About Critics (Part 1)

[ChaosDemon]

One of the main things I don't like about Film Critics (this is generalising, I admit it, but it bugs me; you're a lot better than most about this Bob) is when they poorly review a film that they do not belong to the target audience of.
Whenever I read the papers (which is unfortunately getting to be a rarer occurrence) the main film critic always seems to be a middle aged, middle class male (let me finish kids, I've got no problems with any of those categories, but it is relevant to my point).
So of course, anything aimed at a niche audience, teenagers or young adults is probably going to be HATED by them. Just because a film doesn't appeal to that certain individual does not mean it's a bad film.
The best example I can think of is Scott Pilgrim. It got ripped to shreds in a lot of reviews because the critics admitted they didn't "get" it. Of course you didn't! You're 50! The closest you've probably come to gaming culture is playing solitaire on your pc! And yes, I know I'm generalising again.

 

[ManInRed]

Critics have their bias, but so does popularity. My opinion is not going to be decided by either, and it would be frankly boring if popular opinion and every critic matched my own. For whatever deep grand purpose you can come up for critics, the simple reason they even have a job is because critics entertain folk. In my opinion, boredom is seldom entertaining.

I do think the amount of new material critics have to absorb is part of a shared bias most of them have. For game reviews, you can obviously see critics struggle with games that provide months of game play that they only had one day to play between the dozen other games they are reviewing that week.

Should critics be bias towards unique movies? They should probably be there to point them out at least. But competence of execution will always matter more to a general audience that novelty of some unique element. And I don't always think the most popular movies have the best competence of execution, so I wouldn't mind seeing critics have a stronger bias toward competency. I don't care if you seen the same movie 5 times this week, I care which movie was the best implementation of the concept.

But even if I watch as many movies as Movie Bob and was considered an elitist, my opinion will still never match up exactly with his. And my opinion on Movie Bob as a critic will never be based on how his opinion agree with mine, but how he explains his opinion in a way that entertains and, perhaps sometimes, informs me.

 

[Javarino]

(example: my fiance thinks that Pirates 4 is better than Scott Pilgrim, my brothers think Call of Duty is better than Red Dead Redemption, my mom thinks Twilight is better than District 9. My fiance's best friends think Sucker Punch is better than Inception. I'm surrounded by lowbrow, ignorant, and just frustratingly "average joe" people)

To be fair though, Sucker Punch WAS just as good or even better than inception. Have to agree with the rest of those comparisons though.

is this a joke? inception was one of the greatest movies of all time and sucker punch is a series of good ideas strung together with a terable script that doesnt work.

What??? I'm sorry, but as much as I like Inception, I watched it again and found it a little less fascinating as it was the first time. Then I watched Sucker Punch, and was absolutely blown away. It found that sweet spot of dreams truly being "fantasy" instead of a corporate battleground. And unlike Inception, Sucker Punch kept me guessing until the very end which reality truly was Reality. By the third act, you knew which dream was which, and there was few twists in that department. Like I said, Inception was truly incredible, but at the same time Sucker Punch was freakin awesome.

 

[Laser Priest]

You're right, Bob. These things that get thrown about to all critics are generally ridiculous.

Doesn't excuse the fact that you prefer to insult anyone who disagrees with you more than you critique the damn movies.

 

[Weasker]

It's pretty cool to know you read this, you know?

There's a gene named after Sonic, yes, that Sonic.

It's cool that you review movies based on not just the movie, but many things arround it. It may not be objective, and in my opinion you favor fantasy movies even when they don't totally deserve it, but it's your style and I like it.

You > Jimquisition.

 

[sta697]

men keep it up even one person that stops wasting time on shamefull cash ins is a step to better future movies.My only problem is that you review most of those shamefull cash ins instead of putting a film that deserves (it in your opinion) in the spotlight

 

[ProjectTrinity]

I hope Part 2 covers something that I won't simply agree with. Everything said here is something I can generally agree with. Though I'll be first to admit that a jaded yet fair opinion over 99% of movie watchers. My opinion when people tell me I've played too many games to be fair to the more common ones is the metaphorical middle finger. I am being fair, by saying exactly what the generic game is. With all the flaws in shining colors. D< I'd imagine it's the same for Bob, but with movies. Though I think he has the smaller forgiveness curve~ =p

 

[TheSchaef]

I watched MovieBob every week but I don't think I like him very much now.

He says that "elite" and "elitist" are four-letter words now. Clearly, "elite" still has five letters and "elitist" has seven. Clearly, MovieBob just doesn't like people who count using a regular decimal numeric system, and I've grown tired of his bitterness and rampant bias that just seem to come up in all his character counts now.

