About Critics (Part 1)

[FangShadow]

I don't have any problems with you holding films to a higher standard, or being vitriolic about cash in sequels (which are usually entertaining in fact), the biggest recurring problem is your dismissal of people who enjoy films like that. You conflate anyone who enjoys The Expendables, Michael Bay films or Fast 5 as "Douchebags" quite often. Aside from the fact that there's no accounting for tastes, there's nothing wrong with people wanting movies they can switch their brain off for, and downright insulting everyone based on their tastes just makes you come off like, frankly, a bit of a dick.

I'm not saying you need to change your whole schtick, because you usually do have some good insights on movies, but your whole "Us vs them" mentality has got to stop.

I have to agree with this. I have no problem with you style, and while I agree that a lazy sequel is in poor taste, I don't think you should come down so hard on people just because they like something. I think it's one of those things where you can't come down on people for liking something, but instead simply hope that they will aspire for better as time goes on.

Well, maybe you don't actually WANT to provoke a response, because that kind of makes you a troll (in a bad way).

But in any case, i agree with all the points made because i am so SICK of douchebags who pay to see movies and games that are just lazy, cheap cash-ins and GENUINELY say they are better than actual GOOD games and movies

(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)

Not to offend you sir, but I think your people may have like confused with better. Inception was better than sucker punch, but perhaps your people just like sucker punch more. Thats how it usually is with my people who says Inception is a better movie, but they like fast five more. Like I said, I don't mean to offend as I don't know your people like you do.

 

[Thyunda]

Bah, be as egomaniacal as you want. You're on the Escapist. We're all full of ourselves.

In truth - that last criticism, the one about watching too many movies, I must be out of touch with the public. How does watching many movies make you a worse critic? I don't see the logic in that.

 

[Cormyre]

As with critics of all things I play/watch/listen to I let it all come down to one persons subjective opinion about something. Yes I watch the shows weekly here, but if I already planned on seeing something? I'm going to do it. Sure MovieBobs voice is going to be in the back of my head the whole time (possibly screaming in frustration like tonight when I go to see Hangover 2...) and I'll be like "ah that's what he meant" but still I'm going to do it.
I'll never understand why people are so offended about someones -opinion- on anything and feel the need to start flaming or degrading people on it.
People who are easily and pointlessly offended offend me =P

 

[CountChopula]

To be perfectly Blunt;
"It's not a matter of not agreeing with reviews... it the idea that he thinks that by "criticizing" these films, he's some how better than others." Considering he is the one who is being paid money to sit around and watch films, write reviews and be published in a website that reaches hundreds of thousands of people each and every month? Yeah, you know what, he is better than others, many many others, but then there are also people in better positions, more comfortable lifestyle than him, and so they are better than him.

The idea that people cannot be better than other people is a bullshit product of the 80s and 90s school system. Sorry, kids, you are better than some, and there are probably many more better than you.

"Maybe it's because I do have a problem with elitism." Funny considering you portray yourself here with out-most elitism yourself.

"And if I don't like it, why do I even bother commenting? Because if he's got the right to criticize, I do too." Which puts you into the very same position you are bitching about.


Personally, I disagree with a lot of opinions that MovieBob has, but I enjoy the way he presents his opinions, and I enjoy his reasoning for it. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who do love Fast 5 would most likely end up being frat-boys and douche bags. You may be one of those that isn't (though you'd never have a douche bag admit he is one) doesn't mean that in general, there is a stereotype of the type of audience that goes to see movies.

When a production company wants to create a movie they have to choose an audience to gear it to, simply saying oh 18-26 year olds is just not enough, or too general. If you are making a movie centered around street-car racing and racers, or rather that sub-culture (which by the f'in way is full of assholes and douche bags galore) then you are going target that specific audience first, saying that there is a large enough public interest vested in this.

So yeah, when MovieBob, generalizes and stereotypes a particular audiences for the movies, he's absolutely correct in doing so. And instead of defending the douchebaggery as some people do, maybe you should step back and take a hardlook at the sub-culture you are trying to defend and see why people think you are all douchebags.

(For all the many difference of opinion we do have, I agree with your portrayal of the audience base)

 

[Rakor]

Well, you make do with the movies available. Further, people want the reviews of the big popular movies specifically, whether they're good or bad, so they know whether to go watch them.

But yes, I totally agree with the elitist statement. If critics weren't elitist then why would we give 2 craps about what they think. If we wanted a slapshod public opinion, well there are nice sites with ratings to look at. A movie critic should be, well, critical and be from the perspective of one who sees alot of movies and has alot to compare to.

Rock on Bobby.

 

[Furioso]

I WAS a big fan of you before Bob, and I have had a post running around the forums criticizing your most recent review of pirates, but it has been an issue that has been bothering me ever since your April Fools and Fast/Furious reviews, only getting stronger with the pirates/hangover 2 review.

You do not review GOOD movies anymore. Thor 2 is arguably a good movie, but in many ways it is about as good as pirates. The fact that it is included in your pantheon of film perfection precludes it from being counted as you reviewing a good movie, because you would have reviewed it whether it was good or bad.

