The Big Picture: Baggage

[babinro]

My issue with the Ender's Game review was one of style.

I've seen a lot of 'Escape to the movies' episodes and this one stands out to me like a sore thumb. It doesn't reflect Movie Bob's critique style and comes across entirely out of place and as such unprofessional for the show.

After watching the episode I'm left asking myself. Would he have done the same if the Director of The Avengers had vocal anti-gay views? What if it was the writer of Pacific Rim? These are movies he loved and he heavily promoted that we see in theaters. Particularly Pacific Rim to support more work of this nature.

Would Movie Bob have spent the first 90 seconds of the Pacific Rim review calling out an anti-gay employee involved in the production, reminding you of your right to boycott, and then proceed to praise the movie and recommend we support it so we see more in the future?

Is this Movie Bob's new style for the show?
He has every right as a critic to do the show in this style. If it's not, then the Ender's Game review comes off as more of a personal attack than a review. Why give others in the industry a pass on their personal social/religious/political views?

Bottom line is that The Big Picture was a perfectly appropriate avenue for you to discuss that subject since it was suitable for this show's style. Which is basically talk about anything you feel like because it's on your mind. People don't go to 'Escape to the movies' to hear that sort of thing because it immediately impacts their view on the movie for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I'm pretty much disagree completely. Thrusting stuff into the review that doesn't belong there isn't mature at all. It isn't a question of thinking about things from a different perspective, as much as forcing a certain perspective on to something. Ender's Game made no attempt to have an opinion on the issues Card himself has associated with. In my opinion, boycotting because of Card's stance is just being butthurt. In the end though, I respect people's right to not see or see whatever they want. It's their opinion; they can have theirs as long as I can have mine.

I might be wrong (quite likely), but doesn´t Card use the money he earns to campaign against Gay marriage and stuff? If that was the case then i would say it´s relevant in a discussion of the film. If you are indirectly supporting something that you don´t really agree with by watching his stuff, then a boycut might be in order imo and it would be relevant in a review.

If he doesn´t use the money to promote his beliefs and if he doesn´t include his stances in the themes of the movie, then i don´t really see it as a problem. I can listen to Burzum, the man is a highly racist bigot and a downright terrible human being, but it isn´t reflected in his music and he isn´t politically active outside of blogs. Same goes for Roman Polanski, probably a terrible person, but it isn´t really reflected in his movies.

 

[Gorrath]

My issue with the Ender's Game review was one of style.

I've seen a lot of 'Escape to the movies' episodes and this one stands out to me like a sore thumb. It doesn't reflect Movie Bob's critique style and comes across entirely out of place and as such unprofessional for the show.

After watching the episode I'm left asking myself. Would he have done the same if the Director of The Avengers had vocal anti-gay views? What if it was the writer of Pacific Rim? These are movies he loved and he heavily promoted that we see in theaters. Particularly Pacific Rim to support more work of this nature.

Would Movie Bob have spent the first 90 seconds of the Pacific Rim review calling out an anti-gay employee involved in the production, reminding you of your right to boycott, and then proceed to praise the movie and recommend we support it so we see more in the future?

Is this Movie Bob's new style for the show?
He has every right as a critic to do the show in this style. If it's not, then the Ender's Game review comes off as more of a personal attack than a review. Why give others in the industry a pass on their personal social/religious/political views?

Bottom line is that The Big Picture was a perfectly appropriate avenue for you to discuss that subject since it was suitable for this show's style. Which is basically talk about anything you feel like because it's on your mind. People don't go to 'Escape to the movies' to hear that sort of thing because it immediately impacts their view on the movie for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself.

In Bob's defense (as if he needs me to rush to it, I know) his preface of the review was likely written because there was already wide-ranging discussion about the topic. If he had been the one to light the fuse so to speak, I would probably agree with you, but it was quite topical at the moment and so he felt he should weigh in on it then and there. I thought he did a good job of making sure his thoughts on Card were separate from the review. Sure, he might not do this for every movie, but every movie doesn't have this issue cropping up in half a dozen threads. If there had been an ongoing controversy regarding the writer of Pacific Rim, I find it likely he might have weighed in on that too, but there wasn't.

