The use of "elitist" as an attack has always bothered me. It seems to me that all "elitism" means is the recognition that things that are better are better. This is not the same as arrogance, and I hate when these are lumped together.
About Critics (Part 1)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Do you really need that explained to you? "Turning off your brain" means silencing the nagging voice constantly telling you there is no such thing as magic, that there are no such thing as super heroes, that warp speed/transporters/time travel is logical, that all you have to do is call the cops/turn around/accuse the butler etc. That there's no freaking way a tank can hit a supersonic airborne target the size of a man with one round of its main gun. And then miss a static target. (I failed that one, I had to tell myself there was an off screen SAM launcher and the tank's gunner just happened to be bird watching in Tony's general direction).Moeez said:
It's much the same as being "swept up in the moment." Until The Dark Knight at midnight in IMAX the most memorable theater experience I ever had was watching Independence Day on opening night, which was just an awful film. At the time in a completely packed and raucous theater with everyone laughing uproariously at every single Will Smith clichéd one liner, it felt like a work of art.
Critics are eltists Part: If an elitist critic is someone who critiques things from superior to inferior based on merit, then what do you call someone who changes that merit to their will? Well then, I guess you're right in ignoring people calling you an elitist Bob, since clearly you're not professional enough to be an elitist. There is a name we can give you though, do you know what it is? I'll give you a hint, it's what you call anyone who watches or likes stuff by Michael Bay.
Critics hate all popular movies Part: To be fair I've never seen you as someone who turned their nose away from something just because it may become popular. What I have seen you as though is someone who turns their nose away from certain movies just because they may be popular with the people who may have bullied you before. I also notice that if a movie does something similar from a previous film you'll react differently depending on if its popular or not: if it is popular "We've already seen this before, its almost a copy", if it isn't popular "It pays homage to (movie title here)"
Critics aren't reliable because they see too many movies Part: I never hold this against a critic. I do agree that this argument against critics is utterly BS. But I'll say this. You mentioned earlier that as a critic you hope to sometimes encourage people to try and see movies that are often unique or out-of-the-box in an attempt to hopefully advance the medium of film by going with what works and abondoning what doesn't. The question remains then: who are you doing these reviews for exactely? What are you doing them for? The reason I ask is because while it certainly is a somewhat more admirable job to try and review movies that most people haven't heard of, you seem to be going about this with two minds. If you really wish to have people watch movies that advance the medium, then why do you also spend time giving negative criticisim to movies that you find don't advance the medium? I get that since you watch so much you try to get the most out of it by reviewing as much as you can, but it seems to be going against what you said. So, what type of critic are you? Are you one who thinks their audience is one that wishes to know which hidden gem they may have missed? Then why bother revieing movies that are heavily advertised? Are you a critic who thinks their audience is one that wishes to know if they should see the movie that they had been planning with their friends to see? Then why do you negatively critique parts of a movie that only affect you and other critics because of how much you watch while for the standard audience they find little issue with? This is the issue with you. You seem to sometimes fancy yourself as a critic whose work will influence the audience into watching what you deem to be the next step or help to advance the medium yet you review movies that seem to already get alot of attention and don't need so much a "In case you never heard of this" mentality but rather a "Is this better or worse than what everyone expected" mentality.
EDIT: Seeing as how a few people have brought up in this thread already (and several others before-hand), I'd like to offer my view on the whole "Yahtzee acts rude and is praised yet Bob does that and gets scorned"
Think of it, if you will, like this: Yahtzee is what would be considered say Stephen Colbert. Why? Because like Stephen Colbert, Yahtzee can say some pretty stupid and outlandish things, things that most would consider to be the attributes of a douche-bag or a dick, yet there is one thing that nullifies a good portion of that label: They're characters. Thats all it really is. Is what a good portion of what Yahtzee says based in reality? Sure, the base conclusion of "This game was good, this game was bad, this game was okay, etc." is certainly based on real opinions belonging to Yahtzee, but the attributes that would classify Yahtzee as mean-spirited are simply an act, much like how Stephen Colbert's zanny right-wing views are simply an act as well. Furthermore, the audience is well aware of that. They realize the outlandishness of Yahtzees character and it is what has his viewers coming back, to see what new and zanny thing he'll do next. Bob on the other, in this metaphor, would be considered say Bill O'Reily or Glen Beck. Why? Because like those two, Bob can say some stupid and outlandish things, things that most would consider to be the attributes of a douche-bag or a dick, and not because these are some attributes of a character they're doing, but because these appear to be attributes belonging to the person themselves. In the case of Bob, not only is the base conclusion of "This movie was good, this movie was bad, this movie was okay, etc." based in reality, but also his other attributes that could classify him as mean-spirited appear to be based in reality as well. If they aren't, then we have the issue that the audience isn't in on the supposed craziness of the character because Bob isn't making it clear that it is indeed a character and not him.
