How To Talk To A Critic (Assuming You Want To)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Reactions to entertainment - yes, even among professionals - have a tremendous amount to do with context. As such, giving (for example) one film or game low marks for being too violent while praising the violence of another, unrelated film or game is not in and of itself hypocrisy.

I get this a lot for my (apparent) contradictory takes on music.

'Course, I'm not a critic and it's not my job, but I can sort of empathise.

While I try my best to remain above blatant trolling, there really is no more irritating thing than to click into a disagreement post and find A.) "In this you said X but over here you said Y" as the content and B.) that the "Y" example is citing a statement made so long ago even I don't precisely recall making it.

OMG! People can evolve!

It's a weird and shocking revelation to some.

But for some reason, this often takes the form of the fan in question concluding that the critic in question didn't mention this or that detail because they didn't know about it, and winds up phrased as, "I can't believe he/she didn't..." or "How could you have ignored ...", which doesn't really help anyone.

It does, however, make the accuser feel both better and validated. I think that's the main reason it's done. The "you think you're so smart" school of argument.

I honestly don't know how some people stay in the business, when their work is going to be subjected this kind of make-believe scrutiny devaluing them at every turn.

Spoken like a true Critic apologist!

...Just kidding. Really.

Bob, whilst I appreciate that this is a meaningful topic for you, with you having to deal with stupid emails on a daily basis etc., and that each of your points is well made and something I personally agree with, I have to say that this article as a whole comes off as a bit patronising to your audience.

Surely any fanmail, commentary or argument you receive is a validation of yourself as a critic? So wouldn't it be better to dwell on the feedback you receive in a constructive way rather than dwelling on, 'Jeez guys, I hate it when you do this...'? Especially if what you want to promote is civilised discussion.

As I said, I agree with the points you make, I just think the way you made them perhaps sounds a little condescending.

EvilPicnic gives MovieBob some etiquette tips.

Zachary Amaranth:

Reactions to entertainment - yes, even among professionals - have a tremendous amount to do with context. As such, giving (for example) one film or game low marks for being too violent while praising the violence of another, unrelated film or game is not in and of itself hypocrisy.

I get this a lot for my (apparent) contradictory takes on music.

'Course, I'm not a critic and it's not my job, but I can sort of empathise.

While I try my best to remain above blatant trolling, there really is no more irritating thing than to click into a disagreement post and find A.) "In this you said X but over here you said Y" as the content and B.) that the "Y" example is citing a statement made so long ago even I don't precisely recall making it.

OMG! People can evolve!

It's a weird and shocking revelation to some.

But for some reason, this often takes the form of the fan in question concluding that the critic in question didn't mention this or that detail because they didn't know about it, and winds up phrased as, "I can't believe he/she didn't..." or "How could you have ignored ...", which doesn't really help anyone.

It does, however, make the accuser feel both better and validated. I think that's the main reason it's done. The "you think you're so smart" school of argument.

I honestly don't know how some people stay in the business, when their work is going to be subjected this kind of make-believe scrutiny devaluing them at every turn.

Spoken like a true Critic apologist!

...Just kidding. Really.

1) First much? No, I kid.

2)Only Pokemon can evolve, not people.

3) Yeah, that part about "I can't believe you forget to mnetion X" really grinds my gears. Even worse is when there are like 20 straight posts on forums mentioning the same thing. That whole "I'm not going to read anyone else's post before I get my tired opinion across" mentaility needs to end.

1. I have never had an issue with people being hypocrites unless they are hypocritical within a single argument. If their argument centers on the ideas that cheese is delicious and all dairy products are disgusting, well they are being hypocritical. If they once argued that all dairy products are disgusting but are now arguing that cheese is delicious, the former really only is important as something to cite to disprove the latter argument, not to show hypocrisy.

2. I think that it should become a fundamental law of time travel that there is no greater moron than one's past self and no greater dick than one's future self. It should be called the Karkat principle.

