I'm interested in reading what our members who have experience in the entertainment industry have to say about this, but others please feel free to provide your opinions, too. Basic Question: Do film and theater critics change their mind about someone? To clarify when I mean by that, I have a few examples I'd like to expand upon. Andrew Lloyd Weber. He has a track record of writing critically acclaimed shows. But if he were to come up with a real stinker, how would the critics react? Would they be kind and say something kind, like "The proven formula at work again"? Would they give him the benefit of the doubt and say something like "Not up to his usual standard"? Or would they say something like "He hit a clinker"? Are critics in general reticent to say the "emperor" (someone with an established track record of good reviews) is now standing there butt nekked? If another critic says it, are the others fast followers? Or do they think a negative revue says that they might have been wrong about the artist in the past? In the other extreme, we have Ed Wood. If, after a long series of bad movies, he had created a true cinematic masterpiece, how do you think the critics would have reacted? Would they have given it the rave review it deserved? Would they have toned down their praise by saying something like "It was better than his previous efforts"? Would they have trivialized it in their review? I know we can't generalize, but IMO established critics tend to generally agree in the way they evaluate offerings. Finally, would theater and movie critics react the same way in the examples I gave? Which group would be more likely to tell it like it is? Some insight please. Later