About Critics (Part 1)

[OtherSideofSky]

I think a lot of these complaints (particularly the elitism accusations) stem from a general failure to distinguish between a critic and a reviewer. More specifically, a failure to understand that they perform fundamentally different functions.

Oh, and, as always, my biggest complaint against Movie Bob is that, whether he knows it or not, the presence of actresses he finds attractive have a definite and noticeable effect on his opinions of the rest of a film (I think I've gotten burned literally every time I've gone to see something that he both recommended and discussed how hot someone in the film was in his video). I also think he really needs to acknowledge that the advertising for Scott Pilgrim was targetted at entirely the wrong audience and had just as much to do with its failure to make enough money as the Expendables did.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

So Bob actually reads all the comments? I suddenly feel very embarassed because some of my comments on his videos could at best be described as 'over-enthusiastic' and at worst as 'gushing effacement.'

Ah well, I continue to enjoy his show and everything, I'll just be sure to use the rule of cautious posting judgement in the future.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

My problem isn't any of those points, it is how you make things personal. You insult people of differing opinions. If you enjoy The Expendables you are "probably the worst kind of person." Really? Also, I don't care about your personal life. You completely invalidated your own review of Scream 4 by opening with that rant about the Scream franchise taking away your "skill" (it was never a skill in the first place).

Just be more professional. That is what I am asking.

I think his point was more like this...When people watched Sideways a bunch of them magically thought that they were wine snobs and ran around pretending to be sophisticated by adopting traits and opinions that they had nothing to do with before a movie came along and made it popular. Real wine geeks are pissed at the newcomers literally posing in on their hobby.

I think you misunderstood his point, or at least his issue with it.

Now you are making him sound like a hipster. More people gaining interest in something is usually considered a good thing.

 

[omicron1]

For your final point today, I have a counterpoint:
Improving the medium is only part of your role - it covers your role as a critic of the medium, but not as a reviewer. You may do this for yourself, but we "laypeople" often read/watch critics' reviews for a different reason: To figure out whether or not we want to watch a movie!

This is the same issue I have with reviewers bringing personal beliefs into their reviews and (for instance) bashing The Passion of the Christ for being "too Christian," while praising "Agora" for being secular (and rather extremely so!) Sure, you can argue that your intended audience is the group of people that agrees with you, and if you're one critic out of two hundred providing an alternate viewpoint from the mainstream, this works - but when you're in the majority of critics this catering to a particular viewpoint hurts everyone involved: The filmmaker, for creating a movie that didn't agree with the critics' tastes; the consumer, who may see a "3/10" average score - derived mainly from worldview disagreements - and decide that the film is a poor-quality work overall; and the critic, whose credibility will be damaged for those who actually go see the film.

So anyway, where were we? Oh, right - improving the medium. Perhaps you think it's OK to use viewers as your bludgeon to nudge a samey industry into new territory, convincing them that a movie is bad because it's derivative or unoriginal and thereby sinking the movie's box office; but that is very dangerous ground to tread. The other part of your job, and the whole reason that reviews exist, is to tell us whether or not the film was GOOD. And, frankly, docking points for originality or worldview just doesn't help. Make separate scores ("You'll enjoy it if..." entries?) if you want, but lowering a film's overall rating damages our interaction with the film, and damages our trust of you. Because we don't always view films (or games, or anything else) as an art form. Sometimes we're just looking for something to consume, something that's good, regardless of whether we've seen all the plot twists before. And that is something an art-focused "critic" reviewer cannot help with.

 

[ragsmorrison]

Bob, from what I've seen and heard about "The Tree of Life," it seems to bear a thematic similarity to the film "2001: A Space Oddessy, insomuch as it deigns to tell a surrealistic, mostly visual-based story rather than relying on a traditional narrative. While artistically this sounds like a worthy endeavor, from a strict perspective of entertainment, it sounds really, reeeeally boring. A toddler stumbles his way along a hallway while a Tyrannosaurus tramps through a dense prehistoric forest? That might fly at Sundance, but I can't see it breaking any box office numbers. Just my thoughts, sir

 

[EvilRoy]

In all honesty I swear Bob has covered these points throughout various other videos before... Still its bad enough I'm reading this instead of working so I really shouldn't look back to find out.