3. There is no excuse for ignorance Bob. That is why everyone except for murderers and rapists is all-knowing, and you don't want to be a rapist-murderer, do you Bob?

4. I really gt pissed off when people do this, more often then not because I have no clue what it is that is making them say this, what it is they know about the writer or critic that leads them to believe they know the writer's prejudices. Who really goes through all that trouble? It is kind of funny when people do this and are blatantly wrong in their assumptions though. Almost makes it worth it.

You feeling bullied Bob? Really? Honestly I have to say that if you often engage in tough talk like you do, remember the transformers 3 film and people not being able to vote?, then you should expect people to respond in like to you.

Hmmm, well Bob, you have to understand that your also dealing with a world in which "geek media" is increasingly being absorbed and subverted by the industries they report on, and this includes the critics. Not to mention the issue of politics and how the industry has been walking a tightrope of wanting to sell things like SOPA which upset fans, while at the same time fighting against legislature trying to regulate game content.

A lot of the accusations of hypocricy come from people noticing when a geek-personality they listen to, changes opinion in a way that reflects current politics and what the industry is pushing for, or a point it's trying to make. Saying you disapprove of a violent game in one place, but then approve of something very, very similar later, when the opinions move in time with the winds of the politics (either in support of, or opposition), it does tend to get noticed.

Likewise when someone reporting on geek media inserts their own political views into the analysis of the material, why they think something was made, or how it turned out, well that can seriously affect how someone views them and the integrity of their work. Doing things like trying to claim a continued racial bias in Hollywood as being part of the reason a movie turned out like it did (referancing something like your review of "Tower Heist") this can push some serious buttons when it's presented more strongly than something that is the opinion of a critic should be.

I get the impression that your feeling somewhat persecuted in writing this. As one of those who has questioned you heavily I will say flat out that if I didn't like you, feel it was worth the time, or enjoy your productions I wouldn't listen loyally every time they go up and bother to comment. At the same time however, you could probably reduce the criticisms, attacks, and whatever else your getting (which I assume come from people a lot ruder than me, I at least TRY and be polite and sensible within my own viewpoint) by focusing on geek media in of itself, and maybe SOME of the business aspects, without trying to toss out politics, and statements about Hollywood whitewashing of current movies, and similar things which you might personally believe, but are going to net serious disagreement and slot people off, especially when they are simply your own theories and suspicians. The way you state things might technically make it an opinion, but at the same time the way it's delivered makes it forceful enough to seem as it's being presented as a fact. A decent stage or speaking technique, but one that can easily backfire, and I think that is what your seeing here accross a lot of differant issues. Someone you slot off isn't going to care about you defending yourself on a technicality or specific phrasing. Especially seeing as I'm sure it clear to them (and probably you) how they arrived at a specific conclusion. Semantics make a very bad defense in any serious discussion or debate.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Pretty much all of that applies to the raging fanboy mentality too.

But I don't think the last point was really so bad. I mean everyone obviously has their own world view which in turn influences how they perceive or whether they like/dislike something. And people will naturally be be more likely to interpret something in a certain way, or enjoy something more if they can draw parallels from what they know.

For example, those who are knowledgeable about The Bible often say that a film or story is analogous, or at least comparable to The Bible, or a part of it. While this may be true, there are only really a very limited number of story types that can (or have) been told, and I'm sure all of them have come up somewhere in The Bible at some point. Through their world view they see the film in question as a re-telling of a Bible story. They're not necessarily wrong, but the parallel they see may only be superficial, since the story type can be seen in so many other places throughout history. But this person places emphasis on the similarities with The Bible because they are very knowledgeable of it and it has great meaning to them. To other people these similarities may not be apparent or relevant in any way, so will be inclined to disregard anything this person says on what I would consider reasonable grounds.

A bit part of being able to trust a critic for advice is getting to know what the tastes of the given critic are and how they relate to your own, so I see no problem in disregarding a critic who has a completely different world view than yourself. They would be useless in recommending you anything.

