Yeesh, he said that? Sounds like he's way more of a jerk than I made him out to be just from his videos alone.Ratty said:
Poll: Do you enjoy Moviebob's content?
- Thread starter Dark Knifer
- Start date
When he's good, he's pretty good.
But when he's engaged in politics, he tends to step way, WAY out of line.
As in, out of the realm of passionate disagreement and straight into the cesspit of vile hypocrisy.
Also, he has this rather nasty habit of throwing a tantrum against his audience out of nowhere when something doesn't quite go his way. (See his "The Expendables" review)
Personally: His blind love and lip service for Sarkeesian is what really put me off of him; if you don't believe in her "criticisms" as the gospel truth like he (and other internet sheep) does, it's uncomfortable to watch.
For me, it's not just because it's blind loyalty to a woman whose methods I find highly questionable, but mainly because it's Bob openly surrendering his authorship on any article he publishes about her.
And if you don't know what I mean about "authorship", well, consider the root word meaning of "authority".
Basically, I think it's very important for an author to retain their voice in what they do, even when they fully agree with someone. Without that, it's just cronyism, and I have no respect or use for cronies.
But when he's engaged in politics, he tends to step way, WAY out of line.
As in, out of the realm of passionate disagreement and straight into the cesspit of vile hypocrisy.
Also, he has this rather nasty habit of throwing a tantrum against his audience out of nowhere when something doesn't quite go his way. (See his "The Expendables" review)
Personally: His blind love and lip service for Sarkeesian is what really put me off of him; if you don't believe in her "criticisms" as the gospel truth like he (and other internet sheep) does, it's uncomfortable to watch.
For me, it's not just because it's blind loyalty to a woman whose methods I find highly questionable, but mainly because it's Bob openly surrendering his authorship on any article he publishes about her.
And if you don't know what I mean about "authorship", well, consider the root word meaning of "authority".
Basically, I think it's very important for an author to retain their voice in what they do, even when they fully agree with someone. Without that, it's just cronyism, and I have no respect or use for cronies.
I don't see how you could flamed for disliking a show that, as a whole, is fairly mediocre. Many people share this opinion with you and stopped watching a long time ago. I managed to suffer through the early stuff and for me, the show has gotten a lot better. It's reached the point of being genuinely alright and sometimes even good with the occasional moments of greatness.Zen Bard said:
Mostly, what kept me going on the show was its sheer potential. Obviously, that's not going to be nearly enough for a lot of people and I totally understand that since I myself actually quit watching about 5 episodes. I decided to give it second chance when I started reading about how it had gotten better. I don't know if it's so much better that I could justify watching all of the awful stuff, but I already have so I might as well continue to enjoy it.
Not after the whole "Amazing Spider Man 2 broke me!" Wangst fest and the video telling me "You're WRONG about Spider Man 3." He's nothing interesting about him, and his scornful attitude of Gamergate was nothing short of disgusting. The faster he leaves and fades into obscurity, the better.
I really enjoy his videos. Hes definitely one of the main reasons I come to the site. Which is odd because I often have wildly differing views on the movies he reviews. I guess he can just articulate a point of view that I don't agree with without bugging me, or even reducing my entertainment.
I don't really follow his writing. I don't care enough about even things like the new star wars to follow cast announcements and things. Let alone for all the other movies and shows.
I don't really follow his writing. I don't care enough about even things like the new star wars to follow cast announcements and things. Let alone for all the other movies and shows.
You know, thank you for saying that. That's how I feel. I REALLY wanted to like it. And like you, I tuned in for the potential. For me, though...that potential was never realized.RedDeadFred said:
Been reading some of the same. And you may have inspired me to try it again.
(But I won't hold you accountable if I still don't like it >;-) )
Yeah, and on his refusal to actively condemn harassment towards Gamergate supporters (i.e. harassment coming from his side) he said "If you lay down with dogs don't be surprised if you get fleas." keep in mind that there are Gamergate supporters who have been Doxxed, SWATted, had their workplace called and been fired, been threatened and in at least one case even assaulted. Failing to condemn these kinds of actions just because they're coming from "your side" (or coming from 3rd party trolls directed at "your enemy") is just... ugh.Johnny Novgorod said:
Yeah you don't understand what Bob does, seriously if you just want the "This movie has good cinematography but some of the acting is a bit wooden 3/5" type review go almost literally anywhere else. That is never what he is supposed to be doing.Meriatressia said:
Another here. I think it's after Amazing Spiderman 1 that I started to not like him. Mostly what I hate is his refusal to let something he hates go, he'll whine and whine and whine some more about whatever it is every even slightly related video or article he gets long after the work was made, and the only time he'll stop is if something he hates even more comes along. What's worse is he tends to whine about insignificant or even outright false things about whatever he hates and constantly sing the praises of things he loves even if all the problems the former had the latter also possesses. To top all that off, he's often blindingly hypocritical, complaining about things other reviewers do and then going and doing those same things himself for instance.Meriatressia said:
Pretty much the only time I tune into his stuff these days is during Shlocktober and I wish he would do something like that the rest of the year as well.
