About Critics (Part 1)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Keep doing your thing, Bob. I look forward to your videos etc every week. You give a deeper perspective on things that I know I often would have missed/ignored. Remember that for every mind that rises above, there are another 10,000 trying to pull it back down into the mass.

One small request, for the distant future: Is there a chance you could do one on Big Picture perhaps decoding Scott Pilgrim for the rest of us Luddittes? I saw the movie last week, and for the life of me, I couldn't make sense of it. I knew that there was a ton of ironic references, but all I really understood was that he seemed to live his life with gaming elements popping up in his mind. I suspect that's why the movie flopped so hard - it just doesn't make a lot of sense to the casual, middle-aged gamer - and, I'm sure, looks like a flaming mess to the layman. Apologies if that's been done already, maybe somebody can point me to it with appropriate flaming and hatred.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
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.

Aye, I remember that. My friend saw The Expendables and loved the movie.
He also saw Scott Pilgrim, in Theatres, 3 times because he loved that movie.

Then me and my friend went and saw Fast Five, and I guess we're both douchebags as well as "the worst kind of people" because we enjoyed that movie as well. It's not something he'll change though because that is how he is in any of his videos, and has been for a while.

It's alright MovieBob. Even though I don't agree with you all the time, I still <3 you.
Keep up the good work.

I can't stand people who think elitism is bad. I also can't stand people who look down at other people. Bob doesn't look down at other people and call them idiots for liking a movie he hates, he generalizes a target audience. People take things WAYYYY TO FUCKING PERSONALLY ON THIS WEBSITE. Sorry, but I'm really too fucking annoyed at any person who thinks his comments on The Expendables are personal insults to their pride. God fucking dammit people. Grow some balls and laugh a little. He stereotypes audience not only to inform who else is probably going to watch this, but also as a joke. And if you're one of those "leet r bad" people out there who got offended by his joke, you are a hypocrite and you should get off that soap box you're standing on.

I want to say that I am extremely sorry if I offended anyone, because i usually do not get angry with people. If I swore a little too much, that's cause I'm not doing too well with annoyance today. I am not trying to troll here, I don't particularly want this to be replied to. I want people to read it so they understand exactly what they are saying. I can't hide the truth when I post, and the truth is that some people on this website I think feel a little too entitled.

That being said, the only criticism I have with YOU moviebob is that you review too many bad movies, and when you review a good movie there is no way for me to see it except to pirate it. Troll Hunter? C'mon man. Then again, I don't need the review for good movies so much as I do a warning for bad movies, but criticism isn't based on practicality. It's entertainment, and I wasn't entertained with the last couple of reviews. Both of them were poor cash grabs; both were also terrible.

But keep doing what you're doing Bob.

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. To take the two most recent examples - Pirates 4 and Hangover 2. Both are, on their own merits, absolutely wretched, terrible films that are sequels to very strong, very popular franchises that are almost guaranteed to make billions of dollars. And I resent that. I resent the hell out of that. I resent the idea of people being rewarded for lazy, slapdash work. So you'll probably find my tone to favor the bitter over the merely dismissive.

And herein lies your problem, Bob. In this paragraph, you reveal your inability to take seriously the idea that any opinion other than yours can be valid. You've made a habit of dismissing and indirectly insulting anyone who disagrees with you, and I'd say not even your status as a critic gives you a right to do this. It was worst in your Star Trek review. What was it you called anyone who enjoyed the film? Whatever it was, it ended in "douchebag" and involved a picture of a presumably very stupid person from some cartoon. Points, btw, for managing to be sneaky while somehow being incredibly obvious at exactly the same time - you implied that the film had been dumbed down to the point that only these people could enjoy it, but were careful to avoid ever actually insulting the movie's fans to their face.

Honestly, Bob, would it kill you to begin the occasional sentence with "I think", and sometimes end sentences with "...in my opinion"? And come to think of it, can't you pass judgement on something without making a snide comment about the consumer base for the film (or game, as it might be) in question?

To end on a lighter note, though, props for reading everyone's comments. I wish Yahtzee did that, but he's admitted he generally only reads up to a page or two.

Furioso:

Captcha: image

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

I'm more concerned about that... thing... to the right of the G. What. The. Hell. Is it?

This is the second time you've done something like this and I have to admit I'm still not with you.