Therumancer:

Likewise when someone reporting on geek media inserts their own political views into the analysis of the material, why they think something was made, or how it turned out, well that can seriously affect how someone views them and the integrity of their work. Doing things like trying to claim a continued racial bias in Hollywood as being part of the reason a movie turned out like it did (referancing something like your review of "Tower Heist") this can push some serious buttons when it's presented more strongly than something that is the opinion of a critic should be.

"Should be"? How strongly should a critic express their opinions, then?

I think you're mistaking criticism for some kind of objective, empirical measure. With any work of art, that's impossible because so much of an opinion is going to be based on someone's own viewpoint and experiences. A critic is a (hopefully) well-informed, interesting and experienced person giving their viewpoint. Those views may or may not be politically informed. Whether they are or not, it's their viewpoint.

I actually really like the fact that Bob talks about this stuff. I think geek media in particular can do with more critical voices that think about the bigger picture in terms of politics and social justice. Any critic is just one voice, and it's having a variety of voices with a variety of points of view that make for vibrant, useful and entertaining criticism.

Speaking of how to talk to a critic I've yet to figure out how actually contact mr.chipman. PM's not getting responded to. Probably just too large an inbox. I was hoping to get his input on a paper I'm writing regarding the actual reasons behind Green Lantern 2011's failures. Not "likes and didn't likes" but the directing/writing/production choices and who made those choices and why. For such a large production to turn out so jumbled there's gotta be a story behind that. Anyway if you're interested in discussing, Bob, let me know.

A review of mine for SoulCalibur V was posted on N4G.com. I ended up giving the game a 3.5/5 for reasons stated in the review. One of the first comments was the following - "Again, more "journalists" completely not getting what the point of a fighting game is and instead whining about story modes."

This brings me to one of my pet peeves. When people say that we must not 'get it.' It's lazy and makes the assumption that the reviewer doesn't understand the subject matter. Did I say it was a bad fighting game? Absolutely not. Did I ding it for a weak offline modes suite? Absolutely. The actual fighting is only a single part of a larger whole. I'm reviewing it as a whole.

It didn't help his cause that his avatar was Hilde.

Link to the original review if you're interested: http://www.pixlbit.com/review/514/soulcalibur_v_review

You're asking a lot from an audience that just wants critics to parrot what they think without them having to say it to provide validation in their lives (hey, I'm important because I like the same things as a self professed internet z-lister). God forbid we accept differing tastes, opinions, values, ect. These people just look for excuses to invalidate differing opinons, and the bias and hypocracy excuses are timeless and hard to invalidate, as we're all a little intelectualy inconsistant from time to time, and can very easially seem that way when you only have 5 minutes to talk while minimizing spoilers.

Granted this is the digital age, and any public opinion giver should be prepared to justify opinions that may not mesh with past ones. People can change thier minds, but a shift without explaination can lead a skeptical audience to think either a bias has come out, or a bribe has been made. Granted an inconsistant film critic is hardly an issue compared to, say, an inconsistant political pundant (when will these guys realize they're handing The Daily show material), but it is something to keep in mind.

Redd the Sock:
You're asking a lot from an audience that just wants critics to parrot what they think without them having to say it to provide validation in their lives (hey, I'm important because I like the same things as a self professed internet z-lister). God forbid we accept differing tastes, opinions, values, ect. These people just look for excuses to invalidate differing opinons, and the bias and hypocracy excuses are timeless and hard to invalidate, as we're all a little intelectualy inconsistant from time to time, and can very easially seem that way when you only have 5 minutes to talk while minimizing spoilers.

I'm sorry I'm a bit flabbergasted by this. You are saying this in response to something MovieBob has says? You know that guy who often puts ona stupid voice to imitate his perception of the oppositions view. The guy who said people who like Transformers shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is your champion of a society with a pluarity of views?

Heh.... person A doesn't like person B's opinion because person A has a different one. What a surprise?

Personally, while reading the article one thing really popped into my head that seems like a good video game example. The QTE.

