The Big Picture: Baggage

[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.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Okay Bob, I want you to review the next film through the medium of INTERPETIVE DANCE!

 

[Charli]

That's unique perspective. But, sometimes I feel that bringing baggage into the review sometimes sidelines the review of the actual merits of the film and gets caught up in political agendas that may or may not be in the film.

But it doesn't. It's only because in this case the issue being brought up is likely one you don't feel resonates or conforms to one you have a firm grounding in.
All reviews do it, but you tend to 'resonate' more with ones where the values and comparisons and baggage being brought along are ones you already have firm, comfortable stances on and ones that pertain more to your life and issues.

That's why having multiple 'review' sources is always going to be a good thing.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Bullet Witch as the representative of a gaming? That's random and bad.

 

[Iszfury]

@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.

What's the difference?

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.

Actually, I think the critical distinction is that you agree with one.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Bob comments on how he grew up from knowing all the answers he thought he had after graduating collage, to acting as if he still has all the answers now. Just a different set of dogmatic answers that pleases a different audience to make themselves feel better about being them.

Well, I came back to watch one episode seeing how little of the tone has changed, I'll go back to my not watching big picture/movie bob for the time being.

 

[TWEWER]

Review and criticism are two very different things. I don't think that game criticism really exists in any large way.

 

[zumbledum]

Baggage

This week MovieBob critiques modern criticism, starting with Ender's Game.

Watch Video

so in a nutshell opinions are like arseholes we all have one, and critique is pretty much pointless now because it is purely subjective so were wasting our time watching escape to the movies because whats bob's idea of a good film isnt what my idea of a good film is. and if we overnight lined up all the movie and video games critiques and put a round in each dome we would loose nothing of worth.

time to get a real job bob?

 

[faefrost]

@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.

What's the difference?

Well as an example. Bob could have simply reviewed Ender's Game through his own mental filters, and told us what he thought of the movie. That is "Critique With a Bias". It is a natural thing. Bob is offering HIS opinion on the matter at hand based through the lens of his worldviews. Everyone does that, and most of us as people are bright enough to apply our own such filters to both the property under discussion and the reviewer.

Whereas putting an opening blurb into ones critique calling the creator or the work being reviewed some sort of evil and twisted person for reasons unrelated to the subject being reviewed, and with limited supporting information (OMG he doesn't support gay marriage! BURN THE WITCH!) is a rather blatant example of the second "pushing the reviewers own bias on the audience".

Bob has an absolute right to push his own bias. It's his show. He answers only to his employers that publish it. however it is something that can reflect negatively on his ability to critique at least to a portion of his audience.

 

[Iszfury]

SNIPPITY

The fact that two people can observe and analyze the same set of circumstances and agree on their premises, but still maintain differing opinions on them, is the foundation of subjecivity. The fact that two people could disagree about a plot being coherent (informed, maybe, by a better understanding of structure), character's decisions ACTUALLY being poor, the characters being boring (who are you to say that? Maybe they're just completely beyond you?), inconsistencies in their behavior, or poorly implemented romances, but played the same game, means that all of those fields are completely subjective. The adjectives you assign to characters, plot, romances (boring, inconsistent, incoherent, or poor) are completely informed by preference and perception. An objective analysis wouldn't be an analysis at all. It would be a summation, a retelling. Everything you mentioned isn't even superficially objective.

Bob comments on how he grew up from knowing all the answers he thought he had after graduating collage, to acting as if he still has all the answers now. Just a different set of dogmatic answers that pleases a different audience to make themselves feel better about being them.

Well, I came back to watch one episode seeing how little of the tone has changed, I'll go back to my not watching big picture/movie bob for the time being.

This reads quite fluidly as "I don't agree with Bob, and can't be bothered to offer a reason why, but I sure as hell enjoy projecting! [Close with passive-aggressive pledge to abstinence you make after watching every episode, every week]"

EDIT: Typos

 

[WindKnight]

Both are examples of a reviewer manipulating the facts to fit their ideology.

Anita starts from the position that women are always depicted in a sexist manner, cherry picks her data to support this, and uses strawmen to silence anyone who criticises her.

Overwhelmingly. Not always, but overwhelmingly. And frankly, in my opinion she is right.

On topic... I'm reminded of a review for Prince Of Persia: Warrior Within that earned a 7/10. the reviewer made clear that in technical terms, this was a fine game and in pure gameplay terms was better than sands of time and thus earned its score... but also made it adamantly clear he LOATHED the game because of how it tore down all the art design, music and characters that made the original so charming and engaging, and replaced it with generic male teen pandering BS.

 

[The Material Sheep]

SNIPPITY

The fact that two people can observe and analyze the same set of circumstances and agree on their premises, but still maintain differing opinions on them, is the foundation of subjecivity. The fact that two people could disagree about a plot being coherent (informed, maybe, by a better understanding of structure), character's decisions ACTUALLY being poor, the characters being boring (who are you to say that? Maybe they're just completely beyond you?), inconsistencies in their behavior, or poorly implemented romances, but played the same game, means that all of those fields are completely subjective. The adjectives you assign to characters, plot, romances (boring, inconsistent, incoherent, or poor) are completely informed by preference and perception. An objective analysis wouldn't be an analysis at all. It would be a summation, a retelling. Everything you mentioned isn't even superficially objective.

Bob comments on how he grew up from knowing all the answers he thought he had after graduating collage, to acting as if he still has all the answers now. Just a different set of dogmatic answers that pleases a different audience to make themselves feel better about being them.

Well, I came back to watch one episode seeing how little of the tone has changed, I'll go back to my not watching big picture/movie bob for the time being.

This reads quite fluidly as "I don't agree with Bob, and can't be bothered to offer a reason why, but I sure as hell enjoy projecting! [Close with passive-aggressive pledge to abstinence you make after watching every episode, every week]"

EDIT: Typos

I'd stopped watching his videos 2 or 3 months ago. I came back once more to see if he'd changed a prevailing trend I felt was bringing his content down. I was also interested to see if he would show some level of introspection on his own sincerely held beliefs on a topic that I knew he'd be very opinionated on. There is a tone of self satisfaction in his own beliefs, that I got tired of listening to in his content. I don't enjoy it. There are things about Bob I do enjoy, and want to watch his videos for. Those aren't the politics or social issues I feel Bob brings little original thought too, and merely parrots other thinkers, while chastising other people for parroting other thinkers. His extensive knowledge on a lot of nerd related subjects are what I find interesting about the man and what I wish he'd keep to. I think he's good at it, and I want to support him when he does it. I don't want to support him when he's being extraordinarily smug about his own political beliefs.

 

[Iszfury]

SNIP

And, expounding on those definitions as virtually every philosopher has, subjective is of the self, of perception, and objective is INDEPENDENT of the self, and perception. If you "base your review on feelings or opinions", that review would certainly be subjective. Objectivity constitutes, as I said, things independent of human experiences or perceptions - only facts about reality, qualitative observations without external assessment, observations. I will say this again - "boring" is not an objective statement - it is direct, subjective commentary on an objective observation. There is no grey area at all here. Clarified?
Now, your statement about backing up your claims (which, in a critical context, are generally value judgements) - with evidence - and that this makes them objective - is absurd. Think of this in a scientific context - your claim can be completely bollocks, even if the evidence you produce to rationalize it is sound. There is an inductive leap you take when making that statement, a leap that depends on experience and perception. If we make the assumption that objective observations are true statements about reality (this basically assumes that you're not drugged/under some mind-altering influence), this conflicts wholly with situations like this - where somebody can have all of their ducks in a row, not argue fallaciously at all, but still be dead wrong. The "why?", in an artistic sense, is because people have experienced different things. Der. People are different! They interpret readings of situations differently - there is no "absolute normal." Even stripped-down, clinical subjectivity is ultimately subject to some bias. There is no such thing as objective criticism - at all.