So in the age of Rotten Tomatoes, I would like to clarify that to me that expands into the realm of social media commentary and criticism in comment sections as well, because this is all in the same age as Rotten Tomatoes, right? So I'm not necessarily sticking strictly to the platform. However, even the Rotten Tomatoes setup, I think, does contribute to film critics being virually obsolete. The reason is capitalism. So under capitalism we cannot really afford to focus on the arts and on films and paying film critics you know the filmmakers have trouble finding funding for their films and much less the film critics right and to the the extent that there are they have very few readers. So when you see big box things like Marvel succeeding, it's evidence that film has really really been commercialized. So I think yes film critics are virtually obsolete and I don't necessarily think that it's because of Rotten Tomatoes or the like, although that does contribute to the diminishing of film criticism and thoughtful analysis. Ie skillfully adding something to the conversation as opposed to just sharing a reaction or initial impression. criticism is a skill. Film criticism is a skill, and it's not one that our increasingly capitalist society chooses to invest in or facilitate time for absorbing, and therefore that is why it is obsolete to a much greater extent then ever before, even though the problem of "everyone's a critic" has long been bin existence.

There is value in someone watching a film closely and explaining what it is doing, but that is not necessarily the bulk of the review content that is on rotten tomatoes. that site is primarily about movie recommendations and movie reviews and personal assessment of whether the viewer enjoyed a movie to films, which is different than film criticism. so while in the age of rotten tomatoes, movie reviews might be more abundant and plentiful. I would, criticism is nonetheless obsolete and even more so because the typical person looking for information on whther to see a movie, now, instead of reading a column by a film critic which would likely include more context ie background information on film history and film theory, potential viewers are instead relying on what other general viewers. no judgment on whether that's a bad thing or not but it is objectively different than film criticism and it is more about assessing commercial appeal.

Certainly pure crowd score would be going even farther away from film criticism. Rotten Tomatoes does not facilitate film criticism because the comments in virtually all cases lack the other parts of criticism such as polished analysis and placement in context of film history and the relevant canons and theories. The trends currently is that the attention of potential viewers currently goes toward platforms like Rotten Tomatoes as opposed to critical reviews which has rendered such criticism obsolete