The Quick-Time Event (QTE) was a really cool thing when it was introduced 10 years ago and popularized by Shenmue. Many people thought it was really good idea. It had praises for it. Now, in 2012, everyone seems to hate it except for Quantic Dream.

A few internet-critics of real-critics I have seen like to attack the real-critic because they claim the real-critic is bad mouthing for the sake of bad mouthing when in truth the internet-critic has glazed over, or missed the explanation real-critic gives for not liking something. That sentence may be too long.

Granted there have been a few critiques of yours (MovieBob) that I have not agreed with, but you always adequately explained why you thought they were failures.

Hey... it seems to me that you're pretty pissed off at some specific person who left a shitty comment on one of your pages. Instead of writing this long winded post, why don't you try addressing these people directly? By the way, how exactly DO you talk to a critic, because you seemed to have left that out of the article?

I like the part where Bob complains about people calling out hypocrisy, then follows it up with "don't assume things, you aren't mind readers", while at the same time his (numerous) videos on how there's a "conspiracy" on "certain types" of movies that only are made with a "certain thing in mind" and for only a certain group of people for only so forth and so forth.

Or is all this so far in the past and in the internets that it doesn't count?

mbrendlen:
Hey... it seems to me that you're pretty pissed off at some specific person who left a shitty comment on one of your pages. Instead of writing this long winded post, why don't you try addressing these people directly?

MovieBob:
4.) You are probably not a mind reader ...

... in which case, assuming ulterior motives on the part of someone offering an opinion without evidence is incredibly tacky.

Apparently some people were born with NO sense of irony...

SpiderJerusalem:
I like the part where Bob complains about people calling out hypocrisy, then follows it up with "don't assume things, you aren't mind readers", while at the same time his (numerous) videos on how there's a "conspiracy" on "certain types" of movies that only are made with a "certain thing in mind" and for only a certain group of people for only so forth and so forth.

Or is all this so far in the past and in the internets that it doesn't count?

Remember these rules are for us, or rather people who disagree with Bob and other critics he likes. Not him. Remember he did that little snipe at Redlettermedia?

370999:

SpiderJerusalem:
I like the part where Bob complains about people calling out hypocrisy, then follows it up with "don't assume things, you aren't mind readers", while at the same time his (numerous) videos on how there's a "conspiracy" on "certain types" of movies that only are made with a "certain thing in mind" and for only a certain group of people for only so forth and so forth.

Or is all this so far in the past and in the internets that it doesn't count?

Remember these rules are for us, or rather people who disagree with Bob and other critics he likes. Not him. Remember he did that little snipe at Redlettermedia?

Oh, right, sorry, I forgot that there was the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" fine print, got ya!

SpiderJerusalem:

370999:

SpiderJerusalem:
I like the part where Bob complains about people calling out hypocrisy, then follows it up with "don't assume things, you aren't mind readers", while at the same time his (numerous) videos on how there's a "conspiracy" on "certain types" of movies that only are made with a "certain thing in mind" and for only a certain group of people for only so forth and so forth.

Or is all this so far in the past and in the internets that it doesn't count?

Remember these rules are for us, or rather people who disagree with Bob and other critics he likes. Not him. Remember he did that little snipe at Redlettermedia?

Oh, right, sorry, I forgot that there was the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" fine print, got ya!

Nope the hypocriscy rule was included as his little get out of jail card. He will bring it up whenever he wants over this and if you call him out on iot, not only is that wrong but it's impolite.

1. I don't know what's going on

2. How are things with you?

3. Why is everyone listing the numbers 1-4

4. I like numbers...

That being said... I did not learn how to talk to a critic... I just learned how not to talk to a critic.

Christ, thanks for this. I see so many people who actually believe game reviewers are all mindless fanboys/haters and suck in bribes every week. Because if someone has a different opinion than you, obviously there must be some other explanation, because you're obviously correct.

*Sigh. People.

