Movies: Why are you angry about movie critics?

[Shareefruck]

Oh, was that really an example of one? I don't know what a hot take technically is (click-bait titles?), but it just sounds so gross.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Oh, was that really an example of one? I don't know what a hot take technically is.

It's usually used sarcastically to someone who is repeating a statement that has already been made.

 

[Emperoreddy]

It's a reactionary and usually heavily opinionated title meant to stir emotions and get clicks.

Most of the time the title doesn't have a lot to do with the article which is usually more even keeled (though not always).

Happens way to often with sports and certain players.

Basically the Internet equivalent to scary news teases.

Rotten tomatoes as a site is prone to this because of its two term rating system (a review is either fresh or rotten. No middle ground) and come critics wanting find ways to stand out of the crowd).

It's the nature of business. When the business is clicks and it becomes more competitive it becomes harder for some to remain objective.

Most people don't really want well thought out reviews anyway. They want quick bites and easy to digest yes or no answers.

It's no surprise fanbases get upset by this because they have more invested. It's not just DC fans either. It's pretty much every major fanbase (or detractors which sometimes becomes an equally vocal group).

Petitions or ******** all over any bad review is going way to far. There are plenty of good critics that will give a legit bad review that don't deserve **** for it.

 

[NewtJorden]

I dont listen to critics because i love being able to create my own opinion instead of being told what it should be.

 

[Ouroboros]

I dont listen to critics because i love being able to create my own opinion instead of being told what it should be.

Why create a false dichotomy? It needn't be an either or proposition; you can read criticism and still maintain your own opinion. That's healthy.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah, I absolutely hate that perception, yet it's such a common one.

In my opinion, our tastes/opinions aren't really our own true tastes/opinions when we base them on stubbornly believing that every instinct and whim of ours is correct/representative/final and every immediate hangup is a flaw. Left to our own devices, I think we can only figure out a very premature idea of what we like. Our true tastes only begin to form and develop after we dive head first and actually start finding out about things, being curious/impressionable, considering other thoughts and feelings, and repeatedly realizing that we're wrong about all sorts of things that we may have initially thought was true, before finally having a real understanding of which ideas we end up connecting with and which we don't. When someone writes about why they love or hate something, even if they present it in a matter of fact way, they aren't telling you what to think is true, they're telling you what they think is true. You're not going to be brainwashed against your will. Just consider it and move on.

Being impressionable and being genuinely compelled/convinced of something, provided that it happens organically for the right reasons, is just about the most exciting and rewarding thing about music/film discovery. It's not what stops you from having a real opinion, it's the very thing that allows you to form a real and complete opinion. Alot of what happens before that is just mast**bation and self-purpetuating ignorance, in my experience.

I'm still guilty of it alot of the time, but it's a failing, and absolutely not something to be proud of.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I dont really mind critics, except when they try too hard to be witty in that opening paragraph, but I guess every writer has to put their own flair on things.

You also just have to keep in mind that critics are susceptible to group think and they lean towards certain genres.

For example there will be a handful of comedies rated highly, but those need like 17 rubber stamps to be approved.

I find parodies really go over their heads. Last Action Hero, Last Boy Scout, Scary Movie, Not another teen movie, Robin Hood Men in tights. Some of the best parody movies are not that well received.

Theres the exception with airplane or somrthing but generally theyre not very useful outside of certain genres

 

[Shareefruck]

The thing I do hate about critics is when they go off on elaborate tangents and musings about their own life experiences and try to build their review around that, I guess because they realize that putting something as abstract as the appeal of art into coherent words is sometimes an impossible task.

Pitchfork is the absolute worst at this. Sometimes it feels more like you're reading about a 17th century nobleman recounting how their frilly day went rather than anything about an actual album.

 

[Ouroboros]

The thing I do hate about critics is when they go off on elaborate tangents and musings about their own life experiences and try to build their review around that, I guess because they realize that putting something as abstract as the appeal of art into coherent words is sometimes an impossible task.