My personal grievances with Bob have all pretty much been voiced (dissing and whipping and whatnot), but I really think it's more a problem of the person, and the medium.

It's okay for yahtzee to trash games and fans alike because that is what he is here for, at least as far as I'm concerned. If I wanted to hear the good parts of a game I would ask a friend or look at the gamespot review generator, what I want from yahtzee is a thorough look at everything that is wrong with a game and the people associated with it.

Bob on the other hand, has never really placed himself or been placed as a heartless destroyer of movies, but despite that fact his tone and visuals used in the show would give you the impression that this is what he wants you to think. Yeah I could use him the same way as yahtzee, but I don't really judge movies based on artistic merit and I can barely tell a good actor from a bad one so it just wouldn't be helpful.
On top of that, yahtzee's service is generally helpful since I need to know about the irritating things ahead of time when I'm about to spend 60 bucks and around and 50 hours listening to loud-ass footsteps.
Movies, however, are 20 dollar (if I even bother with a smelly loud theatre) 2 hour long excursions. So honestly, while criticism may be good for the industry (I think?) I would rather just hear "This is how I felt about it, this is how entertaining it is".

 

[repeating integers]

Well I do agree with Bob here. I wish game critics *cough*IGN*cough* could take the hint and start slamming formulaic titles for what they are. Call of Duty... 7 is it? Seriously?

God, no. I like game critics the way they are, precisely because they aren't film critics and evaluate enjoyment rather than some misguided sense of artistic value.

CoD is the summer blockbuster of gaming, and game critics are superior to film critics IMO because they recognise the game is there to be played for fun, rather than marking it down because it isn't trying to present some deep message or moral dilemma.

 

[Deathninja19]

Sorry Bob but this doesn't even answer one of my criticisms of you. My main problem is that you seem hypocritical you hate certain films for being mindless and even insult their audiences but then rave about Pirahanna 3D because it has tits and blood.

I really lked you when I first started watching you but as the reviews went it seems that you started to get bitter, you mention everything surrounding the film (the audience, circumstances that lead to the film being made in a certain way, etc) and only give a token gesture to review the film itself.

I had hoped that this article would actually answer some of my complaints but it just glossed over the actual complaints people have and just responded to the most generic complaints people always have with critics. At the very least Bob please answer us why you think it's acceptable to insult viewers for liking certain films.

He's not doing anything that Yahtzee doesn't do and get praised for.

Personally I like the way he offers context and backstory for a films release, it's far more interesting than a simple tick-the-boxes rundown of a films technical merits...which is what alot of published critics would offer you.

I think there might be some growing pains here, because this feels like a relativly new format(to me at least). This isn't like reading an article in a newspaper with a name that you'll never remember printed at the bottom, this is critics as celebrities in their own right, on a level seldom seen before. I can see how to some that might mean that they have to permanently be diplomatic and tread on egg-shells...lest someone be offended. But, I don't see how you can have it both ways. If you want your critics to be larger-than-life and truly honest and uncompromising, you're probably going to have to develop some thicker skin too.

I do find it a little disconcerting that I watch more movies than movie-Bob...

I agree Yahtzee can be like this with the Wii but I don't see venom behind his statements like with Bob. And despite having a name like MovieBob he isn't a character, he is reviewing things straight whereas Yahtzee accentuates the negative for comedic effect. That's not to say Yahtzee is completly innocent he does go too far sometimes like the Sims and JRPGs.

I agree that extra information is a good thing, it can be used to back up arguements or even just add a little flavour to reviews but in Bob's case he goes too far adding too much, 5 minutes for a review is already a short time to talk about a film he should be using it to you know actually review the film.

Big name reviewers have actually been around a while from Siskel and Ebert in the US and Jonathon Ross in the UK and while they all make mistakes from time to time they still manage to critque films based on their own merits and not according to their bias. For example Jonathon Ross used to take his kids to see the films with him so he could talk to them and see from their point of view if the film succeeded in being entertaining. Bob has one point of view; Bob's, and he won't shift from it no matter how many times we ask him to see from our or other points of view.