Let's not pretend that this is not inherently accurate. All thatRatty said:
Let's no pretend that this is not entirely accurate. For christ-sakes we as a society (in the US) have managed to embrace dropping a nuclear bomb on civilian targets because the target was sufficiently bad. Are you really claiming that there is no target bad enough to merit unwholesome tactics? Because as I see it that is just daft.Ratty said:
What? I haven't embraced the bomb droppings on Japan. Which caused cancer in generations of innocent people. It's terrible to even think about it. But we're not talking about a "few" cases of harrassment from Bob's side he's refused to actively condemn. Here's a sample.josak said:
Remember all those messages are from the "social justice" warriors. Remember "No bad tactics, just bad targets." That one with the syringe? As I recall that was Anti-GGers sending a syringe to someone who was suicidal to encourage them to kill themselves. I had forgotten about that one.
Dude. Not cool.josak said:
These posts have been showing up a lot lately and it drives me kind of nuts. Can everyone please avoid posting multiple images as one big one? I can't maximize them so if the post isn't too blurry to read, it's way too small.Ratty said:
Edit:
About Milo (I genuinely cannot remember his last name) getting a syringe, someone pointed out to me that shortly before the Gamergate fiasco he had written an article on the Scottish vote for independence. Unfortunately, he had compared all Scots to various things, amongst those comparisons were druggies.
My view on gamergate is that everybody. anti or pro, has been infected with a madness-inducing disease.
On the original topic, I don't really like the accent he sometimes uses. Makes me think of a mixture of tweety bird and elmer fudd.
I also think he suffers from the problem of many critics where they get overexposed to commonly used tropes and start praising stuff for being more out there instead of doing what the average person would enjoy. (Why I think critics loved gone home while the average gamer hated it. Waaayyyy to artsy fartsy.)
EDIT: Also, I think he has a bit too much of nerd revenge fantasy in him for my liking. "Different tastes than mine then you are a dumb "bro"".
On the original topic, I don't really like the accent he sometimes uses. Makes me think of a mixture of tweety bird and elmer fudd.
I also think he suffers from the problem of many critics where they get overexposed to commonly used tropes and start praising stuff for being more out there instead of doing what the average person would enjoy. (Why I think critics loved gone home while the average gamer hated it. Waaayyyy to artsy fartsy.)
EDIT: Also, I think he has a bit too much of nerd revenge fantasy in him for my liking. "Different tastes than mine then you are a dumb "bro"".
Top right one in the image is particularly disgusting.Ratty said:
Just throwing my hat into the ring in support of Bob.
I like that he takes the time to use a geographically neutral voice when he thinks it's important and think it's a hoot when he drops into Boston townie mode to make a point or change the tone of a discussion. I like that he takes the time to write about geek esoterica because while I'm interested in the "[Whatevers] Are Weird" themes part of my appreciation comes from getting the chance to learn about things without having to exhaustively read / view / research about them on my own. I like that he ties this kind of background information to a review or larger discussion because it reflects an awareness of what contributes to a game, or movie.
I don't know if this next thing is a post-gamergate trope or if I've just been picking up on it more recently but it seems like I read more and more on forums about people who expect reviews to be conducted without letting the reviewer's personal feelings get in the way. This is crazy talk. Writing reviews is inherently subjective, you can't evaluate an experience like it's a math problem with a binary solution. (Hey, whaddya think of Picasso? Well, he used too much blue; I'm going to have to dock him points for that, so?. 2/5? How 'bout Beethoven's Symphony No. 10? What, the pre-alpha release that had to get patched by Cooper - 1/5, he never finished the damned thing.) That's nuts. You review a painting, you write about how you feel when you look at it. You review music, you write about how you feel when you listen to it. A sharp reviewer puts in background information, personal and cultural, to support their claims for how they feel.
And you don't !@#$ing tell them they're wrong to feel a certain way. And they're not telling you how to feel when you look at or listen to a thing.