No offense Bob but I consider you a critic like I consider my dog a professor. Its wrong to think you are one. You provide no critical analysis of movies. Take your Red Tails review for example. You acknowledge the inherent tone of it being a oldschool John Wayne war film, but never go one step beyond by questioning it. You never question whether the movie cheapened the experience of an all black fighter squadron nor do you question whether the tone of the movie cheapens the message of overcoming racial discrimination and diversity.

Guys like Redlettermedia did in their review of that movie and they always look critically at both the technical side of movies and the themes behind the movie itself, constantly questioning if it worked and whether the technical aspects ruined the effect the creators were going after.

Honestly your not a critic, your just some guy parading as one, never offering anything more than a shallow interpretation of what you saw and if you can't even do that you then go on a unrelated rant about how your right on some issue and everyone else is wrong

lazarus1209:
A review of mine for SoulCalibur V was posted on N4G.com. I ended up giving the game a 3.5/5 for reasons stated in the review. One of the first comments was the following - "Again, more "journalists" completely not getting what the point of a fighting game is and instead whining about story modes."

This brings me to one of my pet peeves. When people say that we must not 'get it.' It's lazy and makes the assumption that the reviewer doesn't understand the subject matter. Did I say it was a bad fighting game? Absolutely not. Did I ding it for a weak offline modes suite? Absolutely. The actual fighting is only a single part of a larger whole. I'm reviewing it as a whole.

It didn't help his cause that his avatar was Hilde.

Link to the original review if you're interested: http://www.pixlbit.com/review/514/soulcalibur_v_review

That's a mentality that I truly do not understand. "I like this game, therefore anything bad anyone could EVER say about it, means that they just "don't get it." Do people not realize it's okay to disagree with a critic? If you like it, you like it, so go play it, it doesn't matter what critic A or B said.

Sorry you have to deal with the idiocy that is the internet but I suppose you have to expect it when doing reviews.

AsurasFinest:
No offense Bob but I consider you a critic like I consider my dog a professor. Its wrong to think you are one. You provide no critical analysis of movies. Take your Red Tails review for example. You acknowledge the inherent tone of it being a oldschool John Wayne war film, but never go one step beyond by questioning it. You never question whether the movie cheapened the experience of an all black fighter squadron nor do you question whether the tone of the movie cheapens the message of overcoming racial discrimination and diversity.

Guys like Redlettermedia did in their review of that movie and they always look critically at both the technical side of movies and the themes behind the movie itself, constantly questioning if it worked and whether the technical aspects ruined the effect the creators were going after.

Honestly your not a critic, your just some guy parading as one, never offering anything more than a shallow interpretation of what you saw and if you can't even do that you then go on a unrelated rant about how your right on some issue and everyone else is wrong

Was that a joke? Or did you miss the irony of going on a long rant saying YOU ARE WRONG TO CALL YOURSELF A REVIEWER AND ANYONE WHO THINKS YOU ARE A REVIEWER IS WRONG. Then saying I DON'T LIKE HOW YOU GO ON RANTS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE WRONG. I also like how you put "no offense" at the beginning like that makes it okay. There isn't a need to make a post like this. I REALLY hope this is a joke and I'm just missing it because that was a HILARIOUS PARODY of trolls posts if you werent serious.

ImSkeletor:

AsurasFinest:
No offense Bob but I consider you a critic like I consider my dog a professor. Its wrong to think you are one. You provide no critical analysis of movies. Take your Red Tails review for example. You acknowledge the inherent tone of it being a oldschool John Wayne war film, but never go one step beyond by questioning it. You never question whether the movie cheapened the experience of an all black fighter squadron nor do you question whether the tone of the movie cheapens the message of overcoming racial discrimination and diversity.

Guys like Redlettermedia did in their review of that movie and they always look critically at both the technical side of movies and the themes behind the movie itself, constantly questioning if it worked and whether the technical aspects ruined the effect the creators were going after.

