About Critics (Part 1)

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

About Critics (Part 1)

Here's why Bob has been ignoring some of your complaints.

Read Full Article

To the elitist section and the hating popular movies section: yes x1000. I am so sick of those clique jabs at critics.

Well done.

Wait, you read all those comments? All of them? Including these ones right here?

...

You poor man.

Wow... you read all of the comments?

How do you get the time to make 3 simultaneous web series, watch 5 new films a week, and read through the 100s of comments you get every couple of days!? It doesn't seem physically possible...

*Edit* OH, and create a weekly web article! How I managed to forget that in a comment on said web article I'll never know.

I feel guilty knowing you might actually read what I have to say when I post from time to time.

Something I've noticed recently (and yes this is a gross generalisation) but on discussions of Jimquisition, the fans of that show seem to really hate this show. I think that comes from the acquisitions of elitism and pretentiousness that moviebob has got. Personally, I don't get that and I don't get get Jimquisition either...

I don't get why so many people complain as they do.
WHy can't they just get over reviews they don't agree with and move on?

Dude, MovieBob, you might as well address the complaints head on. I don't really see how it makes you any more egotistical then you already are, and even if you does, it at least gives some of us SOME satisfaction.

Or at least me, so I know how you feel about certain people's responses.

Ugh... I stopped watching/reading your stuff a while back, and when I decide to give you one more chance you just remind me why I stopped paying attention to you in the first place. Maybe it's because I do have a problem with elitism.

RTR:
I don't get why so many people complain as they do.
WHy can't they just get over reviews they don't agree with and move on?

It's not a matter of not agreeing with reviews... it the idea that he thinks that by "criticizing" these films, he's some how better than others. While some people might not have a problem with it, I do. And if I don't like it, why do I even bother commenting? Because if he's got the right to criticize, I do too.

I don't have any problems with you holding films to a higher standard, or being vitriolic about cash in sequels (which are usually entertaining in fact), the biggest recurring problem is your dismissal of people who enjoy films like that. You conflate anyone who enjoys The Expendables, Michael Bay films or Fast 5 as "Douchebags" quite often. Aside from the fact that there's no accounting for tastes, there's nothing wrong with people wanting movies they can switch their brain off for, and downright insulting everyone based on their tastes just makes you come off like, frankly, a bit of a dick.

I'm not saying you need to change your whole schtick, because you usually do have some good insights on movies, but your whole "Us vs them" mentality has got to stop.

Well, maybe you don't actually WANT to provoke a response, because that kind of makes you a troll (in a bad way).

But in any case, i agree with all the points made because i am so SICK of douchebags who pay to see movies and games that are just lazy, cheap cash-ins and GENUINELY say they are better than actual GOOD games and movies

(example: my fiance thinks that Pirates 4 is better than Scott Pilgrim, my brothers think Call of Duty is better than Red Dead Redemption, my mom thinks Twilight is better than District 9. My fiance's best friends think Sucker Punch is better than Inception. I'm surrounded by lowbrow, ignorant, and just frustratingly "average joe" people)

My problem isn't any of those points, it is how you make things personal. You insult people of differing opinions. If you enjoy The Expendables you are "probably the worst kind of person." Really? Also, I don't care about your personal life. You completely invalidated your own review of Scream 4 by opening with that rant about the Scream franchise taking away your "skill" (it was never a skill in the first place).

Just be more professional. That is what I am asking.

Should everyone Bob crtiques ignore him too?

Well said, Bob, well said. ^^

I get really tired of the stupid hate that gets thrown at critics. People don't seem to understand that it is your job to point out the flaws in things, or "critique" them - hence critic.

Also, thanks to you personally, I have watched several great movies that would have slipped by ignored if not for you. So thank you for that as well. ^^

I had a feeling that you were reading our comments a while back, after several of us complained about your overuse of bleeping in your 'At the Movies' videos. After an episode or two, I noticed a scaling back of the language to tolerable bleep levels. Thanks Bob for listening to us!

I think people only mind elitism when they feel like they are being left out. This is mostly a videogame site. Since the audience isn't comprised of film buffs they are put out when you trash a bland movie that they liked because it kind of implies that they aren't on the same level. (For example I liked both Riddick movies and want another one, philistine that I am.)
On the other hand, much of the site and its fanbase is pretty knowedgable when it comes to videogames. So the site can be pretty "elitist" about games, trashing stuff like Call of Duty and praising other stuff like Minecraft all the time. This doesn't seem cause people nearly as much grief. (And I dont' mind at all :D )

-'I am obsessed with my own "comment counts,"'-

Yeah, it shows. That's why you flame bait, we get it.

Azaraxzealot:
Well, maybe you don't actually WANT to provoke a response, because that kind of makes you a troll (in a bad way).

