Objective Lesson

[God of Path]

"Bob likes Nintendo, therefore Bob's arguments are invalid." If you're going to make an accusation, at least make it. All I see are claims of "Bob, you're biased." If that's the entirety of your claim and criticism (which it certainly looks to me), then you must not have read his article.

I think all of Bob's criticisms, however biased, have had ample explanation. Especially if the criticism does happen to be coming from a bias, which to be fair, Bob admits/points out s lot. This is coming from a guy who runs a show called "the Game OVERTHINKER."

 

[Dastardly]

See, with the example of your wife's idiot sister, yes you'd be responding differently to the same thing, but that's not because one set of feelings is more or less valid than the other. You're more willing to forgive your wife for all the reasons you listed, but the thing you're ignoring is that you're actually forgiving your wife and not her sister. To claim you felt the same way about both of them would be a lie.

But that's not what was said. The issue isn't the forgiveness, the issue is how I represent the infraction to others. From my wife, it's an unfortunate accident that could have happened to anyone, and it's just a bruise. From her sister, it's a result of near-malicious negligence that a retarded kitten could have prevented, and she nearly broke my foot.

See, feeling differently about the two isn't an issue. I'll forgive my wife because I know her, and that history informs my belief about what will happen going forward. Not so with the sister. It's perfectly normal for me to feel very differently about the two, and about the event.

But what is not okay is to willfully misrepresent the scope of the event. To make it a worse infraction, no mere accident, a more severe injury... but we do this kind of thing all the time. Because of the perfectly normal feelings, we enact a perfectly unfair bias about what actually happened.

Again with the Spider-Man thing, I thought Bob was very clear about what he thought and why he thought it. I don't agree with him, but I appreciate his honesty. Yes, he certainly was less forgiving of its flaws than he might have been if it had been closer to what he wanted or if it had a different history, but it didn't have those things. He genuinely hates the movie, and for him to state otherwise would be a lie.

Ah, but here's something very important: Bob does not tell us "I hate this movie." He tells us "It's a bad movie." Again, he was entirely honest in presenting his feelings, but was instead misrepresenting the movie itself (as viewed through the lens of those feelings). And that's the very definition of subjectivity, so don't get me wrong, we all do that... but the language used (hated movie vs is a bad movie) tells a story of its own.

 

[Inuprince]

"Bob likes Nintendo, therefore Bob's arguments are invalid." If you're going to make an accusation, at least make it. All I see are claims of "Bob, you're biased." If that's the entirety of your claim and criticism (which it certainly looks to me), then you must not have read his article.

I think all of Bob's criticisms, however biased, have had ample explanation. Especially if the criticism does happen to be coming from a bias, which to be fair, Bob admits/points out s lot. This is coming from a guy who runs a show called "the Game OVERTHINKER."

Even if Bob admits the source of his bias, wouldn't he come across as more professional, if he could at least give some kind of recommendation for a movie he didn't like/hate, to other people, who may have different taste, or opinions.

Like say, at the end of the Amazing Spider-Man review: I really don't like it, but if some of you out there didn't enjoy the Raimi versions, and wanted a different take on the webslinger, maybe you should check it out and perhaps you will like it.

Or give a shout-out to Scream fans at the end of the hate filled Scream 4 review, that maybe people who like or love the franchise, should go see it, because if they liked what the franchise previously offered, it has more of the same, but no, Bob just couldn't get past the fact he hates the Scream films in general, because the first movie popularized referencing movies, which was his thing but after that became more mainstream with everyone and he wasn't so special anymore.


I still watch every MovieBob review, but I realized soon enough, that his tastes differ quite from mine, and that I personally shouldn't take his negative reviews seriously. He can make things seem interesting, and worth checking out, but when he doesn't like something, there's never even a small indication, that other people with different tastes should go see it, never thinking other people might enjoy it.
His reviews aren't always based on bias, but the ones that are, just feel like some sort of small effort, to scare away as many people as possible, to ensure the movie's failure.

P.S. : Just went back and watched his Scream 4 review, and the people in the comments were already writing, that it's clear Bob is going to hate the new Spider-Man when it comes out, and that was in April 2011.