 

[pigmy wurm]

My only argument I have is with your last part about critics feelings about repetition and formulaic plots. While I agree with your over all point I have run into critics who I feel focus too much on how original a movie is. Their are some movies I saw that were really well made, good acting, good script, well directed, and that I really enjoyed because it was just a good movie, but I have seen attacked because the plot was "something we have seen many times before." This is less of a problem with you specifically but I feel some critics can overvalue originality. Now that doesn't mean originality isn't important and shouldn't be praised, but I feel that in both movie and game criticism it is overrated. While it is impossible to look at a work completely in a vacuum I feel each film or book or movie should first and foremost be rated on it's own merits.

And I am saying this as a Screen Studies major who has also seen many more films, and a much wider selection of films, than the general populace.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Well, Bob, I'm glad to hear that you read comments, but personally I tend to only comment on content that I strongly disagree with (this comment being an exception) or to answer questions posed in the article (or video or whatever). I imagine I'm not alone in this regard. There's probably a lot of people who watch your shows and enjoy them and don't feel the need to comment.

You say comment count is your only metric? Really? Don't you also have a view count or unique visitor count? I'd say that's a much better metric than comments. Just saying.

 

[YodaUnleashed]

Thanks for recommending that film, I hadn't heard of it actually but I have heard of the man who directed it, Terrence Malick, having watched another film of his, The New World, and finding it visually arresting and memorable and yet very, very slow at times, even for my tastes and I love 2001 A Space Odyssey, which is a slow, slow, sllloooowwww film. Anyway thanks for giving me the heads up, I'll definitely be checking it out when it comes around to the UK.

Oh and as for your whole article, it's all opinion mannnn and whilst films and any other creative media can be superior or inferior objectively, relatively our tastes and preferences will determine our views, and those 'preferences' also determine, ultimately, whether we prefer to sometimes look at them objectively as critics do, or, just go along with our gut instinct and leave the thinking to others.

For instance, I just watched a Clint Eastwood film, "A perfect world", and my gut is "telling me" I loved it. Now if I step back from that initial experience, evaluate what was good (in short) that is the emotional connection created between the characters and the audience, the heart-warming energy and poignancy of the film, the fact we care for a 'bad man' who is yet also much more, and the fact all the technical aspects, the acting, cinematography, direction etc was top notch and much more then I'm obviously still going to love it. However it had it's warts: the climax was too drawn out, the "sub-plot" didn't feel as integral to the main storyline and some of the scenes perhaps could have been better paced, and yet these flaws are minimal compared to what is an excellent, emotionally moving film.

Now I love this film, not just because of how objectively good it is, but because I also like character films, films that aren't all about action and mind-blowing special effects (though I enjoy these just as much, when done right). Now to someone else who has less patience than me or whose more interested (or thinks there more interested) in spectacle or story etc then this film might not be for them and they might find it 'boring' or 'tedious' even though it is objectively none of these things. They'd be wrong objectively but right relatively according to their own preferences and experiences which shape those views. After all I'd say human feelings are all relative in their meaning and individual understanding and yet our definitions for them are all objective.

For example if I said I was bored we have a clear, definitive, universally held view of what a feeling of 'boredom' entails and yet people become bored for different reasons; what one might find rivetingly exciting the other mind-numbingly tiresome. It's all very confusing and difficult to reconcile and I'm running out of steam here so let me just end with a quote that I think sums it all up nicely and yet at the same time provokes more questions then it answers (isn't that the best kind of philosophical quote).

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."- Nietzsche.

 

[Therumancer]

My problem, when I have one, is how things are said. Not to mention when we see political rants or attacks on people who like something, or even movies and directors that have already been panned in columns dedicated to them.

See, my basic attitude is that everything said here is correct about Critics and reviewers. The thing is that there should be a degre of professionalism, and that means oversight. Typically when critics and reviewers are given their spots on TV, the Radio, or in magazines and newspapers they go through this guy called an editor... probably one of the most hated jobs in media (in general) but also one of the most nessicary.