In short, Yahtzee is like Stephen Colbert, Bob is like Bill O'Reily. Or at least, thats how I see things.
Critics hate all popular movies Part: To be fair I've never seen you as someone who turned their nose away from something just because it may become popular. What I have seen you as though is someone who turns their nose away from certain movies just because they may be popular with the people who may have bullied you before. I also notice that if a movie does something similar from a previous film you'll react differently depending on if its popular or not: if it is popular "We've already seen this before, its almost a copy", if it isn't popular "It pays homage to (movie title here)"
Critics aren't reliable because they see too many movies Part: I never hold this against a critic. I do agree that this argument against critics is utterly BS. But I'll say this. You mentioned earlier that as a critic you hope to sometimes encourage people to try and see movies that are often unique or out-of-the-box in an attempt to hopefully advance the medium of film by going with what works and abondoning what doesn't. The question remains then: who are you doing these reviews for exactely? What are you doing them for? The reason I ask is because while it certainly is a somewhat more admirable job to try and review movies that most people haven't heard of, you seem to be going about this with two minds. If you really wish to have people watch movies that advance the medium, then why do you also spend time giving negative criticisim to movies that you find don't advance the medium? I get that since you watch so much you try to get the most out of it by reviewing as much as you can, but it seems to be going against what you said. So, what type of critic are you? Are you one who thinks their audience is one that wishes to know which hidden gem they may have missed? Then why bother revieing movies that are heavily advertised? Are you a critic who thinks their audience is one that wishes to know if they should see the movie that they had been planning with their friends to see? Then why do you negatively critique parts of a movie that only affect you and other critics because of how much you watch while for the standard audience they find little issue with? This is the issue with you. You seem to sometimes fancy yourself as a critic whose work will influence the audience into watching what you deem to be the next step or help to advance the medium yet you review movies that seem to already get alot of attention and don't need so much a "In case you never heard of this" mentality but rather a "Is this better or worse than what everyone expected" mentality.
EDIT: Seeing as how a few people have brought up in this thread already (and several others before-hand), I'd like to offer my view on the whole "Yahtzee acts rude and is praised yet Bob does that and gets scorned"
Think of it, if you will, like this: Yahtzee is what would be considered say Stephen Colbert. Why? Because like Stephen Colbert, Yahtzee can say some pretty stupid and outlandish things, things that most would consider to be the attributes of a douche-bag or a dick, yet there is one thing that nullifies a good portion of that label: They're characters. Thats all it really is. Is what a good portion of what Yahtzee says based in reality? Sure, the base conclusion of "This game was good, this game was bad, this game was okay, etc." is certainly based on real opinions belonging to Yahtzee, but the attributes that would classify Yahtzee as mean-spirited are simply an act, much like how Stephen Colbert's zanny right-wing views are simply an act as well. Furthermore, the audience is well aware of that. They realize the outlandishness of Yahtzees character and it is what has his viewers coming back, to see what new and zanny thing he'll do next. Bob on the other, in this metaphor, would be considered say Bill O'Reily or Glen Beck. Why? Because like those two, Bob can say some stupid and outlandish things, things that most would consider to be the attributes of a douche-bag or a dick, and not because these are some attributes of a character they're doing, but because these appear to be attributes belonging to the person themselves. In the case of Bob, not only is the base conclusion of "This movie was good, this movie was bad, this movie was okay, etc." based in reality, but also his other attributes that could classify him as mean-spirited appear to be based in reality as well. If they aren't, then we have the issue that the audience isn't in on the supposed craziness of the character because Bob isn't making it clear that it is indeed a character and not him.