To again quote what will probably be the strawman quote of your article "If we weren't so jaded, things would almost never get better"

Huge HUGE fallacy in this argument, which is that movies get better for the critics and no-one else. What you class as a better movie is a movie, which, more often than not, less people enjoy and more people would enjoy if it was Fast 5 or Transformers 2. So you define improvement only in terms of your gratification as a critic and possibly in the advancement as film as an art. Yet popular theatres are not and should not be the place for art because the majority of the people go to be entertained not to have their thoughts provoked. For those who admire films as art there are other (albeit much lower budget) channels.

In the end, the big problem is that you seem to fail to realise the subjectivity of your viewpoint and you're response to that, is to claim that you're viewpoint is objectively better than others.

And it leads to a lack of consistency, you don't analyse movies to any standard but your own taste and then suggest it to us as the true critique.

Your opinions would be valid or useful, if you were elitest but elitest to a defined set of standards. But you're not. You tell us Transformers sucks and then tell us to watch Piranha 3D of the Nicholas Cage escaped from hell in a car film. You hate Monsters and love Troll Hunter

Some things are thought provoking, some things are boundary pushing and some things are fun, yet you push them all the same, because they all interested YOU yourself.

And the truth is, this isn't a subjective viewpoint of mine that I'm representing as truth. If you were being objective or elitest and working to some higher goal of film, then you would agree with the majority of critics or agree with the majority and viewers, but you do neither and carve out your own path.

EDIT: And as you can see, this is a conclusion that a lot of other people have come to as well /end EDIT

The biggest problem though, is that too often you're the bad sort of elitest. You look down on films because their target audience isn't like you, because you believe you are better than vast swathes of humanity. That's the one thing I really dislike, when you write people off as gun jocks, or jarheads or stupid.

However, apart from that point and the failure to be useful to me as movie review or a critic, I respect what you do and I gain a lot for it and you achieve great things. Not for any reason you outlined under one of the titles, but for the thing you mentioned in the first section. You are fantastic, absolutely fantastic at provoking thought in people. Not necessarily but suggesting the right way, or having a well thought out opinion but by laying the situation down to people and forcing them to develop you own opinions. You've done this to me now, look how much I've had to right and think because of what you yourself have written and thought, and I'm just one person amongst thousands. You literally further humanity.

So thanks.

You seem to be a lot more personal in your reviews. That's one of the things I like best about you, but it's a bit of a double-edged sword.

Take your Sucker Punch review. I understood why you liked it and why you enjoy the works of Zach Snyder. Then there's the Scream 4 review. You openly admitted a personal bias against the movie, but still justified why you don't like it.

On the other hand, Fast 5, while I also don't like the F&F movies, one could practically taste the venom from that review. And I don't think I need to mention the Expendables, a review I enjoyed, but that's because I do enjoy anger-fueled reviews as much as insight-fueled reviews.

As for the Big Picture, some people need to remember that it's an opinion piece, take time to actually know what was being said (CoughPCGamingepisodeCough) and calm the fuck down...

ProfessorLayton:

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.

what? no, seriously, what? he's a critic. he doesnt like something, he'll tell you he doesnt like it. that's his job. he's not going to laud a film if he doesnt like it just so he can please people. what are you insinuating here? bob pretends to hate films that he secretly likes just so he can feel like a superior human being? i never ever got that impression.

Furioso:

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?!

it's a Delta! Delta's are the coolest greek letters next to the Lambda!

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?

Because we like discussing about the review or the subject of the review. Can you imagine how boring it would be if everyone agreed with each other. Sure these discusions may get heated and there are always trolls but that doesn't mean everyone should keep quiet if they see something they like.

I think elitist is more of an attitude than an actual reflection on someone's ability. Looking down to/condescending to other people owing to one's perceived superiority, especially in cultural matters in which one basically shoves his/her better informed/educated balls in your face.

That said, I'd never really consider you an elitist, Bob :-). Some people just don't like other people knowing more than them. You generally present stuff in an intelligent and informed way without making assumptions about your audience's intellect; giving them the benefit of your experience while being fairly sure that they can handle what you're saying. You engage with rather than talk down to your audience (and you don't use preposterously pretentious terms and analogies).

Wow that got a bit too positive. I'd better mitigate the Boblove with an "OK Bob not everyone reads comics; 'ppreciate it - and they are good videos - but maybe space the comic stuff out a bit more?". Though if you're pressed for content I suppose it's your feature.