I miss your amazing reviews of good films, and pointing out what made them good. Being able to still crack jokes about other bad films that came out that week, but keeping the wealth of the attention on the good film and the content that made it good.

Now your reviews are the opposite. Your movie reviews are turning into rhetorical skits that only allude to the good movies that came out. I thought the whole reason you were given the bigger picture was so you could clean up this series of videos and focus on actual good movie reviews?

Well he can't really review many good movies when bad movies are able to be churned out by the bucket load compared to the good ones

Captcha:

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

 

[Skyy High]

Keep doing what you're doing, Bob. I know I've had richer movie experiences since I started watching and reading your stuff, from picking up movies that I simply wouldn't have seen to an appreciation of the minute details of the industry that you love to throw in your videos.

To those who think that he has his nose in the air concerning crappy popular movies and sequels and the people who go to see them: watch this week's Big Picture. It showcases perfectly why he rails against crappy movies. Scott Pilgrim worked just as well as a "turn your brain off" movie as anything else, AND it was an excellent movie on top of it, and it got buried...and other projects died along with it. The insistence that it's OK for a movie to be stupid (ie, no plot, one dimensional caricatures for characters, terrible visual design, etc) it's "supposed" to be stupid is a ridiculous notion thoroughly disproved by the existence of high quality action movies that manage to also have interesting characters and/or deeper meaning, if you're in the mood to look for it. Example: Die Hard. A gritty, explosion-filled action movie with characters with real motivation that you care about watching. More recently: Inception. Even if you had no clue what was going on, it was still a blast to watch. Hell, TDK was fantastic, it had excellent action sequences, and it certainly wasn't "stupid".

This "excuse" is a cop-out, a way for the audience to justify going to movies that are simply bad, because studios don't feel the need to make anything that's good because bad movies make just as much money (if not more) than good ones. THAT is why critics like Bob try their damnedest to make people aware of the jewels among the chaff. If he comes off a little demeaning to you, that's because you're hiding behind a flimsy excuse for your habits. You don't have to see stupid s*** to get your action fix, so stop pretending like you do.

 

[trollnystan]

In my opinion, one of the worst things that has happened to public discourse is that the terms "elite" and "elitist" became four-letter-words.

You mean four letters like l-e-e-t? *ba-dum-dish*

... Ok, so bad joke. Glad you're standing up for yourself Bob; I may not always agree with you but I think you usually have some good points.

 

[Meanmoose]

I watch all of bob's stuff I find he exagerates some of his points, and he's annoyingly bitter sometimes. But nobodys perfect. Right?

 

[DaHero]

I'm still awaiting the counter-argument to the complete annihilation of your "PC is dying" theory Bob.

 

[walsfeo]

Critics have a place, I just don't think it is universally the same place for all critics. But I have a question - what do you see the difference is, if there is one, between a critic and a reviewer?

Speaking only for myself, I've never been harder (or softer) on something solely for its popularity, but does it change how I talk about it and how I react on a visceral/emotional level? Of course it does.

I'm calling B.S. on this one. If Micheal Bay hadn't produced such popular movies, or Transformers hadn't made so damned much money, you wouldn't keep using him as your whipping boy. There are far worse directors who direct movies with less financial success that you never mention.

Tropes you've seen a handful of times we've seen thousands of times. This means we are much harder on the formulaic, and that we are much more excited by something that is original. This, as I keep reiterating, is the whole point of this profession.

Is there anything wrong with using what's come before? I love it when critics talk about how this movie relates to that, or how these story elements could be an homage to another film. I tend to fall quickly into the reality of a movie so I don't always make those connections. (What I really notice are elements that raise flags of disbelief.)

Let me be blunt: If we weren't so jaded, things would almost never get better.

Competition has more to do with change than criticism. Can you give any examples on where critics have had more impact than earnings?

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Good times. Most people who bash on critics are those who watch crappy films and don't want to accept that said movies just aren't very good even on a technical level.

 

[A_Libertarian]

Keep doing your thing, Bob. I look forward to your videos etc every week. You give a deeper perspective on things that I know I often would have missed/ignored. Remember that for every mind that rises above, there are another 10,000 trying to pull it back down into the mass.

One small request, for the distant future: Is there a chance you could do one on Big Picture perhaps decoding Scott Pilgrim for the rest of us Luddittes? I saw the movie last week, and for the life of me, I couldn't make sense of it. I knew that there was a ton of ironic references, but all I really understood was that he seemed to live his life with gaming elements popping up in his mind. I suspect that's why the movie flopped so hard - it just doesn't make a lot of sense to the casual, middle-aged gamer - and, I'm sure, looks like a flaming mess to the layman. Apologies if that's been done already, maybe somebody can point me to it with appropriate flaming and hatred.

 

[AbstractStream]

It's alright MovieBob. Even though I don't agree with you all the time, I still <3 you.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Slimshad]

I can't stand people who think elitism is bad. I also can't stand people who look down at other people. Bob doesn't look down at other people and call them idiots for liking a movie he hates, he generalizes a target audience. People take things WAYYYY TO FUCKING PERSONALLY ON THIS WEBSITE. Sorry, but I'm really too fucking annoyed at any person who thinks his comments on The Expendables are personal insults to their pride. God fucking dammit people. Grow some balls and laugh a little. He stereotypes audience not only to inform who else is probably going to watch this, but also as a joke. And if you're one of those "leet r bad" people out there who got offended by his joke, you are a hypocrite and you should get off that soap box you're standing on.


