ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Why do people honestly listen to critics. From what I've noticed and come to understand, critics are nothing but whiny little snobs who are totally biased towards one genre of movie, video game, television show, etc., to another, and they're still passed off as "intellectuals". Has it ever occurred to critics that their reviews have no influence on how much money a movie grosses? For example; Robbin Williams in World's Greatest Dad was hailed as a masterpiece by numerous critics, but it was a nightmarish failure at the box office. Transformers 2 on the other hand was slandered by critics but it made more than $8 hundred million worldwide. Instead of a bunch of snobs who think they know everything there is about making good media, why can't we just have people who analyze media for certain themes or notable characteristics certain media has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Nintendo Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Well...guess I'll have to stop watching the Nostalgia Critic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Well...guess I'll have to stop watching the Nostalgia Critic... I've only seen a little bit of that show and hated it. Just from hearing quotes from him I knew he was unbearable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 You are failing to grasp what makes a movie "good". A good movie has a certain set of objective criteria it must meet in story, pacing, atmosphere, special effects, music, and suspension of disbelief in order to be good. Good movies do NOT though always make money, and similarly just because a movie makes good revenue does not make it good. That's just common sense, there. Critics are generally not snobs, they are educated persons on visual storytelling, and to further the point in, just because a movie is good doesn't mean you're obligated to LIKE it at any stretch. You're being fairly narrow-minded yourself when you just call all critics as whiny snobs with a bias towards a specific genre, especially since to be a good critic you can't be biased at all (to the best of your ability). And the Nostalgia Critic is -satirical-, so if you actually take him seriously you probably deserve to get pissed off about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 You are failing to grasp what makes a movie "good". A good movie has a certain set of objective criteria it must meet in story, pacing, atmosphere, special effects, music, and suspension of disbelief in order to be good. Good movies do NOT though always make money, and similarly just because a movie makes good revenue does not make it good. That's just common sense, there. Critics are generally not snobs, they are educated persons on visual storytelling, and to further the point in, just because a movie is good doesn't mean you're obligated to LIKE it at any stretch. You're being fairly narrow-minded yourself when you just call all critics as whiny snobs with a bias towards a specific genre, especially since to be a good critic you can't be biased at all (to the best of your ability). And the Nostalgia Critic is -satirical-, so if you actually take him seriously you probably deserve to get pissed off about it. Well wouldn't it make more sense to get critiques from somebody who actually has made movies before? Shouldn't they be more educated than some lowlife snob who's cynical about everything in life itself (eg. Roger Ebert, James Rolfe)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The thing you are decribing is a simple case of being out of touch. See, professional critics don't love films or games or whatever, rather they are a 9 to 5 job for them, they have to not only complete a game, but write about it, and as such what they like changes from the 'real' people. They like games that are short and distinctive. It's a bit like if your job was to review orange juice, when you come across a coke you hail it as the best juice ever simply because you are sick of ornage juice. However, someone who only drinks juice once every few days tries it, it doesn't taste like juice at all. As for films, see this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/2719-The-Kings-Speech Also, you don't have to have made games or films to review them. This is assuming reviews are intended to inform a purchasing choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 As for films, see this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/2719-The-Kings-Speech Also, you don't have to have made games or films to review them. This is assuming reviews are intended to inform a purchasing choice. 1. That review of The King's Speech proves my point of who critics are. 2. "Also, you don't have to have made games or films to review them.". Ugh, this again. You remember how a high school art teacher is qualified to teach art? They're actual artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 1. That review of The King's Speech proves my point of who critics are. I don't follow. It's a bad film (or so I've heard) that the critics love, the clip explains why. 2. "Also, you don't have to have made games or films to review them.". Ugh, this again. You remember how a high school art teacher is qualified to teach art? They're actual artists. You don't have to be a chef to know what food tastes nice. They are not teaching film making, rather reviewing the film to say if it's good or not. I believe the critics are out of