In short, Yahtzee is like Stephen Colbert, Bob is like Bill O'Reily. Or at least, thats how I see things.
it's like in bob's episode of "The Big Picture" titled "The Numbers". When movies that don't take any risks or just flat out let themselves stagnate in their own mediocrity and only try to appeal to the lowest common denominator are made then movies that would probably have been epic masterpieces DON'T get made.Turtleboy1017 said:
I have nothing against the people who make the movies themselves, like all the artists, the FX specialists and whatnot, but i have EVERYTHING against the producers and giant production companies who only see the bottom line.
Besides, if most critics agree that the movies or games suck, then doesn't that truly say something about the quality of the game or film if even a WIDE variety of individuals who have seen thousands of movies can call it out as nothing but a lackadaisical cash-in.
i stand by my statement, full-heartedly. I still can't stand that people are willing to accept lower standards of quality to justify those same lower standards of quality. I'm sick of seeing films like Fast and Furious, Pirates 4, Transformers 2, The Shaggy Dog, Tooth Fairy, The Pacifier, Tyler Perry movies, Big Momma's House, Valentine's Day, and etc. basically get made over and over and over again and nobody says anything.
As Bob said, it's the critic and critic types like me who are the only thing that allow for ANY movies like District 9, Toy Story, Terminator (the first 2, and the 3rd, to some extent), Alien (the first 2), The Lord of the RIngs, Iron Man, Thor, Schindler's List, and prevent production companies from making lazier and lazier movies until this is the blockbuster that everyone goes to see:
I am not a critic and haven't watched a TON of movies in my life, and originality is the #1 thing a movie can do to make me like it. So...?
That last one is more personal taste than an issue of quality. They're both stylish, polished and intriguing in completely different ways.Azaraxzealot said:
Moviebob has led me to some great movies, games, and even books (the Fountainhead). More importantly he has saved my friends and I some money on movies we don't go see based on his recommendation. (Atlas Shrugged)Bara_no_Hime said:
I was not surprised to find out you read all our comments, but I do really appreciate it. Please continue to ignore your detractors, last I checked yes, you both have opinions, but only one of you is getting paid to.
If the bolded approach was taken to music, would there be anything left? "Oh, wait, someone has already followed up their A chord with an F, I can't do that then"? Please. Complaining about the individual notes is silly, the composition of said notes being interesting and effective (or not) is another matter entirely.walsfeo said:
You can ever truly turn your brain off. Your brain eventually gets bored of the same bits you liked once in a blockbuster. The reason why you liked Independence Day in the cinema with a packed crowd was probably because it looked great, and one of your few cinema experiences. I get that escapism, sometimes your brain needs a break from the stress of life. However, once you see enough blockbusters, your mind will be tolerant to all the explosions and crashes so you'll just get bored after seeing another blockbuster instead of something different that also happens to be as visually stimulating to your brain e.g. arthouse films like Melancholia, Enter the Void (awful, but gorgeous), Inception, or the work of Terrence Malick.Quesa said:
You can still have visually stimulating movies, but also be slightly thought-provoking which will give you a better long-lasting feeling of inspiration than completely forget the last 2 hours. That's why critics strive for new experiences, because their mind demands it, to stay healthy.
After reading the first paragraph of this story i'm obligated to write this next sentence.
Hi Bob.
Hi Bob.
I think this is why he said part 1. These are always the first arguments that people bring up. I guess now he will slowly work his way to the more sensible ones with deeper discussion. Frankly though, I think someone up there must be agreeing with them, which is why they are paid to do the job. Have you ever considered the fact that maybe it is you in this case (and often, me) that is in the wrong?SpiderJerusalem said:
Do people always get the movies? I know for a fact that they often don't. In The Simpsons movie, I laughed my ass off at the cinema in Thailand at the Spider Pig scene. I was the only one who even remotely got the reference, because I was the one of the few people in Thailand who watches The Simpsons religiously (Most never know that The Simpsons itself is a spinoff), and the only one of the few who actually knows the song to the original Spiderman. Was I wrong to be the only one who understands that sequence because I was more genre-savvy? Was I, in a way, being an elitist?
I think I understand what being a critic must feel like. I appreciate food. I have tasted cuisines from many cultures, and I have tried dishes unimaginable by most. My family is that of a true eater--we are one of those who would drive hours (in my country, that's traveling half the country) to try out different food. I feel that my palate is more distinguished than most of my friends. And when I hear them talk about food, it pains me. They often do not recognize the subtlety of taste, the ingredients, the after-flavor, the texture, or the presentation of the dishes. They just think I'm a total crackpot when I start raving about what good food should be.
I can't contribute much to the specifics on "film critics" though, as I don't actually watch that many films, and I don't read reviews. What I want to see though, is whether critics can be "bought off", as we often criticized the game reviewers, etc.
I would like to end by quoting a de-motivational poster here: It's lonely being at the top, but it's also comforting to look down on people.
If any of those reasons were why I disagree with Bob on various reviews, I wouldn't bother posting. Well, my bad for presuming he was addressing any complaints other than the standard "lol u suck" routines that never really need a response anyways.
Dear Bob,
I hope you take your time to answer this one post, before you can continue with your saga on Movie Critics.
Lemme introduce myself first, I am from Malaysia, 30 years old, Pisces, have a steady job at a local retail bookstore and wish to make films someday.
I'm planning to raise some money to enter film school by doing movie reviews, and talking about films, and hopefully make movies in the near future.
Is it possible? Can a movie critic or reviewer become a filmmaker?
I understand there's a cautionary tale about movie critics becoming filmmakers.
Roger Ebert, right? That "games not art" guy? The movie critic from Chicago Tribune? Yeah, I heard he wrote a screenplay for "something...something...Valley of The Dolls," right?
But what about that other movie critic, some dude from France?
What's his name?
Jean-Luc Godard?
Yeah, I heard he was a movie critic & theorist before he went on to make films, and change the the course of film history, like Breathless (remade into a Richard Gere starrer), Pierrot le fou (also a title of a Cowboy Bebop episode) and ALphaville.
Well, I may not change film history, but at least I hope to make some simple films.
So again, is it possible for movie critics be movie makers?
I hope you take your time to answer this one post, before you can continue with your saga on Movie Critics.
Lemme introduce myself first, I am from Malaysia, 30 years old, Pisces, have a steady job at a local retail bookstore and wish to make films someday.
I'm planning to raise some money to enter film school by doing movie reviews, and talking about films, and hopefully make movies in the near future.
Is it possible? Can a movie critic or reviewer become a filmmaker?
I understand there's a cautionary tale about movie critics becoming filmmakers.
Roger Ebert, right? That "games not art" guy? The movie critic from Chicago Tribune? Yeah, I heard he wrote a screenplay for "something...something...Valley of The Dolls," right?
But what about that other movie critic, some dude from France?
What's his name?
Jean-Luc Godard?
Yeah, I heard he was a movie critic & theorist before he went on to make films, and change the the course of film history, like Breathless (remade into a Richard Gere starrer), Pierrot le fou (also a title of a Cowboy Bebop episode) and ALphaville.
Well, I may not change film history, but at least I hope to make some simple films.
So again, is it possible for movie critics be movie makers?
Good on you Bob.
Theres a difference between a critic and a reviewer as I see it.
A critic attempts to place the object of their consideration into a more social perspective.
Whereas a reviewer just reviews the nuts and bolts job and gives a score out of ten.
Keep on truckin Bob.
Your one of my favourites on here.The place would be barren without you.
Theres a difference between a critic and a reviewer as I see it.
A critic attempts to place the object of their consideration into a more social perspective.
Whereas a reviewer just reviews the nuts and bolts job and gives a score out of ten.
Keep on truckin Bob.
Your one of my favourites on here.The place would be barren without you.
We care very much about the quality of everything on The Escapist, and to suggest that something just plain wasn't getting looked at is, frankly, offensive.Therumancer said:
You also seem to be confusing "professionalism" with presenting material a specific way. Bob is a consummate professional, whether you appreciate how he presents his opinion or not. If you want a more classic, middle of the road approach to reviewing movies - which would not be an unreasonable thing to want - there are plenty of movie critics out there that should suit your preference just fine. Part of Bob's appeal is that he isn't like that. He wears his personal biases on his sleeve, and shares them with the audience so that you always know exactly where he's coming from when he presents an opinion. Some people enjoy and appreciate that, others don't, and that's totally fair. But don't say he's unprofessional, because that simply isn't true.