I want to say that I am extremely sorry if I offended anyone, because i usually do not get angry with people. If I swore a little too much, that's cause I'm not doing too well with annoyance today. I am not trying to troll here, I don't particularly want this to be replied to. I want people to read it so they understand exactly what they are saying. I can't hide the truth when I post, and the truth is that some people on this website I think feel a little too entitled.

That being said, the only criticism I have with YOU moviebob is that you review too many bad movies, and when you review a good movie there is no way for me to see it except to pirate it. Troll Hunter? C'mon man. Then again, I don't need the review for good movies so much as I do a warning for bad movies, but criticism isn't based on practicality. It's entertainment, and I wasn't entertained with the last couple of reviews. Both of them were poor cash grabs; both were also terrible.

But keep doing what you're doing Bob.

 

[repeating integers]

Speaking only for myself, I've never been harder (or softer) on something solely for its popularity, but does it change how I talk about it and how I react on a visceral/emotional level? Of course it does. To take the two most recent examples - Pirates 4 and Hangover 2. Both are, on their own merits, absolutely wretched, terrible films that are sequels to very strong, very popular franchises that are almost guaranteed to make billions of dollars. And I resent that. I resent the hell out of that. I resent the idea of people being rewarded for lazy, slapdash work. So you'll probably find my tone to favor the bitter over the merely dismissive.

And herein lies your problem, Bob. In this paragraph, you reveal your inability to take seriously the idea that any opinion other than yours can be valid. You've made a habit of dismissing and indirectly insulting anyone who disagrees with you, and I'd say not even your status as a critic gives you a right to do this. It was worst in your Star Trek review. What was it you called anyone who enjoyed the film? Whatever it was, it ended in "douchebag" and involved a picture of a presumably very stupid person from some cartoon. Points, btw, for managing to be sneaky while somehow being incredibly obvious at exactly the same time - you implied that the film had been dumbed down to the point that only these people could enjoy it, but were careful to avoid ever actually insulting the movie's fans to their face.

Honestly, Bob, would it kill you to begin the occasional sentence with "I think", and sometimes end sentences with "...in my opinion"? And come to think of it, can't you pass judgement on something without making a snide comment about the consumer base for the film (or game, as it might be) in question?

To end on a lighter note, though, props for reading everyone's comments. I wish Yahtzee did that, but he's admitted he generally only reads up to a page or two.

Captcha:

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

I'm more concerned about that... thing... to the right of the G. What. The. Hell. Is it?

 

[BrotherRool]

This is the second time you've done something like this and I have to admit I'm still not with you.

To again quote what will probably be the strawman quote of your article "If we weren't so jaded, things would almost never get better"

Huge HUGE fallacy in this argument, which is that movies get better for the critics and no-one else. What you class as a better movie is a movie, which, more often than not, less people enjoy and more people would enjoy if it was Fast 5 or Transformers 2. So you define improvement only in terms of your gratification as a critic and possibly in the advancement as film as an art. Yet popular theatres are not and should not be the place for art because the majority of the people go to be entertained not to have their thoughts provoked. For those who admire films as art there are other (albeit much lower budget) channels.

In the end, the big problem is that you seem to fail to realise the subjectivity of your viewpoint and you're response to that, is to claim that you're viewpoint is objectively better than others.

And it leads to a lack of consistency, you don't analyse movies to any standard but your own taste and then suggest it to us as the true critique.

Your opinions would be valid or useful, if you were elitest but elitest to a defined set of standards. But you're not. You tell us Transformers sucks and then tell us to watch Piranha 3D of the Nicholas Cage escaped from hell in a car film. You hate Monsters and love Troll Hunter

Some things are thought provoking, some things are boundary pushing and some things are fun, yet you push them all the same, because they all interested YOU yourself.


And the truth is, this isn't a subjective viewpoint of mine that I'm representing as truth. If you were being objective or elitest and working to some higher goal of film, then you would agree with the majority of critics or agree with the majority and viewers, but you do neither and carve out your own path.

EDIT: And as you can see, this is a conclusion that a lot of other people have come to as well /end EDIT


The biggest problem though, is that too often you're the bad sort of elitest. You look down on films because their target audience isn't like you, because you believe you are better than vast swathes of humanity. That's the one thing I really dislike, when you write people off as gun jocks, or jarheads or stupid.


However, apart from that point and the failure to be useful to me as movie review or a critic, I respect what you do and I gain a lot for it and you achieve great things. Not for any reason you outlined under one of the titles, but for the thing you mentioned in the first section. You are fantastic, absolutely fantastic at provoking thought in people. Not necessarily but suggesting the right way, or having a well thought out opinion but by laying the situation down to people and forcing them to develop you own opinions. You've done this to me now, look how much I've had to right and think because of what you yourself have written and thought, and I'm just one person amongst thousands. You literally further humanity.

So thanks.