Honestly your not a critic, your just some guy parading as one, never offering anything more than a shallow interpretation of what you saw and if you can't even do that you then go on a unrelated rant about how your right on some issue and everyone else is wrong

Was that a joke? Or did you miss the irony of going on a long rant saying YOU ARE WRONG TO CALL YOURSELF A REVIEWER AND ANYONE WHO THINKS YOU ARE A REVIEWER IS WRONG. Then saying I DON'T LIKE HOW YOU GO ON RANTS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE WRONG. I also like how you put "no offense" at the beginning like that makes it okay. There isn't a need to make a post like this. I REALLY hope this is a joke and I'm just missing it because that was a HILARIOUS PARODY of trolls posts if you werent serious.

Ohhh I see, you like having no critical analysis of movies being reviewed, you just want someone to say something is bad or good without any sort of analysis of the movies technical and written aspects and instead like people ranting on unrelated topics( E.G George Lucas rant during the Red Tails review).

Thats what you consider a good critic? Do you also like the other reviewers on the internet who just do recaps of games and movies, while screaming at the camera like incoherent manchildren?

D'awww thats just cute how you think that's what a critic is supposed to do. Then the best part is instead of actually trying to argue againt the points made(Even if you did I imagine it would go along the lines of " ITS JUST YOUR OPINION BRO") you go for the classic "HES A TROLL" line and somehow, just somehow managed to think what I said was a rant.

AsurasFinest:

ImSkeletor:

AsurasFinest:
No offense Bob but I consider you a critic like I consider my dog a professor. Its wrong to think you are one. You provide no critical analysis of movies. Take your Red Tails review for example. You acknowledge the inherent tone of it being a oldschool John Wayne war film, but never go one step beyond by questioning it. You never question whether the movie cheapened the experience of an all black fighter squadron nor do you question whether the tone of the movie cheapens the message of overcoming racial discrimination and diversity.

Guys like Redlettermedia did in their review of that movie and they always look critically at both the technical side of movies and the themes behind the movie itself, constantly questioning if it worked and whether the technical aspects ruined the effect the creators were going after.

Honestly your not a critic, your just some guy parading as one, never offering anything more than a shallow interpretation of what you saw and if you can't even do that you then go on a unrelated rant about how your right on some issue and everyone else is wrong

Was that a joke? Or did you miss the irony of going on a long rant saying YOU ARE WRONG TO CALL YOURSELF A REVIEWER AND ANYONE WHO THINKS YOU ARE A REVIEWER IS WRONG. Then saying I DON'T LIKE HOW YOU GO ON RANTS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE WRONG. I also like how you put "no offense" at the beginning like that makes it okay. There isn't a need to make a post like this. I REALLY hope this is a joke and I'm just missing it because that was a HILARIOUS PARODY of trolls posts if you werent serious.

Ohhh I see, you like having no critical analysis of movies being reviewed, you just want someone to say something is bad or good without any sort of analysis of the movies technical and written aspects and instead like people ranting on unrelated topics( E.G George Lucas rant during the Red Tails review).

Thats what you consider a good critic? Do you also like the other reviewers on the internet who just do recaps of games and movies, while screaming at the camera like incoherent manchildren?

D'awww thats just cute how you think that's what a critic is supposed to do. Then the best part is instead of actually trying to argue againt the points made(Even if you did I imagine it would go along the lines of " ITS JUST YOUR OPINION BRO") you go for the classic "HES A TROLL" line and somehow, just somehow managed to think what I said was a rant.

Well I was genuinely thought that you might have been a joke. Guess not. I really, really don't care if you don't like him as a reviewer. Cause it is well "Just your opinion bro." But the hilarious, obvious irony of what you said just threw me off. Then you add even more irony by saying that I didn't refute your opinions then not refuting mine. Also you know what? I prefer short recaps that tell me what i'm in for. I like to know plot, themes, style and other things. Then just a general broad critique. If I like John Wayne style war films(which I do) I'll go see it. I honestly don't like when reviewers tell me about how i should feel about a tone or style. I have disagreed with movie bob A LOT but he doesn't seem to be trying to cram his ideas down my throat. Also your point lost all ground when you said, You arent a reviewer and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. (That wasn't even a hyperbole.) Also talking in an extremely condescending tone is fun isn't it?