Pitchfork is the absolute worst at this. Sometimes it feels more like you're reading about a 17th century nobleman recounting how their frilly day went rather than anything about an actual album.

This is definitely annoying, but as you alluded to yourself - it's probably due in large part to the inherent difficulties of writing about music. Musical language is abstract - much more so than the visual arts. It's easy to listen to an album, assign a score out of 5.0 and then move on - but that isn't very informative. You do exactly that in the album rating thread here. On the other hand, if you had to write 1200 word on an album where would you even begin? It's difficult.

Juts for clarification's sake - I don't mean that comment about posting album scores in a bad way. I do it too - but it's probably not an accident that there is basically no discussion occurring in that thread, and it becomes even more obvious when you compare it to it's film counterpart.

 

[Shareefruck]

This is definitely annoying, but as you alluded to yourself - it's probably due in large part to the inherent difficulties of writing about music. Musical language is abstract - much more so than the visual arts. It's easy to listen to an album, assign a score out of 5.0 and then move on - but that isn't very informative. You do exactly that in the album rating thread here. On the other hand, if you had to write 1200 word on an album where would you even begin? It's difficult.

Juts for clarification's sake - I don't mean that comment about posting album scores in a bad way. I do it too - but it's probably not an accident that there is basically no discussion occurring in that thread, and it becomes even more obvious when you compare it to it's film counterpart.

Oh I agree, I hate breaking down and trying to explain music in alot of cases (and admittedly, I'm hopeless at it, so I don't bother, other than just throwing lists of adjectives when something gets me excited), but to me, this suggests that unless music critics can figure out a way around that (which, to be fair, many of them do a great job of focusing on the music itself and actually explaining why it's significant/inspired-- The limitations of my capabilities shouldn't be the bar ), the attempt itself seems pretty silly/nonsensical/obnoxious and maybe the format shouldn't be that in the first place. People shouldn't humor/excuse the result just because the parameters that are set up for them are inappropriate and they, perhaps reasonably can't make it work.

If that's the level, I almost wish music critics were more up-front about it and just wrote a fifty word reviews that are basically just "Look, this album is goddamn amazing-- here is the best way that I can attempt to explain why, but it isn't going to do it justice anyways, so just listen to it and I'll spare you my life story."

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The thing I do hate about critics is when they go off on elaborate tangents and musings about their own life experiences and try to build their review around that, I guess because they realize that putting something as abstract as the appeal of art into coherent words is sometimes an impossible task.

Pitchfork is the absolute worst at this. Sometimes it feels more like you're reading about a 17th century nobleman recounting how their frilly day went rather than anything about an actual album.

While I agree that there are critics out there that go waaaayy too far down the navel gazing spectrum, I do think our life experiences shape our perceptions/reactions to art and media. It's not the only thing, but it certainly is a thing.

 

[syz]

Hume was on to the beginnings of something true when he touched on judgments of preference vs. judgments of taste, although the notion of "taste" was ultimately never something that was worked through satisfactorily.

People who are upset with critics at any point need to take two steps. First: to realize that the opinion of a critic or group of critics does not/cannot/should not harm your enjoyment of something.

The second step is to be able to admit that something you like might actually be bad, at least in part--and that that's fine.

 

[Shareefruck]

While I agree that there are critics out there that go waaaayy too far down the navel gazing spectrum, I do think our life experiences shape our perceptions/reactions to art and media. It's not the only thing, but it certainly is a thing.

I agree, but personally, I have never read a Pitchfork review where learning about the reviewer's life experiences as it relates to an album actually ends up communicating anything to me about the album that is relevant to me and that I can actually latch onto. Perhaps it can be done, but I haven't come across it. My own experiences shape how I feel about an album, but is that information of much use to anyone but myself (as something that isn't just a human interest story)? Maybe a little bit, but I don't know if it's enough to justify building a whole album review around it.

To me, it's a bit like a movie reviewer writing a review based around what dream he had after he watched a film. What? You're a professional critic? Why are you telling me this?