 

[ManInRed]

A critic should entertaining to listen to and/or have a distinct enough personality that I can determine their bias. Otherwise, I don't understand why anyone would waste time listening to reviews. I don't need to have my opinion reasserted by someone else, I want to engage in understand other people perspective of a shared experience -like all entertainment provides a social outlet for. My two favorite reviews to see are from the person that typically loves and typically hate this kind of work.

I don't think I ever completely agreed with MovieBob's opinion of a movie, but he's one of my favorite critics of movies.

 

[God of Path]

Even if Bob admits the source of his bias, wouldn't he come across as more professional, if he could at least give some kind of recommendation for a movie he didn't like/hate, to other people, who may have different taste, or opinions.

Like say, at the end of the Amazing Spider-Man review: I really don't like it, but if some of you out there didn't enjoy the Raimi versions, and wanted a different take on the webslinger, maybe you should check it out and perhaps you will like it.

Or give a shout-out to Scream fans at the end of the hate filled Scream 4 review, that maybe people who like or love the franchise, should go see it, because if they liked what the franchise previously offered, it has more of the same, but no, Bob just couldn't get past the fact he hates the Scream films in general, because the first movie popularized referencing movies, which was his thing but after that became more mainstream with everyone and he wasn't so special anymore.

I still watch every MovieBob review, but I realized soon enough, that his tastes differ quite from mine, and that I personally shouldn't take his negative reviews seriously. He can make things seem interesting, and worth checking out, but when he doesn't like something, there's never even a small indication, that other people with different tastes should go see it, never thinking other people might enjoy it.
His reviews aren't always based on bias, but the ones that are, just feel like some sort of small effort, to scare away as many people as possible, to ensure the movie's failure.

P.S. : Just went back and watched his Scream 4 review, and the people in the comments were already writing, that it's clear Bob is going to hate the new Spider-Man when it comes out, and that was in April 2011.

You may not agree with his opinion, but that does not make it unprofessional. Many people disagree with professional movie critics. They critique movies from a different point of view from many other people. They've seen hundreds of movies, likely hundreds more than you, and probably understand the medium more thoroughly than you do. That's what sets apart a professional critic from most schlubs. Not to nitpick, but it doesn't help that neither of the movies you listed were good. Both were critically panned (NYT, WSJ, etc.), not just by Bob. In general, this happens to be true too. You seem to be responding to Bob's vitriol and asides rather than to the actual criticisms, which are largely in line with, albeit better explained than, most other critics. (5 minutes and a column are more than Ebert gets, per movie.)

 

[RJ Dalton]

People been giving you shit again, Bob? This is like the . . . what, third? article you've posted on this site in which you talk about this.

You just need to break a few people's legs. That'll show them you're a perfectly reasonable, unbiased gentleman.

 

[Inuprince]

Even if Bob admits the source of his bias, wouldn't he come across as more professional, if he could at least give some kind of recommendation for a movie he didn't like/hate, to other people, who may have different taste, or opinions.

Like say, at the end of the Amazing Spider-Man review: I really don't like it, but if some of you out there didn't enjoy the Raimi versions, and wanted a different take on the webslinger, maybe you should check it out and perhaps you will like it.

Or give a shout-out to Scream fans at the end of the hate filled Scream 4 review, that maybe people who like or love the franchise, should go see it, because if they liked what the franchise previously offered, it has more of the same, but no, Bob just couldn't get past the fact he hates the Scream films in general, because the first movie popularized referencing movies, which was his thing but after that became more mainstream with everyone and he wasn't so special anymore.

I still watch every MovieBob review, but I realized soon enough, that his tastes differ quite from mine, and that I personally shouldn't take his negative reviews seriously. He can make things seem interesting, and worth checking out, but when he doesn't like something, there's never even a small indication, that other people with different tastes should go see it, never thinking other people might enjoy it.
His reviews aren't always based on bias, but the ones that are, just feel like some sort of small effort, to scare away as many people as possible, to ensure the movie's failure.

P.S. : Just went back and watched his Scream 4 review, and the people in the comments were already writing, that it's clear Bob is going to hate the new Spider-Man when it comes out, and that was in April 2011.