Escapisteers are, on average, fiercely anti-intellectual.TwistedEllipses said:
That simple truth can be used to explain pretty much every seemingly inexplicable thing on this site. It's why people sling words like "elitist", "bias", and "pretentious" around as if the words actually mean anything anymore outside of "This discussion or position offends me and must be shouted down".
Dear MovieBob:
I don't always agree with your reviews. More often than not I do, but that's not important. What's important is that when I don't your column is still valuable to me. You're not a bad critic because you disagree with me. The important thing is, I'm looking for more than "thumbs up/down" or "4 stars" or "9.6." Most of your reviews take the general format of "I can/can't recommend this movie because ______." That blank is the important bit. I've read enough of your reviews to understand your taste and how they relate to mine. Sometimes you praise a movie for things I don't care about. Other times you dismiss a movie for things that don't bother me. And occasionally your biggest complaint about a movie is that it's just the sort of thing I'm looking for in that movie.
So, I will continue to read and enjoy your reviews. But at the same time I will sometimes go to and enjoy movies that you claim are very bad. I won't call you a bad reviews and you don't call me a bad movie goer just because our tastes sometime differ.
I don't always agree with your reviews. More often than not I do, but that's not important. What's important is that when I don't your column is still valuable to me. You're not a bad critic because you disagree with me. The important thing is, I'm looking for more than "thumbs up/down" or "4 stars" or "9.6." Most of your reviews take the general format of "I can/can't recommend this movie because ______." That blank is the important bit. I've read enough of your reviews to understand your taste and how they relate to mine. Sometimes you praise a movie for things I don't care about. Other times you dismiss a movie for things that don't bother me. And occasionally your biggest complaint about a movie is that it's just the sort of thing I'm looking for in that movie.
So, I will continue to read and enjoy your reviews. But at the same time I will sometimes go to and enjoy movies that you claim are very bad. I won't call you a bad reviews and you don't call me a bad movie goer just because our tastes sometime differ.
This is late to the party, but whatever. My only problem with Moviebob was when he insulted everyone who enjoys the Fast and the Furious franchise for liking the movie. It's the same thing he did with the Michael Bay movie fanbase. While he did say that critics don't live in a vacuum, and I agree with that, he shouldn't be calling people douchebags just because he's paid to watch this movie and review it and he doesn't like the franchise.RTR said:
He should be reviewing the movie on its merits/flaws alone without ever touching on the people who actually like or dislike the movie. It just shows that he can't keep his emotions and preconceptions clear enough of the movies to give a review of it. Clear enough in the sense that he tries not to let it color it completely (a la the review of Fast Five).
I think everyone who thinks Bob hates everything popular and successful needs to rewatch his 2012 review....the review part, not the intro bit. The G.I. Joe review works well here, too. It really cuts to the core of what I think he was saying: there are good bad movies, and then there are bad bad movies. Throwing millions at the latter when there are plenty of the former (or, you know, just good movies) around results in more bad bad movies being made, at the expense of everything else. The excuse "I like to shut my brain off" is ridiculous, as I've already said, because there is plenty of mindless entertainment out there that _isn't_ terrible.
As a sidebar: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, since this is the Internet, there are at least a few (and, statistically, probably more) of the "omg he insulted us for liking crappy movies!!!" crowd who has, at one point or another, put down Twilight and its (rabid) fans. My evidence for this is that Bob was just as hard, if not worse, on those movies, their creator, and its fanbase as he was on the Fast Five audience, and yet no one has called him on it, at least not here. So....hypocritical, much? I mean, you can't find a more insulted fanbase right now, and yet very few people (who aren't themselves fans of the book) ever seems to care whenever the Twilight bashing starts. I say this as someone who's done quite a bit of it myself.
As a sidebar: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, since this is the Internet, there are at least a few (and, statistically, probably more) of the "omg he insulted us for liking crappy movies!!!" crowd who has, at one point or another, put down Twilight and its (rabid) fans. My evidence for this is that Bob was just as hard, if not worse, on those movies, their creator, and its fanbase as he was on the Fast Five audience, and yet no one has called him on it, at least not here. So....hypocritical, much? I mean, you can't find a more insulted fanbase right now, and yet very few people (who aren't themselves fans of the book) ever seems to care whenever the Twilight bashing starts. I say this as someone who's done quite a bit of it myself.