touch at best and on the take at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I don't follow. It's a bad film (or so I've heard) that the critics love, the clip explains why. You don't have to be a chef to know what food tastes nice. They are not teaching film making, rather reviewing the film to say if it's good or not. I believe the critics are out of touch at best and on the take at worst. Exactly another of my points. I still liked the Transformers movies because of the onscreen action and robots, not caring about there not being a story meant to make you think or not. Does that make me an idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 No. Although to say you have to to have made films in order to have an opinion on them is a bit mental. It's a bit like saying "Did you make transformers 2? No? Then you can't have an opinion on it.", if that is your justification for liking it then yes, you are an idiot. But, while I don't like transformers 2 myself, what you say is exactly the point I mentioned in my last post, that professional critics are out of touch. Fun fact, critics didn't like The Thing when it first came out, and that's known today as a film classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Another fun fact: There's a difference between sharing your opinion and forcing it on others bluntly, like what critics do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Critics don't force there opinions. You have to seek them out. The ebert bloke you mentioned. No idea who he was till he started talking crap about games. That was forcing his opinion because no one was asking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Another fun fact: There's a difference between sharing your opinion and forcing it on others bluntly, like what critics do. Do these critics force you to listen to them? Do they come to your house and pester you until you finally cave and read/watch what they have to say about films or games or what have you? No? Then kindly stop complaining. Also, I find it quite hypocritical of you to make what is, for all intents and purposes, a topic meant to criticize critics and say they're snobs. All a critic does is say whether or not they liked something and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Critics don't force there opinions. You have to seek them out. The ebert bloke you mentioned. No idea who he was till he started talking crap about games. That was forcing his opinion because no one was asking for it. He's also a filthy anti-Semite for liking The Passion of The Christ, the most hated movie by just about everybody else. That must explain his attitude towards Rob Schneider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Also, I find it quite hypocritical of you to make what is, for all intents and purposes, a topic meant to criticize critics and say they're snobs. All a critic does is say whether or not they liked something and why. I'm going to have to agree with Xort on this one; A critic simply watches and shares his/her experiences with a movie; they're not forcing the matter on you, and your opinion may differ from theirs. It's always good to see another take on something also! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 I'm going to have to agree with Xort on this one; A critic simply watches and shares his/her experiences with a movie; they're not forcing the matter on you, and your opinion may differ from theirs. It's always good to see another take on something also! They release their opinions in the media, giving movies terrible publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 They release their opinions in the media, giving movies terrible publicity. But you don't have to view that media And any publicity, whether terrible or good, usually turns out good for the movie; bad publicity and/or controversy will actually make some WANT to see a movie. __ And as for that Transformers 2 example; if you're a member of the general public you'd love it, BUT if you are either a Transformers fan (especially from the 80s cartoon) or someone who is looking for a coherent plot, excellent characterization, etc, you're going to despise it :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 He's also a filthy anti-Semite for liking The Passion of The Christ, the most hated movie by just about everybody else. That must explain his attitude towards Rob Schneider. Wait, what? That didn't come out of left field, rather out of the stands. There is so much in those 2 sentences that I'm not even going to ask. I'm going to have to agree with Xort on this one; A critic simply watches and shares his/her experiences with a movie; they're not forcing the matter on you, and your opinion may differ from theirs This. Although, as already stated, the opinions themselves are questionable. And as for that Transformers 2 example; if you're a member of the general public you'd love it, BUT if you are either a Transformers fan (especially from the 80s cartoon) or someone who is looking for a coherent plot, excellent characterization, etc, you're going to despise it Or any quality at all. It's amazing that a film where nothing happens can be so confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkyway64 Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Sure is a lot of baaaw and hypocrisy in this thread. As Xort already pointed out, nobody makes you watch anything and your criticising the critics makes you a "whiny snob" too. Just as