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

I dont listen to critics because i love being able to create my own opinion instead of being told what it should be.

I like looking at a score like rotten tomatoes or the general thumbs up or thumbs down from back in the day just to get an idea of if people like or dislike the movie, but I don't like reading much about a movie before I see it. Hell, sometimes the trailers give to much away.

Basically, I want to decide if I want to see a movie or not and than not read or see anything about it until I do.

 

[karnige]

I have never listened to critics. I'll make my own judgement. I'll either want to watch it or I won't. i t has to be a movie I really want to see if I go to the theater though. usually bigger budget ones.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

To me, it's a bit like a movie reviewer writing a review based around what dream he had after he watched a film. What? You're a professional critic? Why are you telling me this?

Hahahaha. Ugh, that sounds awful.

 

[wedge]

I don't care...
critics look for the artistic side. I'm looking to me entertained and pass a good time. Was Suicide Squad perfect? Hell no! Did I have a good time when I saw it? yes I did.

I'll follow user ratings from a couple sites waaaay before listening to critics.

 

[BonMorrison]

I don't care...
critics look for the artistic side. I'm looking to me entertained and pass a good time. Was Suicide Squad perfect? Hell no! Did I have a good time when I saw it? yes I did.

I'll follow user ratings from a couple sites waaaay before listening to critics.

The artistic side? If that's another way of saying "intellectually challenging films", that's not even close to true. Lots of brainless action movies over the decades have gotten great reviews.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I don't care...
critics look for the artistic side. I'm looking to me entertained and pass a good time. Was Suicide Squad perfect? Hell no! Did I have a good time when I saw it? yes I did.

I'll follow user ratings from a couple sites waaaay before listening to critics.

Reviews that focus on a grade are so meh.

Tell me what you thought about the movie, why bother rating it?

 

[PeteWorrell]

I don't care...
critics look for the artistic side. I'm looking to me entertained and pass a good time. Was Suicide Squad perfect? Hell no! Did I have a good time when I saw it? yes I did.

I'll follow user ratings from a couple sites waaaay before listening to critics.

Your description of critics fits the Academy Awards voters more than anything else.At least the critics will acknowledge what they consider a good comic book movie.You'll never see one of those win Best picture because Dramas are all that matter apparently.

 

[Shareefruck]

I find that things I love things that are perceived as being good because they're "artistic" or whatever often tend to actually be ultimately more "entertaining" to me than things that are labelled as just entertainment.

I don't think there's a real separated dichotomy between the two ideas like people suggest. Things that give you uncomplicated surface-level thrills and things that give you that profound/artistically inspired feeling both give you visceral entertainment/satisfaction to varying degrees. For me, the latter gives me a significantly higher magnitude of that. The latter is also more difficult to open up to (and I think that's where that wrong perception comes from, it's a conclusion that is only drawn from the case where it never opens up for someone), but when you do open up to it, the feeling isn't any less entertaining/satisfying than even the most andrenaline pumping blockbuster.

I find that people seem to have this misguided idea that art in movies/music is this technical/intellectual thing that is experienced in a detached, book-smart, "I appreciate it but don't actually enjoy it" way rather than a visceral way.

But it isn't anything like that at all. It feels more like an explosive, deep, probing, brain-orgasm that leaves a lasting and satisfying impression on you. It's both legitimately entertaining in and itself, as well as so much more as well.

Bodies that award acclaim only to dramas or Oscar-bait are not representative of that-- They're just morons.

When I look at a big dumb action movie or something like Walking Dead, I don't think "well, I was blown away by the entertainment value of it, but it isn't artistic enough. Therefore, I'm going to let my brain overrule my gut and deem it trash against my natural inclination." Instead, the genuine feeling I usually have is "well, it was only mildly, slightly entertaining in a very tepid and lukewarm way. If it was more artistic or carefully executed, it could be significantly more entertaining."

I don't agree that the other dichotomy really exists that much.