry thresholds.

The problem is that criticism has been boiled damn to a single vale of worth.

No piece of art, literature, film, etc. can be so easily boiled down to a numerical figure -- if they could, Hollywood would never have a flop.

Unfortunately, a lot of people who read criticism either forget that, or never knew in the first place.

James, you make a strong point. Do you mind if I move that to an update of the OP so GITS readers are more likely to see it?

Re Scriptshadow: During the ruckus last year, I made my thoughts clear to SS. Obviously being sensitive to the plight of screenwriters, seeing as I am one, I suggested that SS limit critiques to actual spec scripts that sell - which seem fair game to me because they represent what a studio saw as a positive - and shooting scripts (or intermediate drafts) only after the movie has been released in theaters, thereby not interfering with a project's development prospects. Indeed, to be extra mindful of writers, who depend upon the B.O. and ancillary success of movies they write as much as anyone, best to wait commenting on shooting or intermediate scripts until the movie has been out for 4 weeks, so it's had a chance to get word of mouth on its own merits.

That said, in general, I support more analysis and discussion about scripts and movies than less, precisely in some respects because of the point you make: In a dumbed down world where everything in the media gets reduced to a headline, a grade, a number, etc, I, as a consumer, want as much information as I care to get on the choices I make where I spend my entertainment dollars. Beyond that, it's also important to me to learn as much about movies and their histories because it's part of what I do as a writer, teacher, blogger, etc.

So what I'm saying is, I think, in sync with your central point: The numbers don't mean anything unless you obtain enough actual input to put them into some sort of informational framework.

I think it's funny he mentions The Avengers. That movie was in the pipeline and has actors attached before the script has even been written, much less outlined(via Whedon). That's how these serial comic movies are going to work. Each hero gets their own movie, then crossovers are going to happen, with cast decided on before the script is written.

And if details leak onto the Net, it won’t make a movie collapse. If anything, it probably helps filmmakers step up their game and actually write QUALITY.

Hollywood doesn't want to have to write quality. They only want a movie that will make them money. That's exactly why The Matrix Reloaded is a piece of shit - because they were smart enough to realize that people would see it no matter how bad it turned out to be because all the audience had to go by at that point was the quality of the original film. It was GUARANTEED profit. No need to make sure the script works if you're too busy finding new places to keep all your money.

That's also why every old film is being remade and every new film is getting a sequel - because Hollywood wants money, NOT because someone has a good idea for a story. That is a cynical approach to the studio system, but it's also the most accurate...and that's sad.

The old Abe Lincoln quote, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time" comes into play here, Ryan.

I totally agree with every point you made but my question is this... what does Hollywood do when that formula no longer works? Switch their exports from movies to frozen pizzas? (If I had to choose between another Michael Bay movie or a freezer section pizza pie, you know where my nine bucks are going but that's beside the point...)

While I share your cynicism to a degree, I also know that there are genuine MOVIE fans who work out west who do want to be involved in quality movies.

Because the fact of the matter is this... even going back to Hollywood's "Golden Age" (and pick whichever "golden age" you like... if you're partial to Preston Sturges, then the 40's... if you dig on Bob Rafelson, the 70's then) Hollywood had the exact same goals it has today... to make money. I would also contend that, in most instances, nobody sets out to make a BAD movie, even in The Matrix example you cited. (We can argue the merits and faults of those sequels until we're blue in the face but that's for another day...)

The difference between yesterday and today is that in years past, Hollywood set out to make money by way of quality filmmaking - movies people will see and enjoy and then see again.

Today, that is not the case. Now, it's all about what will get people in the theater with little regard in the way of whether or not the product is something people will want to see once, let alone twice. But we as audience members pay to see films in theaters before we actually see the film, and Hollywood is taking full advantage of that.

It seems Hollywood's idea of "going green" is to shift focus 100% on revenue - what will get people to pay money in the first place. That's exactly why films like T4 and QOS exist.

Go for it Scott.

And I'm not going to pretend I'm not a hypocrite. I look for any source I can find to attain the newest scripts, be it friends working at agencies or Scriptshadow. Not for any of the reasons you listed, but --

-- I like reading them. Like someone else might read a novel, I read a screenplay.

I think that's a big part of the problem as well. Too many people read screenplays with an analytical eye rather than allowing themselves to enjoy the story.

I could honestly care less about some random blogger's opinions about a screenplay. In fact, I can't think of the last time I read one.

I really want to ask them "What's your expertise?" but the truth of the matter is -- we already know the answer to this. They have none.

Better questions to ask than is this a good or bad script is -- "Why was this bought / sold?"

And yet, I don't see many screenwriting blogs about that (save GITS hits on it every now and then).

Oh, I'd also like to point out our news coverage on movies primarily consists of a report on box office revenue.

Again, this is just another way to assign "value" to a film that really has no connection to content.

As far as criticism goes -- any opinion becomes the only opinion. It's a very strange time we're living in.