About Critics (Part 1)

[Dan Shive]

Critics seem to be really bad about taking negative comments. Or at least, the critics I watch. So much time seems to be spent desperately getting ahead of the negative comments before they happen, or making clear why the negative comments are foolish only to later continue having to explain it because people either disagree, don't listen, or simply didn't happen to view the article or video where the explanation took place.

 

[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.

 

[Dan Shive]

The function of a critic is not to summarize something and try to divine whether or not you or someone else might like it (though they may in fact perform said function tangentially)

Really? Because I watch in the hope of gathering data to help me determine whether a movie is worth my time and money. I basically consider your job, as far as movie reviews go, to be one of entertaining and helping make movie-going decisions. Your background gives you the knowledge necessary to recommend better alternative movies one could be watching. Other than that, the only reason I think I, or anyone else, would value your subjective opinion of a movie above others would be having similar tastes in film.

There is, of course, the entertainment factor, and fun facts and such regarding contemporary films and film history play into that. That does not equate to putting your opinion of films above that of others. If you were an expert regarding something objective, that would be different. If you were an expert on my car's engine, I'd trust your opinion over some friend of mine who has never worked on a car before. In regard to something like film, I mostly care how close our subjective views are. For that, some friend who knows very little about film history, but likes similar movies, could easily be much more reliable.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I feel guilty knowing you might actually read what I have to say when I post from time to time.

Something I've noticed recently (and yes this is a gross generalisation) but on discussions of Jimquisition, the fans of that show seem to really hate this show. I think that comes from the acquisitions of elitism and pretentiousness that moviebob has got. Personally, I don't get that and I don't get get Jimquisition either...

Movie Bob is pretentious and elitist compared to the Jimquisition.

Jimquisition of the "Thank god for me."

I giggled.

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

Well, I do agree with Bob here, and I always believe that personal opinion isn't something to be "pigeonholed" into a predetermined category just because of the person is a professional critic or have reviewed a lot of movies, but I know that if you have seen a lot of movies, you will begin to dislike formulaic films. And MovieBob admitted that in his review of "the Eagle".
But I will say that since he gave Thor a good, but not great review, he's isn't especially guilty of this (seeing how that movie is more or less sticking to formula).

There is however some critics who don't justify their views properly or doesn't seem to have seen the movie at all (or at least didn't pay attention and where to busy being negetive).
An example would be Noah "Spoony" Antweiler's "review" of Final Fantasy X. He seemed like he based his review on other peoples retelling of the game, and clearly didn't pay attention to many parts of the story (because he where clearly prepared to hate it from the get go and didn't want to see the parts that opposed his criticisms).

He didn't pay attention to the character beyond his first impression (and there is quite a lot of character development in the game), and used most of the review to ***** about the main character (who he actually said where unimportant to the story, and for those who have played the game, you know how wrong that is,,It's like saying that Jesus isn't important for the story in the new testament).

Whoa..Sorry, I got way of track there, but when i think about bad reviews, this is the first that spring to mind.

 

[Wolfram23]

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?

 

[vxicepickxv]

It is very interesting hearing from the point of view of a professional in their field, because they are the elite, they have their fields of specialty, they do know more than your average movie wathing person. As a professional when it comes to repairing aircraft, I understand where you are coming from. I understand that you know what you're talking about when it comes to movies, I'll keep planes in the air.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I really don't care whether MovieBob likes or dislikes a film. I found that what really I enjoy are the episodes where he explains his dislikes or problem with the film. Anyone can give an opinion that says a movie sucks or is great but the ability to coherently explain those responses is an uncommon and useful skill. I don't need MovieBob's approval or disapproval to enjoy a film but his insights about most films are thought-provoking. In that sense, regardless of his opinion of a film, he is successful as a critic.

 

[bombadilillo]

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.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

None of those things are even what I have an issue with, although with elitism I will say it's all fine and good until you start being a dick about it. Now, I like watching MovieBob and I will listen to everything he has to say and take it for just as an opinion, and if I don't agree with it then I ignore it and move on.

What I do have an issue with is being insulted by someone I don't know and he can make sweeping generalizations about people that watch a certain movie or have a certain opinion. That pisses me off. If you and I don't agree on something, fine, but don't be an ass about it. I've seen The Expendables and enjoyed it, why? Because it was mindless and I didn't have to think too much about it, also because I knew what I was expecting. A really bad movie and I was entertained, so if that make makes me a terrible person, then fine.

 

[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...

 

[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.