But in any case, i agree with all the points made because i am so SICK of douchebags who pay to see movies and games that are just lazy, cheap cash-ins and GENUINELY say they are better than actual GOOD games and movies

(example: my fiance thinks that Pirates 4 is better than Scott Pilgrim, my brothers think Call of Duty is better than Red Dead Redemption, my mom thinks Twilight is better than District 9. My fiance's best friends think Sucker Punch is better than Inception. I'm surrounded by lowbrow, ignorant, and just frustratingly "average joe" people)

People like different things and maybe to them they are the better film/game. Perhaps you should remember that, especially as you appear to have just called your family a collection of "douchebags"

Pirates 4 was just okay but infinitely better than Scott Pilgrim by the way, but then that's my opinion. Doesn't make me a douchebag thankyou very much.

Awwwww Bob reads our comments. Love you, Bob. Though that's probably pretty frustrating, too, with all the people who get angry and defensive the second you say something they don't agree with.

So, if movie critics hate popular movies, Toy Story 3 must have never registered on the main population's radar, because movie critics everywhere LOVED that movie, Movie Bob included. It was the first of his reviews that I watched, and I remember he said that it was really good.

Looking forward to the next part of this article.

I never understood why elitism was bad. Then again, I firmly believe that the merit of an individual matters more than their ethnicity, gender, or appearance--if they can do the job, they get the job. If they do the job better, then they get more for it. When it was thrown out in the 2008 election, I honestly went "...and?", because I would much rather see a president who understands that he is capable versus a leader whose purpose is to be the brunt of ridicule. If you have severely more experience with something than I do, and you are better at it than I am, then good for you, bad for me. When I take the time to learn as much as I can about it, that does not suddenly mean bad for you--it only means good for me, and that is by all means not a bad thing. There should be a gap between the person who has spent years devoted to something and the average person who might do it occasionally, for a past time. The person with the prowess by all rights should be held higher and more esteemed than the casual viewer.

When I read a review, or watch a critique, I am fully expecting that the content will be under a different scrutiny than what I might apply to it. It's the same reason most amalgamated review sites have a Critic Score column and a User Score column. There should be some disparity between those two, as the average user looks for enjoyment or effect, but the critic looks for problems present in structure, narrative, worth, convention, direction, and continuity, among so many other aspects.

So, go on being an elitist, Bob. Years of watching thousands of movies might just give you an insight the rest of us may not have. At the same time, though, if you don't have the knowledge, then admit so. Don't put it to us that you are the chosen one when you haven't a clue as to what his duties are. And I, in turn, will understand that my opinion as a casual or moderate viewer has every indication of being different from yours, and that at times I might seek a good old fashioned cliché for my viewing delectation, then follow it up with a new, creative, and rare treat. The opinion I form of the film shall be tempered of both opinions, but mine shall be of the prevailing one I consider.

Outright Villainy:
I don't have any problems with you holding films to a higher standard, or being vitriolic about cash in sequels (which are usually entertaining in fact), the biggest recurring problem is your dismissal of people who enjoy films like that. You conflate anyone who enjoys The Expendables, Michael Bay films or Fast 5 as "Douchebags" quite often. Aside from the fact that there's no accounting for tastes, there's nothing wrong with people wanting movies they can switch their brain off for, and downright insulting everyone based on their tastes just makes you come off like, frankly, a bit of a dick.

I'm not saying you need to change your whole schtick, because you usually do have some good insights on movies, but your whole "Us vs them" mentality has got to stop.

I have to agree with this. I have no problem with you style, and while I agree that a lazy sequel is in poor taste, I don't think you should come down so hard on people just because they like something. I think it's one of those things where you can't come down on people for liking something, but instead simply hope that they will aspire for better as time goes on.

Azaraxzealot:
Well, maybe you don't actually WANT to provoke a response, because that kind of makes you a troll (in a bad way).

But in any case, i agree with all the points made because i am so SICK of douchebags who pay to see movies and games that are just lazy, cheap cash-ins and GENUINELY say they are better than actual GOOD games and movies

(example: my fiance thinks that Pirates 4 is better than Scott Pilgrim, my brothers think Call of Duty is better than Red Dead Redemption, my mom thinks Twilight is better than District 9. My fiance's best friends think Sucker Punch is better than Inception. I'm surrounded by lowbrow, ignorant, and just frustratingly "average joe" people)

Not to offend you sir, but I think your people may have like confused with better. Inception was better than sucker punch, but perhaps your people just like sucker punch more. Thats how it usually is with my people who says Inception is a better movie, but they like fast five more. Like I said, I don't mean to offend as I don't know your people like you do.

I WAS a big fan of you before Bob, and I have had a post running around the forums criticizing your most recent review of pirates, but it has been an issue that has been bothering me ever since your April Fools and Fast/Furious reviews, only getting stronger with the pirates/hangover 2 review.

You do not review GOOD movies anymore. Thor 2 is arguably a good movie, but in many ways it is about as good as pirates. The fact that it is included in your pantheon of film perfection precludes it from being counted as you reviewing a good movie, because you would have reviewed it whether it was good or bad.

I miss your amazing reviews of good films, and pointing out what made them good. Being able to still crack jokes about other bad films that came out that week, but keeping the wealth of the attention on the good film and the content that made it good.

Now your reviews are the opposite. Your movie reviews are turning into rhetorical skits that only allude to the good movies that came out. I thought the whole reason you were given the bigger picture was so you could clean up this series of videos and focus on actual good movie reviews?

Bah, be as egomaniacal as you want. You're on the Escapist. We're all full of ourselves.

In truth - that last criticism, the one about watching too many movies, I must be out of touch with the public. How does watching many movies make you a worse critic? I don't see the logic in that.

As with critics of all things I play/watch/listen to I let it all come down to one persons subjective opinion about something. Yes I watch the shows weekly here, but if I already planned on seeing something? I'm going to do it. Sure MovieBobs voice is going to be in the back of my head the whole time (possibly screaming in frustration like tonight when I go to see Hangover 2...) and I'll be like "ah that's what he meant" but still I'm going to do it.
I'll never understand why people are so offended about someones -opinion- on anything and feel the need to start flaming or degrading people on it.
People who are easily and pointlessly offended offend me =P

To be perfectly Blunt;
"It's not a matter of not agreeing with reviews... it the idea that he thinks that by "criticizing" these films, he's some how better than others." Considering he is the one who is being paid money to sit around and watch films, write reviews and be published in a website that reaches hundreds of thousands of people each and every month? Yeah, you know what, he is better than others, many many others, but then there are also people in better positions, more comfortable lifestyle than him, and so they are better than him.

The idea that people cannot be better than other people is a bullshit product of the 80s and 90s school system. Sorry, kids, you are better than some, and there are probably many more better than you.

"Maybe it's because I do have a problem with elitism." Funny considering you portray yourself here with out-most elitism yourself.

"And if I don't like it, why do I even bother commenting? Because if he's got the right to criticize, I do too." Which puts you into the very same position you are bitching about.

Personally, I disagree with a lot of opinions that MovieBob has, but I enjoy the way he presents his opinions, and I enjoy his reasoning for it. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who do love Fast 5 would most likely end up being frat-boys and douche bags. You may be one of those that isn't (though you'd never have a douche bag admit he is one) doesn't mean that in general, there is a stereotype of the type of audience that goes to see movies.

When a production company wants to create a movie they have to choose an audience to gear it to, simply saying oh 18-26 year olds is just not enough, or too general. If you are making a movie centered around street-car racing and racers, or rather that sub-culture (which by the f'in way is full of assholes and douche bags galore) then you are going target that specific audience first, saying that there is a large enough public interest vested in this.

So yeah, when MovieBob, generalizes and stereotypes a particular audiences for the movies, he's absolutely correct in doing so. And instead of defending the douchebaggery as some people do, maybe you should step back and take a hardlook at the sub-culture you are trying to defend and see why people think you are all douchebags.

(For all the many difference of opinion we do have, I agree with your portrayal of the audience base)

Well, you make do with the movies available. Further, people want the reviews of the big popular movies specifically, whether they're good or bad, so they know whether to go watch them.

But yes, I totally agree with the elitist statement. If critics weren't elitist then why would we give 2 craps about what they think. If we wanted a slapshod public opinion, well there are nice sites with ratings to look at. A movie critic should be, well, critical and be from the perspective of one who sees alot of movies and has alot to compare to.

Rock on Bobby.

Grevensher:
I WAS a big fan of you before Bob, and I have had a post running around the forums criticizing your most recent review of pirates, but it has been an issue that has been bothering me ever since your April Fools and Fast/Furious reviews, only getting stronger with the pirates/hangover 2 review.

You do not review GOOD movies anymore. Thor 2 is arguably a good movie, but in many ways it is about as good as pirates. The fact that it is included in your pantheon of film perfection precludes it from being counted as you reviewing a good movie, because you would have reviewed it whether it was good or bad.

I miss your amazing reviews of good films, and pointing out what made them good. Being able to still crack jokes about other bad films that came out that week, but keeping the wealth of the attention on the good film and the content that made it good.

Now your reviews are the opposite. Your movie reviews are turning into rhetorical skits that only allude to the good movies that came out. I thought the whole reason you were given the bigger picture was so you could clean up this series of videos and focus on actual good movie reviews?

Well he can't really review many good movies when bad movies are able to be churned out by the bucket load compared to the good ones

Captcha: image

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

Keep doing what you're doing, Bob. I know I've had richer movie experiences since I started watching and reading your stuff, from picking up movies that I simply wouldn't have seen to an appreciation of the minute details of the industry that you love to throw in your videos.

To those who think that he has his nose in the air concerning crappy popular movies and sequels and the people who go to see them: watch this week's Big Picture. It showcases perfectly why he rails against crappy movies. Scott Pilgrim worked just as well as a "turn your brain off" movie as anything else, AND it was an excellent movie on top of it, and it got buried...and other projects died along with it. The insistence that it's OK for a movie to be stupid (ie, no plot, one dimensional caricatures for characters, terrible visual design, etc) [because] it's "supposed" to be stupid is a ridiculous notion thoroughly disproved by the existence of high quality action movies that manage to also have interesting characters and/or deeper meaning, if you're in the mood to look for it. Example: Die Hard. A gritty, explosion-filled action movie with characters with real motivation that you care about watching. More recently: Inception. Even if you had no clue what was going on, it was still a blast to watch. Hell, TDK was fantastic, it had excellent action sequences, and it certainly wasn't "stupid".

This "excuse" is a cop-out, a way for the audience to justify going to movies that are simply bad, because studios don't feel the need to make anything that's good because bad movies make just as much money (if not more) than good ones. THAT is why critics like Bob try their damnedest to make people aware of the jewels among the chaff. If he comes off a little demeaning to you, that's because you're hiding behind a flimsy excuse for your habits. You don't have to see stupid s*** to get your action fix, so stop pretending like you do.

MovieBob:
In my opinion, one of the worst things that has happened to public discourse is that the terms "elite" and "elitist" became four-letter-words.

You mean four letters like l-e-e-t? *ba-dum-dish*

... Ok, so bad joke. Glad you're standing up for yourself Bob; I may not always agree with you but I think you usually have some good points.

Furioso:

Grevensher:
I WAS a big fan of you before Bob, and I have had a post running around the forums criticizing your most recent review of pirates, but it has been an issue that has been bothering me ever since your April Fools and Fast/Furious reviews, only getting stronger with the pirates/hangover 2 review.

You do not review GOOD movies anymore. Thor 2 is arguably a good movie, but in many ways it is about as good as pirates. The fact that it is included in your pantheon of film perfection precludes it from being counted as you reviewing a good movie, because you would have reviewed it whether it was good or bad.

I miss your amazing reviews of good films, and pointing out what made them good. Being able to still crack jokes about other bad films that came out that week, but keeping the wealth of the attention on the good film and the content that made it good.

Now your reviews are the opposite. Your movie reviews are turning into rhetorical skits that only allude to the good movies that came out. I thought the whole reason you were given the bigger picture was so you could clean up this series of videos and focus on actual good movie reviews?

Well he can't really review many good movies when bad movies are able to be churned out by the bucket load compared to the good ones

Captcha: image

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

I hate the captchas on this site. Whoever is programming the generator needs to be slapped in the face.

I disagree with you though, over the past few months there was source code, Rio, Water for Elephants, Bridesmaids, everything must go, 13 assassins, The Robber, Greatest movie ever sold, Incendies...

I watch all of bob's stuff :)I find he exagerates some of his points, and he's annoyingly bitter sometimes. But nobodys perfect. Right?

I'm still awaiting the counter-argument to the complete annihilation of your "PC is dying" theory Bob.

Critics have a place, I just don't think it is universally the same place for all critics. But I have a question - what do you see the difference is, if there is one, between a critic and a reviewer?

MovieBob:
Speaking only for myself, I've never been harder (or softer) on something solely for its popularity, but does it change how I talk about it and how I react on a visceral/emotional level? Of course it does.

I'm calling B.S. on this one. If Micheal Bay hadn't produced such popular movies, or Transformers hadn't made so damned much money, you wouldn't keep using him as your whipping boy. There are far worse directors who direct movies with less financial success that you never mention.

MovieBob:
Tropes you've seen a handful of times we've seen thousands of times. This means we are much harder on the formulaic, and that we are much more excited by something that is original. This, as I keep reiterating, is the whole point of this profession.

Is there anything wrong with using what's come before? I love it when critics talk about how this movie relates to that, or how these story elements could be an homage to another film. I tend to fall quickly into the reality of a movie so I don't always make those connections. (What I really notice are elements that raise flags of disbelief.)

MovieBob:
Let me be blunt: If we weren't so jaded, things would almost never get better.

Competition has more to do with change than criticism. Can you give any examples on where critics have had more impact than earnings?

Good times. Most people who bash on critics are those who watch crappy films and don't want to accept that said movies just aren't very good even on a technical level.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 40657)