Ashcrexl:
what? no, seriously, what? he's a critic. he doesnt like something, he'll tell you he doesnt like it. that's his job. he's not going to laud a film if he doesnt like it just so he can please people. what are you insinuating here? bob pretends to hate films that he secretly likes just so he can feel like a superior human being? i never ever got that impression.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying he uses his opinions to make himself feel superior. Just because someone liked Scream or the Expendables doesn't make them a no good douchebag. I don't care one way or the other if he didn't like the film, he just acts like that because he disliked the movie he's better than the people who do. And even take this article, for example. He consistently spliced in fancy language to make his elitism seem justified, which is something that I find extremely annoying.

I just get the feeling he talks down to his audience. Maybe this is my own elitism, but I don't like being talked down to.

I love how he says he ignore the comments but is also obsessed with the amount he gets. Thats retarded. As a critic, expect to be criticised. You are dealing with movie fans and are bound to piss off 50% of them. But what critics forget is that a dumb movie can be entertaining. It has to be judged in its own writes, not compared to high drama and state thats why it sucks. Thats why i stopped listening to Aint it cool news....they became pretensious assholes.

Furioso:
Captcha: image

Seriously?!?! IS THAT A TRIANGLE?!

Could be worse. In the future it will be voiced only. Imagine being asked to say "Phataya" in Egyptian. Captias in the future are gonna suck.

Part of the problem with critics of any kind is they have a vastly different internal rating system then their audience. For me the number one thing on the list isn't "is it original?" or "did it have a strong message?"... no for me is "did I enjoy it?"

Take Rabbit Proof Fence for example, and I'm using Australian films here because I know them better then anything Hollywood has done recently, that movie was beloved by critics, it won awards all over, the high brow crowd basically dropped to their knees and opened wide for it... yet it was one of the worst movies I ever sat through, it was boring, annoying, obnoxious, and damn preachy. It might have had "stunning" cinematography and a "powerful" story... but it wasn't enjoyable. I don't know anyone, even out of the people I know who actually like the movie, that actually enjoyed watching it.

Then you get a movie like Tomorrow When The War begins, it was panned by critics, and technically it was a lacklustre film, but it was infinitely more enjoyable then anything else I'd seen recently...

A movie, book, or game, doesn't have to be fun, funny, or exciting, but it does have to be enjoyable. Hell I enjoyed Schindler's List, and that was about subject matter so dark it might as well be a politician's soul, but the narrative and acting was so intense that you get a kind of enjoyment out of it.

So that is why I dislike critics.

Critics seem to be really bad about taking negative comments. Or at least, the critics I watch. So much time seems to be spent desperately getting ahead of the negative comments before they happen, or making clear why the negative comments are foolish only to later continue having to explain it because people either disagree, don't listen, or simply didn't happen to view the article or video where the explanation took place.

Sorry Bob but this doesn't even answer one of my criticisms of you. My main problem is that you seem hypocritical you hate certain films for being mindless and even insult their audiences but then rave about Pirahanna 3D because it has tits and blood.

I really lked you when I first started watching you but as the reviews went it seems that you started to get bitter, you mention everything surrounding the film (the audience, circumstances that lead to the film being made in a certain way, etc) and only give a token gesture to review the film itself.

I had hoped that this article would actually answer some of my complaints but it just glossed over the actual complaints people have and just responded to the most generic complaints people always have with critics. At the very least Bob please answer us why you think it's acceptable to insult viewers for liking certain films.

MovieBob:
The function of a critic is not to summarize something and try to divine whether or not you or someone else might like it (though they may in fact perform said function tangentially)

Really? Because I watch in the hope of gathering data to help me determine whether a movie is worth my time and money. I basically consider your job, as far as movie reviews go, to be one of entertaining and helping make movie-going decisions. Your background gives you the knowledge necessary to recommend better alternative movies one could be watching. Other than that, the only reason I think I, or anyone else, would value your subjective opinion of a movie above others would be having similar tastes in film.

There is, of course, the entertainment factor, and fun facts and such regarding contemporary films and film history play into that. That does not equate to putting your opinion of films above that of others. If you were an expert regarding something objective, that would be different. If you were an expert on my car's engine, I'd trust your opinion over some friend of mine who has never worked on a car before. In regard to something like film, I mostly care how close our subjective views are. For that, some friend who knows very little about film history, but likes similar movies, could easily be much more reliable.

TwistedEllipses:
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...

Movie Bob is pretentious and elitist compared to the Jimquisition.

Jimquisition of the "Thank god for me."

I giggled.

Well, I do agree with Bob here, and I always believe that personal opinion isn't something to be "pigeonholed" into a predetermined category just because of the person is a professional critic or have reviewed a lot of movies, but I know that if you have seen a lot of movies, you will begin to dislike formulaic films. And MovieBob admitted that in his review of "the Eagle".
But I will say that since he gave Thor a good, but not great review, he's isn't especially guilty of this (seeing how that movie is more or less sticking to formula).