You know, Bob (can I call you Bob?), these are all very valid points, but you might have more of a leg to stand on when it comes to politeness if you hadn't called me quite a few names in your videos for thinking that Scott Pilgrim and The Expendable were both entertaining but flawed and questioned my intelligence for holding the opinion that Sucker Punch was an empty, over-indulgent, style-over-substance bore-fest. I believe you've also made some rather impolite insinuations about anyone who thought the protagonist of Infamous maybe had a reason to be pissed off at all the people trying to manipulate and/or shoot him (seriously, you've still never explained that one). And yes, those were personal attacks because you chose to phrase them as such. If you want a polite response, limit your criticism to the movie itself, not the people who liked it.

Honestly, I'm not surprised critics get so many rude responses given how rude and thoughtless they often are themselves. For example, I liked the film Drive Angry. If I had read Roger Ebert's review of it before seeing the movie, I wouldn't want to respectfully disagree with him, I'd want to punch him in the face. That's not because he expressed an opinion different from mine, it's because he went out of his way to ruin memorable scenes from the film that were supposed to come as surprises with no warning. This has become common practice for critics discussing something they don't like. I don't see why anyone would expect respectful disagreement if they're the one who starts the disrespect and name-calling.

ImSkeletor:

Well I was genuinely thought that you might have been a joke. Guess not. I really, really don't care if you don't like him as a reviewer. Cause it is well "Just your opinion bro." But the hilarious, obvious irony of what you said just threw me off. Then you add even more irony by saying that I didn't refute your opinions then not refuting mine. Also you know what? I prefer short recaps that tell me what i'm in for. I like to know plot, themes, style and other things. Then just a general broad critique. If I like John Wayne style war films(which I do) I'll go see it. I honestly don't like when reviewers tell me about how i should feel about a tone or style. I have disagreed with movie bob A LOT but he doesn't seem to be trying to cram his ideas down my throat. Also your point lost all ground when you said, You arent a reviewer and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. (That wasn't even a hyperbole.) Also talking in an extremely condescending tone is fun isn't it?

You keep using that word, "irony", I'm not sure you actually know what it means.

Asurasfinest made good points, just recapping something and then shouting incoherently about other peoples' tastes isn't valid criticism. Neither is "movies are weird". Say what you will about the RedLetterMedia guys, especially Half in the Bag, but those guys have got their craft down to a science. It's a thing of beauty watching them have actual discourse over the different points of the movie they've seen. Bob has a recap, some thinly veiled self-congratulatory dialog with himself, followed by outright "I'm better than you" comments directed at anyone who disagrees with him.

On the other hand, it's thoroughly irritating trying to point out to someone why they might have misjudged a game, only to have them cover their ears and close their eyes and shout, "LA LA LA NOT LISTENING I'VE MADE UP MY MIND AND YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT".

Yes, people have different opinions on things. But when you didn't like something that someone else did like - especially in the case of a game, where the actual experience two people have can, and probably will, be completely different depending on how they played it - have you ever considered that maybe they're not trying to convince you that you're wrong out of malice? That maybe the real reason they're arguing with you isn't because they're trying to trick you into playing a shitty game, but because they've found a really great game and they're having a ton of fun with it and they really want you to be able to enjoy it too? And that maybe the reason they are enjoying it whereas you didn't isn't because their brain is wired up wrong, but because they really ARE playing it differently or looking at it from a different perspective or whatever?

AsurasFinest:
No offense Bob but I consider you a critic like I consider my dog a professor. Its wrong to think you are one. You provide no critical analysis of movies. Take your Red Tails review for example. You acknowledge the inherent tone of it being a oldschool John Wayne war film, but never go one step beyond by questioning it. You never question whether the movie cheapened the experience of an all black fighter squadron nor do you question whether the tone of the movie cheapens the message of overcoming racial discrimination and diversity.

Guys like Redlettermedia did in their review of that movie and they always look critically at both the technical side of movies and the themes behind the movie itself, constantly questioning if it worked and whether the technical aspects ruined the effect the creators were going after.

Honestly your not a critic, your just some guy parading as one, never offering anything more than a shallow interpretation of what you saw and if you can't even do that you then go on a unrelated rant about how your right on some issue and everyone else is wrong

Sorry, since when is it necessary to do anything at all in order to be a "critic"?
I understand that a lot of hard work goes into what Bob does, but why must one follow a certain set of rules to be one?
All you need is a media to cover your opinion, and wham, you're a critic.

Deal with it.

OtherSideofSky:
You know, Bob (can I call you Bob?), these are all very valid points, but you might have more of a leg to stand on when it comes to politeness if you hadn't called me quite a few names in your videos for thinking that Scott Pilgrim and The Expendable were both entertaining but flawed and questioned my intelligence for holding the opinion that Sucker Punch was an empty, over-indulgent, style-over-substance bore-fest. I believe you've also made some rather impolite insinuations about anyone who thought the protagonist of Infamous maybe had a reason to be pissed off at all the people trying to manipulate and/or shoot him (seriously, you've still never explained that one). And yes, those were personal attacks because you chose to phrase them as such. If you want a polite response, limit your criticism to the movie itself, not the people who liked it.

While I don't belong to the group most often targeted to receive Bob's ire (the Halo/Fast & Furious/Michael Bay fan crowd), I don't need to feel personally attacked to notice when unfriendly behavior's going on around me. This guy, and the others who've noted similar feelings on the subject in this thread, have a valid point: rudeness toward critics sometimes stems from the perception that not only is what you like being torn down, but you are being insulted simply for having liked it.

Sometimes it's just about disagreeing with the review with an overabundance of zeal, but really, if you go out of your way to insult people as part of a review, you should expect backlash for it. As far as I'm concerned, you're just getting what you've asked for at that point. It's flame bait. Hell, it might even be intentional. More traffic is more traffic, right? Hhhh.

SpiderJerusalem:

ImSkeletor:

Well I was genuinely thought that you might have been a joke. Guess not. I really, really don't care if you don't like him as a reviewer. Cause it is well "Just your opinion bro." But the hilarious, obvious irony of what you said just threw me off. Then you add even more irony by saying that I didn't refute your opinions then not refuting mine. Also you know what? I prefer short recaps that tell me what i'm in for. I like to know plot, themes, style and other things. Then just a general broad critique. If I like John Wayne style war films(which I do) I'll go see it. I honestly don't like when reviewers tell me about how i should feel about a tone or style. I have disagreed with movie bob A LOT but he doesn't seem to be trying to cram his ideas down my throat. Also your point lost all ground when you said, You arent a reviewer and everyone who thinks differently is wrong. (That wasn't even a hyperbole.) Also talking in an extremely condescending tone is fun isn't it?

You keep using that word, "irony", I'm not sure you actually know what it means.

Asurasfinest made good points, just recapping something and then shouting incoherently about other peoples' tastes isn't valid criticism. Neither is "movies are weird". Say what you will about the RedLetterMedia guys, especially Half in the Bag, but those guys have got their craft down to a science. It's a thing of beauty watching them have actual discourse over the different points of the movie they've seen. Bob has a recap, some thinly veiled self-congratulatory dialog with himself, followed by outright "I'm better than you" comments directed at anyone who disagrees with him.

Admittedly i didn't use the word particularly well. (I should probably stop posting past 2:00 in the morning.) The attitude of EVERYBODIES WRONG BUT ME! that post had bothered me and just how snide and full of himself he sounded. If he had said "I don't really think you are a reviewer." that would be one thing and i wouldn't have cared.

MY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS ARE LOUDER THEREFORE I AM RIGHT

 Pages 1 2 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