people are different, so are critics. Spoony and Angry Joe for instance have wildly varying opinions (and in Joe's case, Sabre, he HATES when a game is short)in films and games, and yes, like Rob said they look at things professionally and evaluate the worth of a game or movie. You don't have to agree, but their opinion is valid and was arrived at through good thought. Well wouldn't it make more sense to get critiques from somebody who actually has made movies before? Shouldn't they be more educated than some lowlife snob who's cynical about everything in life itself (eg. Roger Ebert, James Rolfe)? Then you HAD to go and say this bit. "Low life snob?" Get the hell off your high horse, now. And if you payed any attention -at allllll- you'd see that reveiwers DO make their own movies. It's called the very reveiws themselves. Yeah, it's called editing, shooting their own footage, writing their lines, and in Jame's Rolfe's case especially, directing the over the top and just silly fight scenes. And hey, a lot of reveiwers do things OTHER than reveiw! Nostalgia Critic and half the cast at TGWTG.com made a full length three hour film! And I haven't even touched on how a lot of reveiwers are entertainment first, actual opinion second. James Rolfe has explicitly stated that he actually likes some of the games he has trashed, and I certainly don't think the Nostalgia critic has hated a movie so bad that it made him lose his voice. For coming into the Counter Point with this, you sure haven't done your homework or any thinking at all for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 He's also a filthy anti-Semite for liking The Passion of The Christ, the most hated movie by just about everybody else. That must explain his attitude towards Rob Schneider. How is that anti-Semitic? As I've stated before, I'm no Bible scholar, but to me it just seemed to be a pretty accurate representation of a scene from the Bible. One of the most important ones in the entire damn book, too. They release their opinions in the media, giving movies terrible publicity. As Crazy already said, no publicity is bad publicity. Also, it's up to each individual to decide whether they are going to take the review as fact or take it with a grain of salt. I farking love Yahtzee, and several of his videos make many valid points against games that I otherwise like and he despises. And this entire statement - and, to be quite honest, this entire topic - reeks of whiny fanboyism. You're basically saying that the only reviews that should be allowed are ones that praise movies, and others shouldn't be allowed. That's closed-minded, and all things considered, it seems like you're just upset that a critic gave a movie you liked a bad review or something. That may not be the case, but it's certainly the vibe you're giving off here. Or any quality at all. It's amazing that a film where nothing happens can be so confusing. Confusing, maybe, but we got to see cool cars get blown up. Cool cars and explosions. How can you not like it? [/stereotypicalAmerican] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Well wouldn't it make more sense to get critiques from somebody who actually has made movies before? Shouldn't they be more educated than some lowlife snob who's cynical about everything in life itself (eg. Roger Ebert, James Rolfe)? That's like saying only artists can review art, and only musicians can review music, and only game developers can review games, herpderp. Secondly, Roger Ebert is not cynical. On the contrary, he's actually a pretty happy guy. Same for James Rolfe, who is very down to earth and relaxed compared to his Angry Nerd alter-ego, and is honestly a fairly unprofessional reviewer (he praises films for their entertainment factor more than their objective standards). Critics don't force their opinions on anyone bluntly. They're saying what is objectively good and bad. The Transformers movies are bad (this includes the 1986 animated film) from an objective point of view. Their plots are silly contrived messes to sell toys about robots beating each other up. And I happen to -love- them. There is no shame in liking something "bad", because bad just means it violates objective criteria. And I am not even going to wonder what the -dicks- you are talking about with the Passion of the Christ. I loved that film, I guess I must be an anti-Semite too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 And I am not even going to wonder what the -dicks- you are talking about with the Passion of the Christ. I loved that film, I guess I must be an anti-Semite too. Two words: Mel Gibson. That should give you an idea why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorAllosaurus Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 How the hell is James Rolfe a lowlife? Watch a few of the documentaries he's done and then try and tell me he's scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARWINGCOMMANDER 3987 Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 Okay so I was wrong about movie critics. Most of them at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Two words: Mel Gibson. That should give you an idea why. 1st of all: Mel Gibson is only an alleged anti-Semite. 2nd of all: How does liking a movie make me share his ideals? Am I a raging atheist for liking Joss Whedon's Firefly? Am I homosexual for enjoying Ian McKellan in Lord of the Rings? Seriously guy. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts