About Critics (Part 1)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

ccdohl:
Then what's the point? Why should anyone other than critics pay any attention to reviews? Wouldn't that make the whole review process an exercise in masturbation?

I think the point was to "hold said medium to a (theoretically) higher standard for the good of all involved".

Society generally benefits when people who know stuff pass stuff along to people who do not know stuff. That way, more people know more stuff, and decisions tend to be more informed and thus a generally better decision.

Educating people on how films are constructed not only explains why the reviewer did or did not like the film, it can help you come to better conclusions about what you do or do not like - and why - even if it does not coincide with him or any other critic in particular.

Edification is its own reward.

I think the biggest disconnect between critics and laypersons, is the ability to appreciate fluff.

I know Bob harbors particular hatred for Transformers, so i'll go with that. The plot was ridiculous, and the acting was atrocious, but i still enjoyed them (the second less so than the first) just for the visual spectacle and energy. Movies like transformers, Pirates, or Avatar are the cinematic equivalent of a fireworks show. They're bright flashy and exciting but when stop to think about them, they're shallow and all functionally identical.

Film Critics, by and large, seem to be unable to appreciate the spectacle. After all, I only see fireworks shows a handful of times a year, I'm sure if i had to watch them every day i'd be pretty damn sick of them too.

The issue i have is that too often critics toss this by the wayside as they go about eviscerating 'popcorn flicks.' Its all a matter of tone, there is a certain point where reviews begin to feel like their belittling anyone who may have liked the film despite its lack of artistic merit. No-one likes to feel insulted, we need to try and maintain a mutual respect for one another.

I respect that Bob is going to despise Transformers 3 with every fibre of his being. I only hope that when the times comes for him to review it, he can respect that I will be going to see it, and enjoying the fireworks.

I hate it when people don't seem too notice that everyone is imperfect and everyone is an individual. The only people who are complaining about you are the White Sheep who believe that everything should be tailored to their tastes and their's only. They don't like the fact that a critic's view is biased, which is silly because if it wasn't biased they are not a critic (silly people...)

Keep up the good fight and the biased criticism (The way it should be).

I think the consensus here Bob (I'll give you the TLDR version) is:

PART 2 NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEMS PEOPLE VOICE TO YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS. Don't bother writing another one of these that only takes on the easy questions. Tell us why you often belittle fans of certain genres instead of focusing on purely critiquing the film. Tell us why you insist on using the "dudebro" voice when it is a pathetic insult aimed at your high school bullies and doesn't relate to movie reviews. Etc...

TheSchaef:

ccdohl:
Then what's the point? Why should anyone other than critics pay any attention to reviews? Wouldn't that make the whole review process an exercise in masturbation?

I think the point was to "hold said medium to a (theoretically) higher standard for the good of all involved".

Society generally benefits when people who know stuff pass stuff along to people who do not know stuff. That way, more people know more stuff, and decisions tend to be more informed and thus a generally better decision.

Educating people on how films are constructed not only explains why the reviewer did or did not like the film, it can help you come to better conclusions about what you do or do not like - and why - even if it does not coincide with him or any other critic in particular.

Edification is its own reward.

Is it? Does society really benefit from art critics? Maybe, but I think that you may be overestimating the scope and purpose of movie reviews.

Are reviews tools to evaluate whether or not to see a movie, or musings on the nature of film, and for which purpose are they typically read or watched?

I like Moviebob's show and I usually agree with him, but a movie review has a fairly specific purpose, and it seems like forcing a square peg in to a round pole in order to answer criticism of his show by saying that it is meant to educate people on film and benefit society.

Perhaps he could take the criticism of his show as more of a societal response to the nature of criticism, and see it as helping him understand the nature of people who watch internet movie reviews.

Edification is its own reward after all.

ccdohl:
Is it? Does society really benefit from art critics? Maybe, but I think that you may be overestimating the scope and purpose of movie reviews.

Only inasmuch as I might overestimate the scope and purpose of movies. But since I'm not, the (potential) effect of critics is a product of a movie's impact on a society and the degree to which the critic can influence that impact via the viewership. Neither more nor less.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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