You may not agree with his opinion, but that does not make it unprofessional. Many people disagree with professional movie critics. They critique movies from a different point of view from many other people. They've seen hundreds of movies, likely hundreds more than you, and probably understand the medium more thoroughly than you do. That's what sets apart a professional critic from most schlubs. Not to nitpick, but it doesn't help that neither of the movies you listed were good. Both were critically panned (NYT, WSJ, etc.), not just by Bob. In general, this happens to be true too. You seem to be responding to Bob's vitriol and asides rather than to the actual criticisms, which are largely in line with, albeit better explained than, most other critics. (5 minutes and a column are more than Ebert gets, per movie.)

I never said Bob was unprofessional, I said that he would be even MORE professional in my eyes, if he could atleast give recommendations, to people with other tastes, at the end of a very negative review, because even though, he has every right to despise a series, or a reboot, for whatever reason, he could state in just one sentence, who he would recommend the movie for.
These reviews make it seem like no one should be interested in these movies because Bob didn't like them.

So while these two movies, may not be regarded as great or even good movies in general, I think there is an audience for them out there:
I haven't seen the new Spider-Man, but no-one else I heard talk about it or review it, didn't present it as something disasterous like Bob did.
As for Scream 4, most Scream fans consider it, as better than the third and the second movie, or just had fun with it, because hey it's a fun slasher, that doesn't even take itself too seriously.

 

[irishda]

Critics write what they know, clearly coloring what movies they like and dislike. Bob has accepted that, apparently believing we should find critics that share our tastes, that we might better discover which stuff we would and wouldn't like.

You know what though? I think that system's bullshit. You know what I'd like to see? How about a system where critics actively try to view products from different angles? How 'bout a system where we get reasons why people who are into that sort of genre/style/narrative might enjoy it?

Instead of:

Fast and Furious is a terrible movie. The story's bland and the characters are flat because the only thing the director gave a shit about was the cars and the explosions. Go see this only if you want to hurt your brain.

how about:

I don't like Fast and Furious, but the story isn't overly complicated and the character stories don't demand the focus too much to distract people from the action or the cars. Fans of the series will probably enjoy this one too, but people who don't care about loud cars won't find much to like.

Instead of:

Avengers is the greatest movie of the year, maybe of all time. There's nothing wrong with this movie. This is everything I'd hoped it'd be and more.

why not:

There's a lot to like about Avengers: cool heroes, awesome fights, Samuel L. Jackson on a plane (sort of). It's a saturday morning cartoon movie, which means there's some drawbacks too. The plot's ridiculously predictable, superpowers are pretty loosely defined, and the characters don't have a lot of dimension to them.

Perspective. Empathy. Try and understand what someone else might not like about, or what they would like about it.

 

[God of Path]

It seems a lot of people misunderstand how a critic writes reviews. It looks to me as though people are asking for recommendations contrary to Bob's point of view because other people might enjoy the movie. Of course other people might enjoy the movie, but that gives no excuse for a recommendation of a bad (to him) movie. That's not what the critic's job is. It's to tell you what HE thought about the movie, and why HE thought that way. No critic I have ever read (I read newspapers, so they number in the dozens of critics, writing about hundreds of movies) has ever said "for people who like this kind of movie, they should see it." No, they give THEIR thoughts, often less well explained than Bob, and a general recommendation. Not two recommendations, like one for dunces and one for geniuses, or one for sports fans and one for gamers. The most I've seen from say, Ebert, was "if you X, this might mean more to you..." But that's as far as it goes, and I've hear Bob say that before. This seems to have devolved into I liked X, and Bob didn't review it nicely, so to be a better critic he should change his review to make it nicer about X, or at least recommend it to me. A.) He doesn't know you, or your movie tastes, and by that logic EVERY movie deserves a recommendation to it's fans because they "might like it better." B.) You miss what critics are for, see earlier part. For Bob to even include a cop-out phrase like, "well, I didn't like it, but you might!" would be unprofessional, because that's giving a recommendation for a movie that he views as bad. Most of the criticisms lobbied against Bob have the same flavour, and if lobbied at nearly any other movie critic, wouldn't even be considered. I think it's astonishing for him to address the vitriol on his bias like this, and if anything, Bob's explanations lend more credence to his professionalism, not less.

 

[God of Path]

If Bob wasn't a competent, well informed critic he wouldn't have his own show and column and we wouldn't be talking about him.

Armond White and Harry Knowles are well known, employed critics. Many people who are ill-informed, biased and barely competent are hired and put on display these days. Just because you're on the front page doesn't mean you don't suck.

Quit nitpicking. Do you think Bob sucks then? Because that's what you lead on... Disagreeing with an argument is fine, just say something. All I saw you do was disagree to post your disagreement. For the record, I don't think Bob sucks, and I disagree with you, or at least what I think you were trying to say. Which could have been nothing.

 

[False Nobility]

Is objectivity really inevitable or this just an excuse for people who can't view things from a fresh perspective?

 

[God of Path]

For the record, yes, I think Bob is a pretty terrible critic, who far too often falls into that Harry Knowles school of writing where he constitutes hyperbole, audience insulting and poorly researched puff pieces as journalism. He takes minor grudges and holds them for months (like with Scott Pilgrim and Expendables), outright calls people with different views retards and rednecks and never misses a chance to attempt at putting himself in the spotlight as "one of the pros", which started out as funny and now is just sad.

You're probably not going to hear this a lot, since there seems too much to be an element of fanboy-ism revolving around the issue, but thanks for your opinion.

I don't really see him insulting the audience a lot, and disagree that hyperbole makes for poor critique. Also I saw your "grudges" as a way to string a bit of cohesion to an otherwise episodic show. And as for calling people retards and rednecks, it's crass, but there's not much wrong with that. Political correctness is bullshit, and I honestly see Bob calling a spade a spade.

 

[Tono Makt]

If Bob wasn't a competent, well informed critic he wouldn't have his own show and column and we wouldn't be talking about him. That being said, there has always been one aspect of Bob's critiquing style that has bugged me. Bob tends to preframe his experience going into a movie too much.

...

Bob said months ago (probably even over a year ago) that he was greatly anticipating The Avengers but not TDKR. While I think both films are great and have their own merits and faults, is it not even possible that Bob's feelings for the final products weren't influenced by months of preframing an opinion?

A competent, well informed critic would realize this and take this into account. We pretty much all knew the tone of what Bob was going to say about both movies months in advance, it was just the details that we were waiting for. He was a fan in those reviews, not a critic, and while it may suck that he has to put on the critic hat when viewing a movie, that's the job he has chosen to take. When he so obviously doesn't put on the critic hat when reviewing a movie, it needs to be pointed out.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

That was a hell of a long article just to point out "if you don't want a review of a game to be coloured by the reviewer's opinion, why do you read the review?"

 

[Moeez]

Then their are uneducated critics. When I read a review of TDKR that says "Nolan is just trying to capitalize on the Occupy movement" they aren't just wrong but are uneducated. Nolan was pretty open about the movie being based on "A Tale of Two Cities", and an educated critic would know this, and the script was done before occupy, and filming was well underway when "occupy" started. Educated ,in this context, is being informed about the film, or Educated as in being well read enough to have read "A Tale of Two Cities" and spotting it themselves.

I don't expect random Self Proclaimed YouTube Internet Critics to all be well read and writers, but the ones who actually make a living off of it I do.

Plus, what's worse is that Gordon reads a passage from the actual "A Tale of Two Cities" at the funeral!

My take from all this, take Bob's opinion on geek movies with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Calbeck]

"Mostly, it's because 'objectivity' is one of those concepts that's impossible to define because the pure version of it doesn't exist."

This is like arguing that air is one of those concepts that's impossible to define "because the pure version of it doesn't exist".

Anyone who's ever taken a non-vocational college semester knows there are plenty of well-defined concepts of which there is no "pure version" --- what's "justice", for example? Where's the pure version of it?

There's a common phrase that tends to get thrown out there whenever a commentator gets tired of people calling them out for being over-the-top biased: "Objectivity is a Myth".

I once ran into a commentator who claimed that a particular group was "homophobic" --- said group's membership being openly, and mostly, homosexual and bisexual. Nor had the group ever made any anti-gay statements. When I pointed this out to him, he retorted that there had been such things as gay Nazis, and therefore my statement was invalid.

He, too, claimed "Objectivity is a Myth" as an excuse for not just having a difference of opinion or viewpoint, but deliberately playing fast and loose with the truth "because there isn't any".

In the end, he sicced his lawyer on me with a cease-and-desist for pointing out the obvious: that if he wanted to equate this particular group's openly-gay membership with the existence of gays in the Nazi Party, then obviously he was saying the Nazis tolerated openly-gay members.