Look - I don't seriously think folks looking for objectivity are crazy. (though they are weirdly thin-skinned, sometimes). I think maybe what these people are looking for is a synopsis or a summary. Both are useful things but they are not reviews. Also, IMHO it's vastly less interesting to read 'comprised of over fifty separate fragments it features C-minor 6/8 Allegros" than "ZOMFG Ludwig Von blew my mind again because he makes stringed instruments sound like angels farting rainbows!". The first would be a synopsis, both true and objective. The second one is a review, is subjective, and paints a picture of the writer as much as the subject.
I don't expect perfect objectivity from people who review and / or provide opinion articles - which is what MovieBob does. What I do expect is an ability to write clearly enough to explain why they react in one way or another, and to do so consistently over time so I can build a mental map of where they are coming from when I read a review. While I usually agree with MovieBob, I don't always. I'm not bothered that our views don't mesh perfectly because even when we disagree I can see why he feels the way he does.
I like that he takes the time to use a geographically neutral voice when he thinks it's important and think it's a hoot when he drops into Boston townie mode to make a point or change the tone of a discussion. I like that he takes the time to write about geek esoterica because while I'm interested in the "[Whatevers] Are Weird" themes part of my appreciation comes from getting the chance to learn about things without having to exhaustively read / view / research about them on my own. I like that he ties this kind of background information to a review or larger discussion because it reflects an awareness of what contributes to a game, or movie.
I don't know if this next thing is a post-gamergate trope or if I've just been picking up on it more recently but it seems like I read more and more on forums about people who expect reviews to be conducted without letting the reviewer's personal feelings get in the way. This is crazy talk. Writing reviews is inherently subjective, you can't evaluate an experience like it's a math problem with a binary solution. (Hey, whaddya think of Picasso? Well, he used too much blue; I'm going to have to dock him points for that, so?. 2/5? How 'bout Beethoven's Symphony No. 10? What, the pre-alpha release that had to get patched by Cooper - 1/5, he never finished the damned thing.) That's nuts. You review a painting, you write about how you feel when you look at it. You review music, you write about how you feel when you listen to it. A sharp reviewer puts in background information, personal and cultural, to support their claims for how they feel.
And you don't !@#$ing tell them they're wrong to feel a certain way. And they're not telling you how to feel when you look at or listen to a thing.
Look - I don't seriously think folks looking for objectivity are crazy. (though they are weirdly thin-skinned, sometimes). I think maybe what these people are looking for is a synopsis or a summary. Both are useful things but they are not reviews. Also, IMHO it's vastly less interesting to read 'comprised of over fifty separate fragments it features C-minor 6/8 Allegros" than "ZOMFG Ludwig Von blew my mind again because he makes stringed instruments sound like angels farting rainbows!". The first would be a synopsis, both true and objective. The second one is a review, is subjective, and paints a picture of the writer as much as the subject.
I don't expect perfect objectivity from people who review and / or provide opinion articles - which is what MovieBob does. What I do expect is an ability to write clearly enough to explain why they react in one way or another, and to do so consistently over time so I can build a mental map of where they are coming from when I read a review. While I usually agree with MovieBob, I don't always. I'm not bothered that our views don't mesh perfectly because even when we disagree I can see why he feels the way he does.
I enjoy some of his content, but not all of it.
Moviebobs opinion as a whole is rather polarizing, much like Jim Sterling was (for different reasons), but for those that already think along the same sort of lines, it's not too bad. One thing that puts me off is how insulting, angry and aggressive he can get, especially on his social media feeds. Some of his content is too fanboyish or click-baity for me to want to look into it, but some of the older big picture videos, I happily watch.
Moviebobs opinion as a whole is rather polarizing, much like Jim Sterling was (for different reasons), but for those that already think along the same sort of lines, it's not too bad. One thing that puts me off is how insulting, angry and aggressive he can get, especially on his social media feeds. Some of his content is too fanboyish or click-baity for me to want to look into it, but some of the older big picture videos, I happily watch.
I'm right there with you in how reviews are supposed to work. My bone to pick with him is his constant insulting of anyone who doesn't share his view. There's always someone he doesn't like and just has to insult, frequently people who enjoy what he has dubbed "Douchebag Cinema." As of late, he's become truly nasty towards gamergate, saying that he condones harassment against them. Note that I am most certainly not a supporter of the movement, but I can no longer separate his work from his personality for the same reason I wouldn't attend that chicken fast food restaurant. You can have all the opinions you like, but once you shove them out there in the public they almost have a duty to respond to it.Elijah Newton said: