Objective Lesson

[ZephrC]

snip

My thought on the matter are still not really made up, so I probably shouldn't post seeing how it will just end up as a wall of unsorted thoughts in text form. But since I so enjoy a civilized discussion, I'll post anyway ^^

It's not so much that I want to have a reviewer who is going to have opinions similar to mine, on the contrary, I think unchallenged opinions are bad for everyone involved. It just kind of looses a bit its worth for me if it's heavily colored by a certain view.

My problem with the whole Spider-Man review (which is a very convenient example ^^) wasn't so much that I disagreed with MovieBob on the matter (I kind of didn't). But when he's spent a year telling everyone how he hates the whole project for what it is and thinks it's doomed to fail, and then ends up posting not one but two reviews telling me precisely how right he was, it's hard to take it seriously. How much of that is of actually worth listening to and how much of it is just him affirming his standpoint? And (I guess more importantly) how much is it really worth listening to someone telling you that they thought what they were going to think all along? (<- non-rhetorical question)

It's really easy to get caught up in hype for something, both negative and positive. I know because I do it, often. There are things I've lifted to the skies as the best things ever leading up to, and right around the time of, their release that I've looked back on with a much clearer view later on and said "yeah, maybe I overdid it".

I guess what I'm saying is I want criticism, smart, insightful and well thought out thought on a piece of entertainment, not just another raving part of the hype-machine (be it positive or negative). Which Internet critics, even the good ones, even the ones that I follow regularly, sometimes have a tendency of becoming.

I guess the problem is that all a reviewer can ever really do is explain why they feel a certain way about something and hope that information turns out to be useful or entertaining or both. Certainly Bob's Spider-Man review was one of the least useful, but I think reviewers that get that involved in hype and then try to pretend they're objective about it afterwards are just being dishonest and unhelpful in an opaque way.

It seems to me that it's unfair to expect a reviewer, a person whose life and livelihood revolves around a subject, to never get hyped about anything, and it's unrealistic to expect that not to color their view of it.

It's also a good idea to keep that in mind while considering a review. Like I said, Spider-Man absolutely was one of the less useful reviews that Bob has put out. He's a much better reviewer when he isn't so invested in something, but because he cares about it so much he wants to talk about it. I don't begrudge him that; I just take what he has to say with a grain of salt.

In the end, I think that if Bob had released a review of Spider-Man that had just listed some technical flaws and called it a mediocre movie to seem more objective it might have been a more accurate review, but it would have been dishonest. I don't believe for second he actaully felt that way, and I think that dishonesty would give me a false impression of how he thinks, and make his less useful of a reviewer in the future.

 

[Dastardly]

Or, to address the elephant in the room, with the most recent Spider-Man movie Bob here was pretty anti-hyped about the whole thing. He didn't think Sony got Spider-Man's character, he thought the whole movie was a stupid cynical cash grab, and he didn't expect them to put a lot of effort into it. He had a lot of expectations going it, and that gave the movie a high hurdle to overcome for him to like it, and it absolutely didn't overcome that. It was a deeply flawed movie that didn't understand Spider-Man from the comics at all. Now lots of people, myself included, didn't really care about all that and so enjoyed the movie. That doesn't make Bob wrong, and I think he was pretty clear about what he thought and why he thought it, so all the hate-backlash he's gotten for having an unpopular opinion has really taken me aback. He has a well informed and well explained opinion. I don't see why people get so weird about him disagreeing with them. It's just odd.

Also, on this: My personal disagreement with MovieBob came in two parts:

The first was actual civil disagreement about the characters in the movie. I felt they were actually more real than Raimi's movies. The bully had some depth, the nerd wasn't the "lie down and take it" kind of nerd, the girlfriend wasn't there to get kidnapped to "make Spider-Man pay," and Uncle Ben's death was even more tragic because of how trivial the exchange before it was. It was a reboot and update, not a retread of the same old "Gotta squeeze the origin story into one comic" original story. On that, just a difference of opinion.

But my second disagreement was the volume of the hate expressed. There were definitely flaws and mistakes. I hate the "parent conspiracy" storyline, too, and it wasn't handled very well. But the mistakes weren't as bad as MovieBob made them out to be. I mean, what made the "crane scene" in this cheesier than the "If you mess with one of us..." crap from the Raimi movie?

So you see the heart of the issue: Differences of opinion are one thing. That's not bias. But when we allow those differences of opinion to artificially amplify our good or bad thoughts about something? That's where bias comes in.

Think of it this way: My wife and my wife's idiot sister who I hate (Hypothetical here). My wife drops something on my foot. I scream and yelp, because it hurts, and I forgive her -- hey, mistakes happen, it's not like she did it on purpose. If her sister were the one to do it? Maybe I'd yell and swear at her and tell her she needs to be more careful, and really play up how much it hurts -- basically, the natural negative response would be amplified by my latent dislike of the girl.

Why? Because I already don't like her going into this. So it causes me to unfairly represent the actual harm as greater. Also, I know that I can mistreat her without much in the way of serious fallout (I don't have to live with her), so I feel okay cutting loose. All of this frustration? Nothing to do with my foot. But I'm making it about my foot as a convenient way to vent all my other frustrations.

 

[ZephrC]

snip

I'm actually saying both. A critic should put forth views that are internally consistent. And if something seems inconsistent, there are two possible explanations:

1. The critic is being inconsistent in his/her application of criticism -- as in forgiving a big mistake from a favorite artist, and then blasting another artist for the exact same mistake.

2. The critic's opinions differ because it really isn't the "exact same mistake," and that distinction relies on context the critic should have provided to the reader. When that context is considered, the critic's criteria once again appear internally consistent.

The same critic can be guilty of both of these. Sometimes it's one, and sometimes it's the other. In both cases, to the audience, it can seem like the critic is being inconsistent until clarification is offered (if any).

A recent example: Many critics railed against the new Amazing Spider-Man movie. While many of their complaints hold water, one baffles me: The complaint that the Lizard, as a villain, was far too similar to the Green Goblin from the Sam Raimi movie, and this makes him a bad villain (NOTE: Not talking about appearance complaints here). Is it true? Sure, in very general terms.

But most of these critics also hold Spider-Man 2 to be one of the best Spider-Man movies... while failing to mention that Raimi's Doc Ock is even more similar to Green Goblin (scientist with good intentions experiments on himself with unproven technology giving him superhuman powers and causing him to go mad and hear voices in his head eventually leading him to kidnap Spider-Man's aunt and love interest to induce a final showdown).

To hate the villain in one movie while praising the villain in the other seems internally inconsistent -- they're forgiving Raimi because he's a favorite, and hating Lizard because they perceive the whole enterprise as a Sony cash-grab. Now, could a critic offer an explanation for what makes it okay in one, but not in the other? Absolutely! But the idea here is that they should.

snip

Also, on this: My personal disagreement with MovieBob came in two parts:

The first was actual civil disagreement about the characters in the movie. I felt they were actually more real than Raimi's movies. The bully had some depth, the nerd wasn't the "lie down and take it" kind of nerd, the girlfriend wasn't there to get kidnapped to "make Spider-Man pay," and Uncle Ben's death was even more tragic because of how trivial the exchange before it was. It was a reboot and update, not a retread of the same old "Gotta squeeze the origin story into one comic" original story. On that, just a difference of opinion.

But my second disagreement was the volume of the hate expressed. There were definitely flaws and mistakes. I hate the "parent conspiracy" storyline, too, and it wasn't handled very well. But the mistakes weren't as bad as MovieBob made them out to be. I mean, what made the "crane scene" in this cheesier than the "If you mess with one of us..." crap from the Raimi movie?

So you see the heart of the issue: Differences of opinion are one thing. That's not bias. But when we allow those differences of opinion to artificially amplify our good or bad thoughts about something? That's where bias comes in.

Think of it this way: My wife and my wife's idiot sister who I hate (Hypothetical here). My wife drops something on my foot. I scream and yelp, because it hurts, and I forgive her -- hey, mistakes happen, it's not like she did it on purpose. If her sister were the one to do it? Maybe I'd yell and swear at her and tell her she needs to be more careful, and really play up how much it hurts -- basically, the natural negative response would be amplified by my latent dislike of the girl.

Why? Because I already don't like her going into this. So it causes me to unfairly represent the actual harm as greater. Also, I know that I can mistreat her without much in the way of serious fallout (I don't have to live with her), so I feel okay cutting loose. All of this frustration? Nothing to do with my foot. But I'm making it about my foot as a convenient way to vent all my other frustrations.

My response to both of these things is kind of the same.

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.

And here's the thing: A review is inherently a reviewer stating how something made him/herself feel. To state that something made a reviewer feel the same just because it happened similarly would be a lie. Does that make a review with a strong bias that you don't share less useful? Yes, absolutely it does. Does that mean the review should have been done differently? I would say no. I think the best response is to simply take it with a grain of salt and move on. Perhaps if the reviewer consistently has that problem you shouldn't bother with them at all anymore.

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.

As Yahtzee proves, it's possible to be an entertaining critic and not just pick things you hate. The guy picks on games he likes, too. His whole deal is a humorous focus on the negative aspects of a game, even beloved ones. A critic that goes out of his/her way to review a game after having already made it clear they hate the series? It's just an excuse to release the same review again, most times.

On a more cheerful note, Yahtzee does an incredible balancing act between critic and entertainer, but, as you pointed out, he does pick on things he likes. He's more entertainer than critic, but it's usually pretty obvious when he's being relatively serious. The jokes can be judged as jokes, and the critiques can usually be judged as critiques without a lot of confusion.

A better example of someone going out of their way to review something they hate would be the RedLetterMedia reviews of the Star Wars prequels. Nobody watched those to decide whether or not to watch the movies. They watched them to be entertained. I guess they could be considered a useful critique in that they do a pretty good job of explaining why those movies are so despised, but they should mostly be judged as entertainment because that's what they primarily are. (Note: I don't even like them. They're too long and way too hateful for my tastes. They're just famous and fit my point here pretty well.)

 

[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?