His lawyer ended up going back to him and telling him to retract his "homophobic" claim.

So yes, Virginia, there is indeed such a thing as "objectivity". The fact that you can't be perfect at it doesn't give you license to throw it out the window entirely.

 

[Calbeck]

So, we're not going against you for not being objective, we're going against you for being a poor critic with such clear biases that it undermines even the rare few times that you actually might try and say something worthwhile.

Tsk, tsk, c'mon, be a little objective here. Bob has done quite a few reviews where he says plenty that's worthwhile. They are, almost every time, the ones where he doesn't try to shoehorn his political or social views in.

But you're entirely correct that when he does do that, it undermines credibility in his better work. Seriously, if I were to watch someone doing a review on "Superman", and they were to start making snarky quips about Obama's policy on African blood diamonds at the point where Superman crushes a piece of coal into a diamond? I'd be annoyed at best. Unfortunately, that kind of thing tends to crop up annoyingly often in Bob's snarkier reviews.

 

[Panda Mania]

Critics write what they know, clearly coloring what movies they like and dislike. Bob has accepted that, apparently believing we should find critics that share our tastes, that we might better discover which stuff we would and wouldn't like.

You know what though? I think that system's bullshit. You know what I'd like to see? How about a system where critics actively try to view products from different angles? How 'bout a system where we get reasons why people who are into that sort of genre/style/narrative might enjoy it?

Instead of:

Fast and Furious is a terrible movie. The story's bland and the characters are flat because the only thing the director gave a shit about was the cars and the explosions. Go see this only if you want to hurt your brain.

how about:

I don't like Fast and Furious, but the story isn't overly complicated and the character stories don't demand the focus too much to distract people from the action or the cars. Fans of the series will probably enjoy this one too, but people who don't care about loud cars won't find much to like.

Instead of:

Avengers is the greatest movie of the year, maybe of all time. There's nothing wrong with this movie. This is everything I'd hoped it'd be and more.

why not:

There's a lot to like about Avengers: cool heroes, awesome fights, Samuel L. Jackson on a plane (sort of). It's a saturday morning cartoon movie, which means there's some drawbacks too. The plot's ridiculously predictable, superpowers are pretty loosely defined, and the characters don't have a lot of dimension to them.

Perspective. Empathy. Try and understand what someone else might not like about, or what they would like about it.

I've always liked that idea. A multifaceted, cautious, and civil approach to...well, anything, really, not just media. Maybe we'd all get along better if we tried to see things from the other standpoints? >.> <.<

OT: Lovely thoughts, MovieBob. Y'know, one of the reasons I adore many of the New York Times' media critics has to do with that issue of subjectivity: lots of their reviews are written in a very non-formulaic way that documents more of their personal thoughts and observations about the piece than it describes the "objective" creative value. I mean, yeah, they praise or criticize it, but in the broader context of the review, which often has a sort of theme, a specific vein that they've chosen to write in. Each review is like its own little journal entry, almost. Someday I hope to write reviews like those.

 

[Raesvelg]

So is Bob still trying to justify his occasional outbreaks of fanboy nerd-rage over certain films?

It might be easier to say "Yeah, I wasn't going to review the film fairly to begin with, and you knew that I wasn't, so if you want a reasonably objective analysis of the film's merits, see [insert critic here]'s review, and then stick around to watch me vent my spleen!"

 

[beefpelican]

If Bob wasn't a competent, well informed critic he wouldn't have his own show and column and we wouldn't be talking about him. That being said, there has always been one aspect of Bob's critiquing style that has bugged me. Bob tends to preframe his experience going into a movie too much.

Preframing is basically giving someone else (or yourself in this case) an opinion before having actually experienced the final product. Everyone does it to a certain extent (hype yourself up or try to let yourself down easy) but it will always affect the final judgment.

If someone is immersed in movies and trailers, as a reviewer would be, how are they supposed to avoid doing this? To see months of buildup without forming any opinion is kind of like not thinking about pink elephants, especially when thinking about movies is your job.

OT: This is not the first time that Bob has written an article in defense of his right to be a critic. I don't really see that it's necessary. Clearly his opinion is valued by the editors and readers of the Escapist, or else he wouldn't have a job here. Valuable opinions justify themselves.