Now, obviously, I'm going to continue watching his Big Picture shows every Tuesday and his reviews every Friday, because if I didn't watch them, I wouldn't know how much I hate his stupid ill-conceived ideas, but I still want to make use of this forum to express my dissatisfaction and see how many people get on board with me. I may even start up whole other threads about it.

/sarc

//obvious?

 

[ProjectTrinity]

One of the main things I don't like about Film Critics (this is generalising, I admit it, but it bugs me; you're a lot better than most about this Bob) is when they poorly review a film that they do not belong to the target audience of.
Whenever I read the papers (which is unfortunately getting to be a rarer occurrence) the main film critic always seems to be a middle aged, middle class male (let me finish kids, I've got no problems with any of those categories, but it is relevant to my point).
So of course, anything aimed at a niche audience, teenagers or young adults is probably going to be HATED by them. Just because a film doesn't appeal to that certain individual does not mean it's a bad film.
The best example I can think of is Scott Pilgrim. It got ripped to shreds in a lot of reviews because the critics admitted they didn't "get" it. Of course you didn't! You're 50! The closest you've probably come to gaming culture is playing solitaire on your pc! And yes, I know I'm generalising again.

Hmm, I'm glad you brought up the Scott Pilgrim point. I was *this* close to relating it to how horribly I rated Twilight's 4 books.

But then I recalled all of the plot holes and poor character developments and lol'd. =p Meanness aside, do you suppose Scott Pilgrim may be a more extreme case of what you're trying to say? It was full of game references up the wazoo, after all.

 

[TheSchaef]

Then what's the point? Why should anyone other than critics pay any attention to reviews? Wouldn't that make the whole review process an exercise in masturbation?

I think the point was to "hold said medium to a (theoretically) higher standard for the good of all involved".

Society generally benefits when people who know stuff pass stuff along to people who do not know stuff. That way, more people know more stuff, and decisions tend to be more informed and thus a generally better decision.

Educating people on how films are constructed not only explains why the reviewer did or did not like the film, it can help you come to better conclusions about what you do or do not like - and why - even if it does not coincide with him or any other critic in particular.

Edification is its own reward.

 

[walrusaurus]

I think the biggest disconnect between critics and laypersons, is the ability to appreciate fluff.

I know Bob harbors particular hatred for Transformers, so i'll go with that. The plot was ridiculous, and the acting was atrocious, but i still enjoyed them (the second less so than the first) just for the visual spectacle and energy. Movies like transformers, Pirates, or Avatar are the cinematic equivalent of a fireworks show. They're bright flashy and exciting but when stop to think about them, they're shallow and all functionally identical.

Film Critics, by and large, seem to be unable to appreciate the spectacle. After all, I only see fireworks shows a handful of times a year, I'm sure if i had to watch them every day i'd be pretty damn sick of them too.

The issue i have is that too often critics toss this by the wayside as they go about eviscerating 'popcorn flicks.' Its all a matter of tone, there is a certain point where reviews begin to feel like their belittling anyone who may have liked the film despite its lack of artistic merit. No-one likes to feel insulted, we need to try and maintain a mutual respect for one another.

I respect that Bob is going to despise Transformers 3 with every fibre of his being. I only hope that when the times comes for him to review it, he can respect that I will be going to see it, and enjoying the fireworks.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

I hate it when people don't seem too notice that everyone is imperfect and everyone is an individual. The only people who are complaining about you are the White Sheep who believe that everything should be tailored to their tastes and their's only. They don't like the fact that a critic's view is biased, which is silly because if it wasn't biased they are not a critic (silly people...)

Keep up the good fight and the biased criticism (The way it should be).

 

[Mister Linton]

I think the consensus here Bob (I'll give you the TLDR version) is:

PART 2 NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEMS PEOPLE VOICE TO YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS. Don't bother writing another one of these that only takes on the easy questions. Tell us why you often belittle fans of certain genres instead of focusing on purely critiquing the film. Tell us why you insist on using the "dudebro" voice when it is a pathetic insult aimed at your high school bullies and doesn't relate to movie reviews. Etc...

 

[TheSchaef]

Is it? Does society really benefit from art critics? Maybe, but I think that you may be overestimating the scope and purpose of movie reviews.

Only inasmuch as I might overestimate the scope and purpose of movies. But since I'm not, the (potential) effect of critics is a product of a movie's impact on a society and the degree to which the critic can influence that impact via the viewership. Neither more nor less.