There is however some critics who don't justify their views properly or doesn't seem to have seen the movie at all (or at least didn't pay attention and where to busy being negetive).
An example would be Noah "Spoony" Antweiler's "review" of Final Fantasy X. He seemed like he based his review on other peoples retelling of the game, and clearly didn't pay attention to many parts of the story (because he where clearly prepared to hate it from the get go and didn't want to see the parts that opposed his criticisms).

He didn't pay attention to the character beyond his first impression (and there is quite a lot of character development in the game), and used most of the review to bitch about the main character (who he actually said where unimportant to the story, and for those who have played the game, you know how wrong that is,,It's like saying that Jesus isn't important for the story in the new testament).

Whoa..Sorry, I got way of track there, but when i think about bad reviews, this is the first that spring to mind.

Well I do agree with Bob here. I wish game critics *cough*IGN*cough* could take the hint and start slamming formulaic titles for what they are. Call of Duty... 7 is it? Seriously?

It is very interesting hearing from the point of view of a professional in their field, because they are the elite, they have their fields of specialty, they do know more than your average movie wathing person. As a professional when it comes to repairing aircraft, I understand where you are coming from. I understand that you know what you're talking about when it comes to movies, I'll keep planes in the air.

I really don't care whether MovieBob likes or dislikes a film. I found that what really I enjoy are the episodes where he explains his dislikes or problem with the film. Anyone can give an opinion that says a movie sucks or is great but the ability to coherently explain those responses is an uncommon and useful skill. I don't need MovieBob's approval or disapproval to enjoy a film but his insights about most films are thought-provoking. In that sense, regardless of his opinion of a film, he is successful as a critic.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
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.

I think his point was more like this...When people watched Sideways a bunch of them magically thought that they were wine snobs and ran around pretending to be sophisticated by adopting traits and opinions that they had nothing to do with before a movie came along and made it popular. Real wine geeks are pissed at the newcomers literally posing in on their hobby.

I think you misunderstood his point, or at least his issue with it.

walsfeo:
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.

The only reason you see more popular movie bashing is because you know about them, and when its popular but poorly done, itll get a lashing.

Is there anything wrong with using what's come before?

Lack of originality and creativity displays a lack hard work and thought within the art.

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

TO achieve success against competition you have to get there somehow dont you? In art thats criticism, artists gain better understanding of their own work and what their missing after critique. My step dad told me i lacked good shadowing within my paintings. So i listened and worked on the shadows, sometimes they worked and sometimes they didnt, and i realised that i needed contrast for them. In the process i made a huge jump and my work started too have a much stronger sence of depth.

If everyone kept saying my work looked nice, then id never know what to do.

Constructive critism is needed within the arts.

None of those things are even what I have an issue with, although with elitism I will say it's all fine and good until you start being a dick about it. Now, I like watching MovieBob and I will listen to everything he has to say and take it for just as an opinion, and if I don't agree with it then I ignore it and move on.

What I do have an issue with is being insulted by someone I don't know and he can make sweeping generalizations about people that watch a certain movie or have a certain opinion. That pisses me off. If you and I don't agree on something, fine, but don't be an ass about it. I've seen The Expendables and enjoyed it, why? Because it was mindless and I didn't have to think too much about it, also because I knew what I was expecting. A really bad movie and I was entertained, so if that make makes me a terrible person, then fine.

Deathninja19:
Sorry Bob but this doesn't even answer one of my criticisms of you. My main problem is that you seem hypocritical you hate certain films for being mindless and even insult their audiences but then rave about Pirahanna 3D because it has tits and blood.

I really lked you when I first started watching you but as the reviews went it seems that you started to get bitter, you mention everything surrounding the film (the audience, circumstances that lead to the film being made in a certain way, etc) and only give a token gesture to review the film itself.

I had hoped that this article would actually answer some of my complaints but it just glossed over the actual complaints people have and just responded to the most generic complaints people always have with critics. At the very least Bob please answer us why you think it's acceptable to insult viewers for liking certain films.

He's not doing anything that Yahtzee doesn't do and get praised for.

Personally I like the way he offers context and backstory for a films release, it's far more interesting than a simple tick-the-boxes rundown of a films technical merits...which is what alot of published critics would offer you.

I think there might be some growing pains here, because this feels like a relativly new format(to me at least). This isn't like reading an article in a newspaper with a name that you'll never remember printed at the bottom, this is critics as celebrities in their own right, on a level seldom seen before. I can see how to some that might mean that they have to permanently be diplomatic and tread on egg-shells...lest someone be offended. But, I don't see how you can have it both ways. If you want your critics to be larger-than-life and truly honest and uncompromising, you're probably going to have to develop some thicker skin too.

I do find it a little disconcerting that I watch more movies than movie-Bob...

I think a lot of these complaints (particularly the elitism accusations) stem from a general failure to distinguish between a critic and a reviewer. More specifically, a failure to understand that they perform fundamentally different functions.

Oh, and, as always, my biggest complaint against Movie Bob is that, whether he knows it or not, the presence of actresses he finds attractive have a definite and noticeable effect on his opinions of the rest of a film (I think I've gotten burned literally every time I've gone to see something that he both recommended and discussed how hot someone in the film was in his video). I also think he really needs to acknowledge that the advertising for Scott Pilgrim was targetted at entirely the wrong audience and had just as much to do with its failure to make enough money as the Expendables did.

So Bob actually reads all the comments? I suddenly feel very embarassed because some of my comments on his videos could at best be described as 'over-enthusiastic' and at worst as 'gushing effacement.'

Ah well, I continue to enjoy his show and everything, I'll just be sure to use the rule of cautious posting judgement in the future.

bombadilillo:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
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.

I think his point was more like this...When people watched Sideways a bunch of them magically thought that they were wine snobs and ran around pretending to be sophisticated by adopting traits and opinions that they had nothing to do with before a movie came along and made it popular. Real wine geeks are pissed at the newcomers literally posing in on their hobby.

I think you misunderstood his point, or at least his issue with it.

Now you are making him sound like a hipster. More people gaining interest in something is usually considered a good thing.

For your final point today, I have a counterpoint:
Improving the medium is only part of your role - it covers your role as a critic of the medium, but not as a reviewer. You may do this for yourself, but we "laypeople" often read/watch critics' reviews for a different reason: To figure out whether or not we want to watch a movie!

This is the same issue I have with reviewers bringing personal beliefs into their reviews and (for instance) bashing The Passion of the Christ for being "too Christian," while praising "Agora" for being secular (and rather extremely so!) Sure, you can argue that your intended audience is the group of people that agrees with you, and if you're one critic out of two hundred providing an alternate viewpoint from the mainstream, this works - but when you're in the majority of critics this catering to a particular viewpoint hurts everyone involved: The filmmaker, for creating a movie that didn't agree with the critics' tastes; the consumer, who may see a "3/10" average score - derived mainly from worldview disagreements - and decide that the film is a poor-quality work overall; and the critic, whose credibility will be damaged for those who actually go see the film.

So anyway, where were we? Oh, right - improving the medium. Perhaps you think it's OK to use viewers as your bludgeon to nudge a samey industry into new territory, convincing them that a movie is bad because it's derivative or unoriginal and thereby sinking the movie's box office; but that is very dangerous ground to tread. The other part of your job, and the whole reason that reviews exist, is to tell us whether or not the film was GOOD. And, frankly, docking points for originality or worldview just doesn't help. Make separate scores ("You'll enjoy it if..." entries?) if you want, but lowering a film's overall rating damages our interaction with the film, and damages our trust of you. Because we don't always view films (or games, or anything else) as an art form. Sometimes we're just looking for something to consume, something that's good, regardless of whether we've seen all the plot twists before. And that is something an art-focused "critic" reviewer cannot help with.

Bob, from what I've seen and heard about "The Tree of Life," it seems to bear a thematic similarity to the film "2001: A Space Oddessy, insomuch as it deigns to tell a surrealistic, mostly visual-based story rather than relying on a traditional narrative. While artistically this sounds like a worthy endeavor, from a strict perspective of entertainment, it sounds really, reeeeally boring. A toddler stumbles his way along a hallway while a Tyrannosaurus tramps through a dense prehistoric forest? That might fly at Sundance, but I can't see it breaking any box office numbers. Just my thoughts, sir

In all honesty I swear Bob has covered these points throughout various other videos before... Still its bad enough I'm reading this instead of working so I really shouldn't look back to find out.

My personal grievances with Bob have all pretty much been voiced (dissing and whipping and whatnot), but I really think it's more a problem of the person, and the medium.

It's okay for yahtzee to trash games and fans alike because that is what he is here for, at least as far as I'm concerned. If I wanted to hear the good parts of a game I would ask a friend or look at the gamespot review generator, what I want from yahtzee is a thorough look at everything that is wrong with a game and the people associated with it.

Bob on the other hand, has never really placed himself or been placed as a heartless destroyer of movies, but despite that fact his tone and visuals used in the show would give you the impression that this is what he wants you to think. Yeah I could use him the same way as yahtzee, but I don't really judge movies based on artistic merit and I can barely tell a good actor from a bad one so it just wouldn't be helpful.
On top of that, yahtzee's service is generally helpful since I need to know about the irritating things ahead of time when I'm about to spend 60 bucks and around and 50 hours listening to loud-ass footsteps.
Movies, however, are 20 dollar (if I even bother with a smelly loud theatre) 2 hour long excursions. So honestly, while criticism may be good for the industry (I think?) I would rather just hear "This is how I felt about it, this is how entertaining it is".

Wolfram01:
Well I do agree with Bob here. I wish game critics *cough*IGN*cough* could take the hint and start slamming formulaic titles for what they are. Call of Duty... 7 is it? Seriously?

God, no. I like game critics the way they are, precisely because they aren't film critics and evaluate enjoyment rather than some misguided sense of artistic value.

CoD is the summer blockbuster of gaming, and game critics are superior to film critics IMO because they recognise the game is there to be played for fun, rather than marking it down because it isn't trying to present some deep message or moral dilemma.

Sexual Harassment Panda:

Deathninja19:
Sorry Bob but this doesn't even answer one of my criticisms of you. My main problem is that you seem hypocritical you hate certain films for being mindless and even insult their audiences but then rave about Pirahanna 3D because it has tits and blood.

I really lked you when I first started watching you but as the reviews went it seems that you started to get bitter, you mention everything surrounding the film (the audience, circumstances that lead to the film being made in a certain way, etc) and only give a token gesture to review the film itself.

I had hoped that this article would actually answer some of my complaints but it just glossed over the actual complaints people have and just responded to the most generic complaints people always have with critics. At the very least Bob please answer us why you think it's acceptable to insult viewers for liking certain films.

He's not doing anything that Yahtzee doesn't do and get praised for.

Personally I like the way he offers context and backstory for a films release, it's far more interesting than a simple tick-the-boxes rundown of a films technical merits...which is what alot of published critics would offer you.

I think there might be some growing pains here, because this feels like a relativly new format(to me at least). This isn't like reading an article in a newspaper with a name that you'll never remember printed at the bottom, this is critics as celebrities in their own right, on a level seldom seen before. I can see how to some that might mean that they have to permanently be diplomatic and tread on egg-shells...lest someone be offended. But, I don't see how you can have it both ways. If you want your critics to be larger-than-life and truly honest and uncompromising, you're probably going to have to develop some thicker skin too.

I do find it a little disconcerting that I watch more movies than movie-Bob...

I agree Yahtzee can be like this with the Wii but I don't see venom behind his statements like with Bob. And despite having a name like MovieBob he isn't a character, he is reviewing things straight whereas Yahtzee accentuates the negative for comedic effect. That's not to say Yahtzee is completly innocent he does go too far sometimes like the Sims and JRPGs.

I agree that extra information is a good thing, it can be used to back up arguements or even just add a little flavour to reviews but in Bob's case he goes too far adding too much, 5 minutes for a review is already a short time to talk about a film he should be using it to you know actually review the film.

Big name reviewers have actually been around a while from Siskel and Ebert in the US and Jonathon Ross in the UK and while they all make mistakes from time to time they still manage to critque films based on their own merits and not according to their bias. For example Jonathon Ross used to take his kids to see the films with him so he could talk to them and see from their point of view if the film succeeded in being entertaining. Bob has one point of view; Bob's, and he won't shift from it no matter how many times we ask him to see from our or other points of view.

My only argument I have is with your last part about critics feelings about repetition and formulaic plots. While I agree with your over all point I have run into critics who I feel focus too much on how original a movie is. Their are some movies I saw that were really well made, good acting, good script, well directed, and that I really enjoyed because it was just a good movie, but I have seen attacked because the plot was "something we have seen many times before." This is less of a problem with you specifically but I feel some critics can overvalue originality. Now that doesn't mean originality isn't important and shouldn't be praised, but I feel that in both movie and game criticism it is overrated. While it is impossible to look at a work completely in a vacuum I feel each film or book or movie should first and foremost be rated on it's own merits.

And I am saying this as a Screen Studies major who has also seen many more films, and a much wider selection of films, than the general populace.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here