OBJECTION OVERRULED!! Yours is a singular example, as was mine, both entirely plausible in nigh infinite possible permutations of critics expertise versus subject matter appreciation.CaitSeith said:OBJECTION!Xprimentyl said:But give a professional critic with no deference for hero movies
This ignores the professional critics who are also comic book geeks, know comics and super hero very intimately, and still disagree with the "audience score". You'd have to assume that most professional critics have no deference for super hero movies for the rest of the argument to make sense; and the amount of recent super hero movies with positive criticism debunks that assumption.
I'd expect that such an effect would be more broadly based - i.e., it would apply to most if not all movies. Instead, it seems about equally likely that the audience score will be higher or lower (except at the extremes).Queen Michael said:The only members of the public who go to watch a movie are the ones who expect that they'll enjoy the flick.
Or to put it another way: The breadth of information available, especially from easy-to-access places like these very forums, means we're less reliant on the whims of critics to inform our viewing/playing/reading experience. Sure, critics have their place, but they aren't the gold-standard of what is "good" or "bad" as much as they used to be.Silentpony said:The idea of being a critic of anything is so 1990s. No one fucking cares anymore. We don't have to read shit magazines anymore.
Didn't Jim do a video awhile back about objective vs subjective, and he completely blew it because he didn't know what the real difference was, he thought objective meant emotionless? In his defense most critics don't know the difference, and color 'objective' opinions with their personal preferences.Saelune said:The problem is, critics are people, and people have different tastes. I don't bother listening to critics who have different tastes than me, cause well, we disagree.
I hate seafood, so I give fuck all about a seafood critic, nor do I care what someone who thinks well-done meat is disgusting things.
I love the MCU, and what makes me decide if a MCU movie is good or not is really dependant on well, my interests as a Marvel fan. I am going to see Venom shortly, and I already hate the lack of Spider-Man, but if you dont care about accuracy to Marvel lore, then I dont care about your opinion of the film. And someone who doesnt care about Marvel lore probably wont care what I think of the film...though why they would then see a Marvel movie...I dunno.
I think there is both objective and subjective criticism, but I think too many critics view their subjective views as objective.
The objective review is a unicorn. It doesn?t exist. The second you make any claims on the movie?s quality you?re being subjective because there?s no objective right or wrong when it comes to that. Jim?s objective review parody was him stating facts about FF13 and not saying whether it was good or not because that would be his opinion.Silentpony said:Didn't Jim do a video awhile back about objective vs subjective, and he completely blew it because he didn't know what the real difference was, he thought objective meant emotionless? In his defense most critics don't know the difference, and color 'objective' opinions with their personal preferences.Saelune said:The problem is, critics are people, and people have different tastes. I don't bother listening to critics who have different tastes than me, cause well, we disagree.
I hate seafood, so I give fuck all about a seafood critic, nor do I care what someone who thinks well-done meat is disgusting things.
I love the MCU, and what makes me decide if a MCU movie is good or not is really dependant on well, my interests as a Marvel fan. I am going to see Venom shortly, and I already hate the lack of Spider-Man, but if you dont care about accuracy to Marvel lore, then I dont care about your opinion of the film. And someone who doesnt care about Marvel lore probably wont care what I think of the film...though why they would then see a Marvel movie...I dunno.
I think there is both objective and subjective criticism, but I think too many critics view their subjective views as objective.
If nobody cared, you'd see fewer tantrums about bad reviews for [thing I like]. Instead, the usual suspects keep showing up and complaining in the same places over and over and over, and people have paid attention.Silentpony said:The idea of being a critic of anything is so 1990s. No one fucking cares anymore. We don't have to read shit magazines anymore.
And as we all know, when two critics disagree one of them is a shill. The shill is identified as being the one who's worse at playing the game.McMarbles said:Alls I knows is any critic what doesn't align with my preconceived biases is wrong.
That would suggest the public is completely dumb. Well, it might be partially true, but there are still a lot of popular movies and shows that are legitimately worthy of critical praise.Agema said:You can tell a good critic because even when they're wrong, they're wrong for the right reasons.
How do we rate a "good" movie? Does "good" mean popular, or does it represent all manner of measures like quality of plot, acting, characterisation, cinematography, etc.? A critic who predicts what's going to be popular is effectively telling us nothing. They're just witlessly trying to tell the public what the public want to hear. Thus a critic should appraise a film on other measures, and necessarily they are sometimes going to say movies the public like are bad movies.
And they typically get it.hanselthecaretaker said:That would suggest the public is completely dumb. Well, it might be partially true, but there are still a lot of popular movies and shows that are legitimately worthy of critical praise.Agema said:You can tell a good critic because even when they're wrong, they're wrong for the right reasons.
How do we rate a "good" movie? Does "good" mean popular, or does it represent all manner of measures like quality of plot, acting, characterisation, cinematography, etc.? A critic who predicts what's going to be popular is effectively telling us nothing. They're just witlessly trying to tell the public what the public want to hear. Thus a critic should appraise a film on other measures, and necessarily they are sometimes going to say movies the public like are bad movies.
True, for the most part, but a critics bias is always going to appear in some form. To add to that, a good critic does not go out of their way to insult people for liking or disliking a film. That includes insulting the general public and their fellow peers. Or thinking they know better than the entire population of the country or wold. There are several Youtuber's or Internet critics that shall not be named that suffer heavily from this. The critics of old suffer from this as well.Agema said:You can tell a good critic because even when they're wrong, they're wrong for the right reasons.
How do we rate a "good" movie? Does "good" mean popular, or does it represent all manner of measures like quality of plot, acting, characterisation, cinematography, etc.? A critic who predicts what's going to be popular is effectively telling us nothing. They're just witlessly trying to tell the public what the public want to hear. Thus a critic should appraise a film on other measures, and necessarily they are sometimes going to say movies the public like are bad movies.
What's the down side??hanselthecaretaker said:That would suggest the public is completely dumb.
There are pigs who pick winning lottery numbers. It doesn't mean they're geniuses or can see the future. It just means they happened to point their snouts at the right object with the right number.Well, it might be partially true, but there are still a lot of popular movies and shows that are legitimately worthy of critical praise.