 

[hentropy]

I think the idea that reviews SHOULD be very much opinionated is one that can't be understated. I hate it, especially in game reviews, where reviewers seem deathly afraid of deviating from the nuts and bolts of the game. On the other hand, most reviews aren't like that, but the issue here is simply politics. If I say "the characters in GTA V suck" then there might be people who disagree with me, even vehemently, but they won't accuse me of gross misconduct in most situations, they just think my opinion is wrong.

The problem isn't that reviewer are opinionated, it's that they often can't come up with valid reasons for giving games a good/bad score. If a game gets a bad score it should because of poor design, not because the reviewer didn't like the way one of the characters looked.

Mixing politics in with it, though, changes things dramatically. In the end, "this game is sorta sexist in these ways" is functionally no different from "this game has a bad story/characters", but because it challenges something about their politics, it's more than just civil disagreement.

Saying that a game is sexist isn't the same as saying it has a bad story/characters. Reviewers usually claim something is sexist when they lack a real reason for explaining why they didn't like a game, which is why most gamers object to reviewers giving games a low score for being sexist. By contrast problems if there's a problem with the story or character the reviewer usually goes into detail explaining why it's bad, so the gamers are less likely to complain because it's clear what the problem with the game is.

There are some people who seem convinced that misogyny and sexism no longer exists in any significant form, so suggesting that it exists in something they actually like isn't just disagreeable, it's worth much more outrage.

Sexism doesn't exist in any significant form in most developed countries as women can now vote, go to university, or become CEOs. Care to provide some evidence that there are still significant forms of sexism in the USA.

Even though I was just stating my opinion, I'm not in the eyes of those people, I'm "forcing" it on them like some sort of Clockwork Orange treatment. Really they're just afraid that the way of thinking might "catch on", and they clearly don't want it to.

You're defending game reviewer who base their reviews on whether a game meets their arbitrary moral criteria, rather than whether the games were good or bad. That's why gamers dislike you.

You're making an awful lot of unfounded generalizations, particularly about reviewers. Can you show me an example of a critic that wrote a review that simply said "that's sexist" and moved on with no explanation as to why? The truth is that it's always delved into, just as other aspects of the game are, your kind simply invalidates their opinion that something was sexist based on your own flawed ideas of what sexism is and what role it plays in society. Your kind who believe that because our black countrymen had equal rights under federal law since 1869, that means there was no significant amount racism that existed after that date.

Personally I am also entirely against numerical reviews for anything, it's one thing to do a general "positive or negative" aggregate like RT, where the criteria for a fresh rating is simply the reviewer saying "go see it". I get it, I'm a nerd and I like numbers too, but not everything can be quantified. Some people like good story and characters so much that, even if a game is fun and mechanically solid in other areas, the lack of a decent narrative might drag it down from a 10 to a 6 for some people, while for others it might have no effect. This is why they are meaningless, it is much more valuable to say "the story in this isn't very good for (these reasons)... but if you're just looking for mindless fun, you'll probably still enjoy it." This is a common thing in reviews, and something complex enough that you wouldn't be able to express it through numbers. This is one of the reasons why I like The Escapist so much, because while they still use numerical reviews for some things, many of their main critics refrain entirely from using them.

Activists within the game industry who want to change the way women are used in these games are not trying to get laws changed, they just want people to think differently about some of the stereotypical and potentially damaging ways women are treated in otherwise very good games.

 

[sonicstormer]

A review with a bias
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7196-Boob-Wars-and-Dragon-Crowns

A reviewer pushing their bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games

One uses thoughtful insight on the matter, the other twists and bends what they are reviewing to try to make the audience believe that what they are saying is the truth.

This, all of this.

This is how I feel about it. It doesn't really apply to just anyone, so it's not a statement of critique itself, but specifically about MovieBob. When I fired up MovieBob's Ender's Game review I was actually unfamiliar with Orson Scott Card for the most part, or how incredibly vocal he can be for his rather unpopular standpoint (Shocker, a mormon is against same sex marriage). I was sitting here thinking to myself, "Umm, neat and all, and I'll look at this later. Not what I came here for Bob. I want to hear about the movie, you have The Big Picture for this kinda thing." and I've found myself saying this in my head more and more often as of late. You are unique in that you have your own show for "This is what I think about certain societal aspects" so please utilize it more to quit distracting me from the point at hand, "Did Bob like this movie?".

Now for a more broad subject, I'm one of those immature people you mentioned. I really don't see WHY we can't just shut up and play video games. I don't find a single problem with Edward Kenway being WASPy as hell, I just wanna shoot up frigates with large amounts of cannons and occasionally eliminate certain peoples of interest from the local population. I mean Mario games aren't about saving a princess because she's a helpless little flower, it's about rescuing someone you truly care about. Just enjoy the ride! Not everyone can be represented in the best possible light because it just waters the whole experience down. In spite of what the Anita Sarkeesians of the world will tell you, not every game needs some one legged, feminine, transgender, multiethinic, midget from Idaho or whatever. We're getting so far up our own asses looking for these kinds of things in every, single new title that releases that we've lost that we're just talking about games. Yeah, we need much, much more diversity in games, but all the bitching and moaning is not the right way to go about it. It's sensationalism, and no one listens to you when you do that. You just go on with your day and try to ignore the "extremist" over there, even when that is not the case. Anyway that's my rant, now for Jim for the weather. Jim?

 

[n00beffect]

Bob is right. The idea of criticism hinges, in my opinion, on Barthes' notion of 'The Death of the Author' (it's actually an essay of his), in which he details (gross oversimplification) that it's no longer the author who decides what his/her work means or aims to do; so, in light of that, why do we have to stick to either an 'OBJECTIVE' view of a piece of work or a theoretical approach? Subjectivity is important, far more important (or 'honesty', if you will), but at least with the theoretical approach you can still keep that aspect, without having to think of an 'average' viewer in mind.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

Ok Bob that was a great Big Picture episode.
As an EVE player, that EVE Online for Kinect line had me laughing out loud for a good minute. That's one way to condemn a movie, and describe it in as few words as humanly possible.

As for the meat of the episode, I couldn't agree more. Purity of purpose (a desire to inform people about your thoughts on a given subject-matter) is what counts here, not purity of criticism (because as you rightfully remark, that does not exist).

 

[medv4380]

snip

They aren't meaningless ether. Unless you're as nieve as Galton in 1906, and refuse to recognize averages because you want to commit the sin of confirmation bias because it contradicts your world view.

If you were right then a simple look to see if average scores of an individual would prove it. If I'm right then the average of their scores for what they reviewed would approach the overall average, and if you're right it wouldn't. Though you have to check users with a sufficient sample. I've check on several occasions. The data is public. Go verify for yourself.

Are you deliberately missing the point?
Obviously, since I disagree with YOU, I must have a confirmation bias.
I'm not saying averages are meaningless, I'm saying they're meaningless here.

No, your confirmation bias comes form your proclamation that averages should be ignored without data to back up your opinion. Or are you not a statistician as you claim? Which is what Galton did when he was desperate to prove that people as a whole are stupid. Your view isn't that much deviant from his since you desperately want to prove that gamers who give their opinion are all "stupid fanboys". Your bias is clearly spelt out, and your reasoning for dismissing averages is not.

What, pretel, do you think is different a bunch of random people writing down how much meat a cow will produce after it goes though the butchers versus asking people what rating do they think a game is? I'll get back to this. Just think about it.

Since you're clearly incapable of doing the math to prove your point let me show you, and anyone else who happens to be reading in on how this works.

Lets take the first user who reviewed Sonic Lost World on metacritic who reviewed more than 1 game. Our lucky reviewer happens to be MrAwesome091 [http://www.metacritic.com/user/MrAwesome091].
The users scores are
9,8,3,1,8,2,6,7,6,8,10
and the overall user score for each game is
8.2,7.4,2.2,1.4,7.5,7.7,3.6,7.3,6.0,7.7,8.0

MrAesome091's average comes to 6.2 and the average of all the games he reviewed came to 6.09. Now I know you are under the nieve impression that is the definitions of average. You are incorrect. This only works if two statements happen to be true. MrAesome091 must be giving is own personal view of what the game should be rated as. If he was being paid to give positive scores this wouldn't work. Second the average scores for each game cannot be biased significantly by anyone being paid to give a good review. Though also the converse could be true with him being paid, and all the scores being biased by publishers and devs. However, If a score of 2.2 is what the publishers are trying to create they're insane. Logically publishers would really only pay for positive scores.

I've given sufficient proof that the average scores are not significantly biased by paid astro turf, and that MrAesome091 is a fairly honest reviewer.

Now what is the difference between
asking people their opinion on how much Meat a Cow will give
vs
asking people their opinion on how good a game is.

Outside of one is meat and the other is a game not much. Their both opinions, and can be averages if you get a score for "how good" something is. If in the opinion of the cow the average didn't matter then the average wouldn't come out to be anywhere near the actual result. It would be just as you paint it "meaningless".

You haven't got to Galton in statistics so you're still fresh, but do you now what his experiment to prove that people ware stupid when he took all their guesses at how much meat a cow would produce? The Crowd guessed that the amount of meat that the butcher would get off of a cow to be 1,197 pounds. Galton didn't want anything to do with averages so he used the data to claim that they were stupid. The cow generated 1,198 pounds.

Averages are the only way to remove the "fanboy" bias your so hung up on. You should probably brush up on your stats. Your students will be better for it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I envy those of you that lived under a rock where the ENTIRETY of the Ender's Game discussion wasn't almost exclusively about "I don't want to give Orson Scott Card money to do shitty things, so let's all boycott this movie." The film itself didn't carry any of his more radical beliefs, true, but that wasn't where the controversy was.

I don't know.. I haven't seen the film, but there are some pretty big warning signs around the book.

I mean, by comparison to other science fiction classics (like Dune, or Starship Troopers) it's not particularly unusual, but those were written decades earlier when prevailing scientific consensus, not to mention popular ethics, was very different. You have to be a bit strange to seriously propose in 1986 that eugenics work and that complex attributes like intelligence are hereditary, even in fiction.

The whole thing about murder or genocide being essentially forgivable based on motivation is also kind of creepy in its implications. I don't personally know how I feel about the whole "Hitler hypothesis", but the fact that it's a compelling argument already indicates to me that there's something a little fucked up there.

 

[wulf3n]

Would he have done the same if the Director of The Avengers had vocal anti-gay views? What if it was the writer of Pacific Rim? These are movies he loved and he heavily promoted that we see in theaters. Particularly Pacific Rim to support more work of this nature.

Would Movie Bob have spent the first 90 seconds of the Pacific Rim review calling out an anti-gay employee involved in the production, reminding you of your right to boycott, and then proceed to praise the movie and recommend we support it so we see more in the future?

He calls out Roman Polanski for being a "total creep" but still finds Rosemary's Baby to be a great film. He'd easily be able to do the same if any of your hypothetical scenarios happened too.

But they didn't happen, soooooo...=/

Are we certain there was no one that earned money from the ticket sales of The Avengers of Pacific Rim that isn't going to use that money in the same way as card?


OT:

What I found interesting was Moviebobs reluctance to tell his side of the position. I'm assuming it's the pro-boycott given how Moviebob talks about it, and given that most of what he does is give opinions on issue[GameOverthinker, The Big Picture] it's strange that he didn't give his opinion on that.

There's also the conflict of interest in reviewing a movie one would otherwise boycott [note: assuming Moviebob would boycott] as it's accepting money to help advertise something thought to be wrong, potentially giving money to card that he wouldn't otherwise have gotten.

 

[I.Muir]

So Bob you say that we need a variety of new perspectives on the critiquing of mediums we enjoy. Fine but bringing up Anita again, the person who is all but outright acknowledged that they done five minutes of research of a wikipedia page and never actually plays a single game. There should then be allowed valid and CIVIL criticism of that criticism and the idiots who keep spouting abuse and threats are not representative of this nor anybody but themselves. I don't associate civil with a lack of hurt feelings so much as reasoned and moderately polite.

When this so called lack of perspective becomes the means for dismissing criticism well, that's when logic has died.

 

[Gizen]

I'm pretty much disagree completely. Thrusting stuff into the review that doesn't belong there isn't mature at all. It isn't a question of thinking about things from a different perspective, as much as forcing a certain perspective on to something. Ender's Game made no attempt to have an opinion on the issues Card himself has associated with. In my opinion, boycotting because of Card's stance is just being butthurt. In the end though, I respect people's right to not see or see whatever they want. It's their opinion; they can have theirs as long as I can have mine.

Let's use a very very extreme example here. If, say, Hitler were to make a film. And say it was the most fantastic film ever, that had absolutely nothing to do with killing jews or taking over the world or oppression or anything bad. BUT, all the money that Hitler made off this film, he then used to help fund the holocaust. Would you buy a ticket to go see this film? Would you help fund the holocaust under the justification that 'well, the movie doesn't promote genocide or anyway or have anything to do with it, so to boycott the film because of the beliefs of Hitler is just being butthurt'. Is that a thing you would say?

Now, like I said, that is a very extreme example. Card is not as bad as Hitler (though he IS really bad). But it's a similar situation. Card has very anti-homosexual beliefs, and if you support the movie, you are in a way funding him and contributing to his success. And considering his beliefs, he is likely to use that success and those funds to help promote his bigoted views. And maybe you don't care, but a lot of people don't want to contribute to that in any way.

 

[Pink Apocalypse]

I have exponentially-increased respect for you, Bob.

Admitting that you may have been intellectually short-sighted in past before realizing ('growing up' I think you phrased it) that feminists et alia have valid reason for injecting concerns was well done.

Keep up the good work, sir.

 

[PunkRex]

This is why I love your stuff Bob, I don't always agree with it, sometimes it makes me cringe but you're honest and you never hold back. Passion can alienate some people, it's just how it is, but if someone generally feels deep down that something needs to be said than they have to let it out. If I don't agree with it, thats my problem and i'll deal with in exactly the same way, by letting you know what I think!

That takes guts, and brudda, I respect guts!

DROP THEM OPPINIONS ON SOME HEADS!

 

[Shuu]

Bob my man, you're a scholar.
I was interested to hear that crtiticism was first held as its own form of art. I think we can see a bit of a comeback of that with people turning to review shows like your own Escape to the Movies, not only for the weekly "should I or should I not see it?" but also to be entertained by the reviewer.

 

[Floppertje]

snip

you're still not getting it. the point is not that averages should be ignored, the point is that metacritic can't claim to be representative of the general public.
also, what's with all the talk about paid reviewers? I never mentioned that. My dismissal of MC's averages stems from the fact that people who write reviews for metacritic are A) not representative of the general public and B) prone to get their panties in a twist over silly things. remember when Company of Heroes 2 got review-bombed because apparently it portrays Russians as satan (even though it doesn't)? or the shitstorm when this site gave GTA V a score that was not perfect? THAT is why I don't think rabid fans are worth listening too, and since they are the ones who are apparently emotionally invested in a metacritic score, logic dictates that they are the ones who are most motivated to post reviews.

as for your averages example... you seem to be saying that the definition of 'average' changes based on the motivation of the score, because if someone is paid off, then apparently the outcome isn't the average anymore. maybe it's just your english not being very good, but I feel pretty confident on calling bullshit on that one.

and the cow example... you need to look up what the word 'opinion' means, because you seem to be confusing it with 'estimation'. I've got another estimation for you. when asked about refugee camps, on average, people estimated that a refugee spends 2-5 years in a refugee camp. the reality? 30 years on average (yes, thirty. that's not a typo). so, no. people don't know shit.

Statistics are just numbers. they don't give damn about where they come from or what anybody's opionon is. The key is in the interpretation, which you don't seem to be very good at.
And now I'm done educating you, I'm wasting my time and you're obviously not getting the point.

 

[Clankenbeard]

The real question here is "Why do so many people bash Arby's?". Bob, The Simpsons (twice), my family. I'm going to come out of the sandwich closet and say it..."I like Arby's" I realize this political bombshell may some day cost me some purchases on my best-selling novel about that time-travelling, one-eyed weasel and his wisecracking robot sidekick. ARBY'S America's Roast Beef, Yes Sir! America's Repeatedly Bashed Yummy Sandwich.

I like it when people say or do something wrong and other people say "That guy has fucked up views when seen in relation to mine. I choose not to try to correct his views to fall in line with my own."

 

[MatsVS]

Art holds up a mirror to the culture we live in, and viewing said mirror through the prism of philosophy, ethics, morality, etc, is the most important function of criticism. I strongly suspect that when people start to whine about "biases" and other such nonsense, they've simply perceived a perspective they don't like and seek to invalidate it the only way they know how, by being a twat. Were they up to the intellectual challenge, they'd seek to refute and argue, and the consistent failure to do so proves how little merit their viewpoint holds.