I think that the MovieBob columns, and a few other features like "Extra Credits" need to be queued up a few weeks ahead of time, giving editors something to run with while they look at the "newest" thing and can send it back to the guys producing it to be changed before it's put up, with a basic "change it or don't get paid" mentality that is pretty much the point. If we've got a five minute video dedicated to a movie, and two minutes are dedicated to ranting about another movie and director that was already covered, and another minute is dedicated to ranting about politics and insulting viewers who disagree with the critic, then we're only looking at two minutes dedicated to the subject matter with a bunch of potentially offensive garbage tied into it. The point of an editor is to say "fix this". With something like "The Escapist" it's a simple matter, if the critic only has two minutes worth of stuff to say on the subject, trim the production down to two minutes... there isn't a minimum length or a specific format that has to be fit, and that gives this site fewer excuses than many other mediums where a critic column might have to say fit a specific area of print in a newspaper.

That's my thoughts on the subject. When it comes to Extra Credits, I think the oversight needs to be to keep them on the topic of providing good information, not shilling for the industry while pretending to be "some of the guys", which is what a lot of it seems like to me. With MovieBob (which this is about) we need to drop the politics, comments on what morons viewers who disagree with him are, and of course to lay off of Michael Bay and "The Expendables"... I mean fine, Bob is a critic, it's fine to not like things and to speak his mind, however saying that someone who appreciated "The Expendables" is probably "the worst kind of person", and ranting about it in columns dedicated to other movies, or bringing Michael Bay up in relation to a movie he hasn't been anywhere near just to unleash a hategasm... that's not good.

Basically "The Escapist" needs an actual bona-fide editor, and probably several of them. With no offense to someone who might be actually doing that job already.... but if there is well, I think he or she needs to get it in gear.

 

[Exterminas]

You shouldn't even have made that article. Everyone who deals with criticism in such a silly and destructive way, as examplified by the things you answered to, is obviously not able to deal with a cultural column and should go back to reading/watching other stuff.

Last time I checked there was no obligation to listen to a critique whose opinions frequently annoy you.

Of course for a more clever person it would be more fun to listen to opinions that strongly disagree with their own, since they would not need a guy from the internet to confirm what they are already thinking... But then again, not a perfect world...

 

[Inkidu]

My only problem, Bob, is that you tend to get a little too preachy. Yeah, there are obvious cash-making movies, but there are worse sins to be committed with eight dollars and a jumbo-sized popcorn. When people get preachy it's usually because they think they know something that the audience could never possibly comprehend without the critic's help. It gets annoying, especially when you just want to know whether a movie is just good or bad on its merits and not the fact that it's a sequel/cash-in.

Good example: The Pirates movie. You pointed out that the director was not the same, and as such, it had a much different feel.

Bad example: The preaching about the homophobic stuff in The Hangover II. I can't think of a bro-movie that doesn't have some kind of gay joke in it. That doesn't make it right, but any decent person is going to know that.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Sorry Bob but this doesn't even answer one of my criticisms of you. My main problem is that you seem hypocritical you hate certain films for being mindless and even insult their audiences but then rave about Pirahanna 3D because it has tits and blood.

I really lked you when I first started watching you but as the reviews went it seems that you started to get bitter, you mention everything surrounding the film (the audience, circumstances that lead to the film being made in a certain way, etc) and only give a token gesture to review the film itself.

I had hoped that this article would actually answer some of my complaints but it just glossed over the actual complaints people have and just responded to the most generic complaints people always have with critics. At the very least Bob please answer us why you think it's acceptable to insult viewers for liking certain films.

He's not doing anything that Yahtzee doesn't do and get praised for.

Personally I like the way he offers context and backstory for a films release, it's far more interesting than a simple tick-the-boxes rundown of a films technical merits...which is what alot of published critics would offer you.

I think there might be some growing pains here, because this feels like a relativly new format(to me at least). This isn't like reading an article in a newspaper with a name that you'll never remember printed at the bottom, this is critics as celebrities in their own right, on a level seldom seen before. I can see how to some that might mean that they have to permanently be diplomatic and tread on egg-shells...lest someone be offended. But, I don't see how you can have it both ways. If you want your critics to be larger-than-life and truly honest and uncompromising, you're probably going to have to develop some thicker skin too.

I do find it a little disconcerting that I watch more movies than movie-Bob...

I agree Yahtzee can be like this with the Wii but I don't see venom behind his statements like with Bob. And despite having a name like MovieBob he isn't a character, he is reviewing things straight whereas Yahtzee accentuates the negative for comedic effect. That's not to say Yahtzee is completly innocent he does go too far sometimes like the Sims and JRPGs.

I agree that extra information is a good thing, it can be used to back up arguements or even just add a little flavour to reviews but in Bob's case he goes too far adding too much, 5 minutes for a review is already a short time to talk about a film he should be using it to you know actually review the film.

Big name reviewers have actually been around a while from Siskel and Ebert in the US and Jonathon Ross in the UK and while they all make mistakes from time to time they still manage to critque films based on their own merits and not according to their bias. For example Jonathon Ross used to take his kids to see the films with him so he could talk to them and see from their point of view if the film succeeded in being entertaining. Bob has one point of view; Bob's, and he won't shift from it no matter how many times we ask him to see from our or other points of view.

The guys honest opinion is what you want. I like Jonathan Ross, but being on the BBC I'm sure he had to self-censor to a certain degree, it almost felt like listening to a politician or a footballer's post match interview at times. That kind of platform simply doesn't allow anyone to really be honest, no rocking-the-boat of any kind really.

I promise you that I don't agree with everything Bob says, sometimes I roll my eyes...but I never take anything personally, and I'm not sure why anyone else does. This is partly informative viewing, but mostly it's about entertainment, and the information is really yours to do as you please with. Frankly, I'm sure you have friends who are more incendiary that you somehow manage to brush off with ease, probably even have fun arguing with...

 

[Susan Arendt]

My problem, when I have one, is how things are said. Not to mention when we see political rants or attacks on people who like something, or even movies and directors that have already been panned in columns dedicated to them.

See, my basic attitude is that everything said here is correct about Critics and reviewers. The thing is that there should be a degre of professionalism, and that means oversight. Typically when critics and reviewers are given their spots on TV, the Radio, or in magazines and newspapers they go through this guy called an editor... probably one of the most hated jobs in media (in general) but also one of the most nessicary.

I think that the MovieBob columns, and a few other features like "Extra Credits" need to be queued up a few weeks ahead of time, giving editors something to run with while they look at the "newest" thing and can send it back to the guys producing it to be changed before it's put up, with a basic "change it or don't get paid" mentality that is pretty much the point. If we've got a five minute video dedicated to a movie, and two minutes are dedicated to ranting about another movie and director that was already covered, and another minute is dedicated to ranting about politics and insulting viewers who disagree with the critic, then we're only looking at two minutes dedicated to the subject matter with a bunch of potentially offensive garbage tied into it. The point of an editor is to say "fix this". With something like "The Escapist" it's a simple matter, if the critic only has two minutes worth of stuff to say on the subject, trim the production down to two minutes... there isn't a minimum length or a specific format that has to be fit, and that gives this site fewer excuses than many other mediums where a critic column might have to say fit a specific area of print in a newspaper.

That's my thoughts on the subject. When it comes to Extra Credits, I think the oversight needs to be to keep them on the topic of providing good information, not shilling for the industry while pretending to be "some of the guys", which is what a lot of it seems like to me. With MovieBob (which this is about) we need to drop the politics, comments on what morons viewers who disagree with him are, and of course to lay off of Michael Bay and "The Expendables"... I mean fine, Bob is a critic, it's fine to not like things and to speak his mind, however saying that someone who appreciated "The Expendables" is probably "the worst kind of person", and ranting about it in columns dedicated to other movies, or bringing Michael Bay up in relation to a movie he hasn't been anywhere near just to unleash a hategasm... that's not good.

Basically "The Escapist" needs an actual bona-fide editor, and probably several of them. With no offense to someone who might be actually doing that job already.... but if there is well, I think he or she needs to get it in gear.

Hi, check out my title. Don't assume that because something is produced that doesn't match how you would handle it, that it hasn't already been through a quality control process. Bob will be the first to assure you that, yes, I keep a close eye on his stuff (I edit Intermission and produce both of his video series) and plenty gets changed. That said, I wouldn't dream of stifling Bob's creative voice. I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but I thoroughly respect his creative vision. The Escapist gives its content creators as much free reign as we can, so that they can express themselves without feeling like they have to fit into someone else's philosophy. We do have standards, of course, and in those instances when those standards are breached, things get changed. But by and large, we let people be who they want to be. An editor who imposes their voice on someone else is a bad editor.

Yes, Bob says things that piss people off. That's who Bob is. I could sanitize the hell out of his work and make it so that it makes everyone happy...and then it wouldn't be Bob's voice or thoughts anymore. It would be my version of his voice and thoughts. That does the creator a disservice and it goes against everything The Escapist stands for.

 

[Dastardly]

MovieBob: About Critics (Part 1)

Here's why Bob has been ignoring some of your complaints.

Read Full Article

I dunno. In the past, I've found what you do "provocative" in that it raises interesting discussions, or asks that I see things from a different perspective. Lately, I'd have to agree that it's tended more toward "provocative" in the sense of "provoking people to disagree by overstating a point or phrasing it in an inflammatory way."

Yeah, it increases the number of comments... but does it increase your influence? You said your currency is your ability to incite a reaction, but remember quality over quantity here. Basically, if you settle for the latter, you eventually get neither.

And, of course, a lot of your detractors are doing the same thing: emphasizing a negative opinion, trying get that award-winning "zinger" that... well... I don't know. Maybe they think if they hit you in juuuust the right way, the folks at The Escapist will go, "Wow! Here's a guy who's got MovieBob's number--see how he called him out on that? We should drop Bob and hire this jackass!"

(Little fantasies like that motivate us far, faaaar more often than we will ever admit as somewhat-rational adults.)

Basically, don't fall into the trap that you've pointed out far too often: People find a "thing" that works, and then they distill their entire catalog down to only that "thing," and then just keep doing that "thing" until it kills them. And spewing creative hatred isn't even your "thing."

Ranting-with-a-point-that-makes-you-think is your thing, inasmuch as the point has always overshadowed the ranting. Hell, I'd bet that's exactly why they gave you Big Picture. Don't lose that.

 

[PromethianSpark]

The only thing I can think to comment is how sad I feel that a critic actually had to explain himself!I never got were the, 'everyone's opinion is equally valid' idea come from, considering that most ppl have little understanding of the basic themes in any piece of art, never mind any real appreciation for the artistry. What's worse, they often hate it when you try to explain it, and claim that analysing it some how ruins it (presumably because thinking hurts). These people then claim that there opinion is as valid as the educated critic. As Bob point out, critics opinions are INFORMED opinions.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Captcha:

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

It's the Greek letter delta.

Δ ←Like that.

I don't know what that one after the G is, though. I've never encountered that one before

OT: About the elitist thing, I don't really know why it's become such a problem for people. It's actually a good thing in all forms of culture criticism to be an elitist, as it's the critics we turn to when we need an informed opinion about whatever field they specialize in.

Might as well scapegoat the hipsters. Everybody go blame them.

 

[Deathninja19]

The guys honest opinion is what you want. I like Jonathan Ross, but being on the BBC I'm sure he had to self-censor to a certain degree, it almost felt like listening to a politician or a footballer's post match interview at times. That kind of platform simply doesn't allow anyone to really be honest, no rocking-the-boat of any kind really.

I promise you that I don't agree with everything Bob says, sometimes I roll my eyes...but I never take anything personally, and I'm not sure why anyone else does. This is partly informative viewing, but mostly it's about entertainment, and the information is really yours to do as you please with. Frankly, I'm sure you have friends who are more incendiary that you somehow manage to brush off with ease, probably even have fun arguing with...

Oh no I don't take it personally mostly I just feel that Bob gets away with insulting people a lot of the time and I feel like I should call him on it sometimes. And no I have no friends that's why I'm picking a fight with a reviewer who neither reads or responds to me.