About Critics (Part 1)

[TheRobotandtheBeast]

After reading the first paragraph of this story i'm obligated to write this next sentence.

Hi Bob.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I don't have any problems with you holding films to a higher standard, or being vitriolic about cash in sequels (which are usually entertaining in fact), the biggest recurring problem is your dismissal of people who enjoy films like that. You conflate anyone who enjoys The Expendables, Michael Bay films or Fast 5 as "Douchebags" quite often. Aside from the fact that there's no accounting for tastes, there's nothing wrong with people wanting movies they can switch their brain off for, and downright insulting everyone based on their tastes just makes you come off like, frankly, a bit of a dick.

I'm not saying you need to change your whole schtick, because you usually do have some good insights on movies, but your whole "Us vs them" mentality has got to stop.

Nothing wrong with paying $12 (more in other countries) to go to a cinema and turn your brain off?!

Nothing at all.

Explain to me the problem?

 

[olicon]

And yet nothing in this article explains the lying, backpedaling, arrogance, and numerous other issues that people have actually complained about - but instead concentrates on the easiest, most shallow topics on hand.

And even those topics are brushed off with the same air of faux superiority and arrogance. People aren't pissing on your stuff because they "don't get the job of a critic" or "don't understand what makes for a good movie", it's because you don't seem to get that either, but somehow they're paying you money for said ignorance. When a review starts off with "this movie sucks, sucks sucks", and follows up with a semi-incoherent rant about one thing or another, without actual criticism, of course people are going to call you out on it. Especially when stuff is peppered with that Harry Knowles school of journalism leveled gleeful bending of the truth and flat out bullshit to make some kind of a point.

I think this is why he said part 1. These are always the first arguments that people bring up. I guess now he will slowly work his way to the more sensible ones with deeper discussion. Frankly though, I think someone up there must be agreeing with them, which is why they are paid to do the job. Have you ever considered the fact that maybe it is you in this case (and often, me) that is in the wrong?

Do people always get the movies? I know for a fact that they often don't. In The Simpsons movie, I laughed my ass off at the cinema in Thailand at the Spider Pig scene. I was the only one who even remotely got the reference, because I was the one of the few people in Thailand who watches The Simpsons religiously (Most never know that The Simpsons itself is a spinoff), and the only one of the few who actually knows the song to the original Spiderman. Was I wrong to be the only one who understands that sequence because I was more genre-savvy? Was I, in a way, being an elitist?

I think I understand what being a critic must feel like. I appreciate food. I have tasted cuisines from many cultures, and I have tried dishes unimaginable by most. My family is that of a true eater--we are one of those who would drive hours (in my country, that's traveling half the country) to try out different food. I feel that my palate is more distinguished than most of my friends. And when I hear them talk about food, it pains me. They often do not recognize the subtlety of taste, the ingredients, the after-flavor, the texture, or the presentation of the dishes. They just think I'm a total crackpot when I start raving about what good food should be.


I can't contribute much to the specifics on "film critics" though, as I don't actually watch that many films, and I don't read reviews. What I want to see though, is whether critics can be "bought off", as we often criticized the game reviewers, etc.

I would like to end by quoting a de-motivational poster here: It's lonely being at the top, but it's also comforting to look down on people.

 

[Calbeck]

If any of those reasons were why I disagree with Bob on various reviews, I wouldn't bother posting. Well, my bad for presuming he was addressing any complaints other than the standard "lol u suck" routines that never really need a response anyways.

 

[Altercator]

Dear Bob,

I hope you take your time to answer this one post, before you can continue with your saga on Movie Critics.

Lemme introduce myself first, I am from Malaysia, 30 years old, Pisces, have a steady job at a local retail bookstore and wish to make films someday.

I'm planning to raise some money to enter film school by doing movie reviews, and talking about films, and hopefully make movies in the near future.


Is it possible? Can a movie critic or reviewer become a filmmaker?

I understand there's a cautionary tale about movie critics becoming filmmakers.

Roger Ebert, right? That "games not art" guy? The movie critic from Chicago Tribune? Yeah, I heard he wrote a screenplay for "something...something...Valley of The Dolls," right?

But what about that other movie critic, some dude from France?
What's his name?

Jean-Luc Godard?

Yeah, I heard he was a movie critic & theorist before he went on to make films, and change the the course of film history, like Breathless (remade into a Richard Gere starrer), Pierrot le fou (also a title of a Cowboy Bebop episode) and ALphaville.

Well, I may not change film history, but at least I hope to make some simple films.

So again, is it possible for movie critics be movie makers?

 

[eels05]

Good on you Bob.
Theres a difference between a critic and a reviewer as I see it.

A critic attempts to place the object of their consideration into a more social perspective.

Whereas a reviewer just reviews the nuts and bolts job and gives a score out of ten.

Keep on truckin Bob.
Your one of my favourites on here.The place would be barren without you.

 

[Susan Arendt]

[
Hi, check out my title. Don't assume that because something is produced that doesn't match how you would handle it, that it hasn't already been through a quality control process. Bob will be the first to assure you that, yes, I keep a close eye on his stuff (I edit Intermission and produce both of his video series) and plenty gets changed. That said, I wouldn't dream of stifling Bob's creative voice. I don't always agree with what he says or how he says it, but I thoroughly respect his creative vision. The Escapist gives its content creators as much free reign as we can, so that they can express themselves without feeling like they have to fit into someone else's philosophy. We do have standards, of course, and in those instances when those standards are breached, things get changed. But by and large, we let people be who they want to be. An editor who imposes their voice on someone else is a bad editor.

Yes, Bob says things that piss people off. That's who Bob is. I could sanitize the hell out of his work and make it so that it makes everyone happy...and then it wouldn't be Bob's voice or thoughts anymore. It would be my version of his voice and thoughts. That does the creator a disservice and it goes against everything The Escapist stands for.

Well, that pretty much says it all. If this is already going on, then I'm apparently wrong, and it will be business as usual which I'm fine with despite piping up, as I do wind up tuning in pretty much every week. I was thinking that the editors were spending most of their time with the text articles.

Your happy with his product, and if your reviwing it, and deciding to pay him, it is after all your site, and your call.

The only bit I'm going to say, without the intent of starting an arguement I know I can't win, is that I think your misunderstanding my intent, perhaps because I conveyed by thoughts badly. I am not talking about forcing Bob or anyone to fit solidly within a given philsophy or not offend anyone, what I'm talking about is professionalism. There is a differance between being a critic and/or reviewer and being a bit irreverant about it, and using what is supposed to be a critique column on a specific subject as an attack platform.

I guess what I'm getting at is that if you pick up say "The New York Times" and read a review of a movie, you don't expect a rant about a movie that reviewed eight months ago, or an attack on the people who watched said movie knowing some of those people are your readership. To some extent I also look at what brought down Imus (well brought down is probably too strong a term, he's out there in private radio, and recovered nicely last time I checked). Basically the guy got a free hand, tons of complaints were filtered, and eventually it just got to the point where he dropped one straw too many the the guys paying him wound up with little choice in having to let him go, despite all the money he was making them. I believe that straw was some slurs thrown at a women's basketball team (Rutgers). We might disagree on how relevent examples like that are to this kind of discussion. In the end it comes down to where you wind up drawing the line, and how often you let people step over it.


It's your site, you don't have to agree with me. Obviously I don't see it as a big deal as I choose to continue to call your site and listen to these reviews. However when a topic like this comes up, I'm going to toss my opinion out there. There is apparently more oversight going on here than I thought, though in the end I guess I do think there should be more, and that it would actually improve the site. In the end it's not something I'm going to leave the site over though, or get into a knock down, drag out fight with the staff running a site I like to patronize (which is why I care enough to say anything to begin with).


Hopefully I'm conveying this correctly, and apologies for any distress I caused you.

We care very much about the quality of everything on The Escapist, and to suggest that something just plain wasn't getting looked at is, frankly, offensive.

You also seem to be confusing "professionalism" with presenting material a specific way. Bob is a consummate professional, whether you appreciate how he presents his opinion or not. If you want a more classic, middle of the road approach to reviewing movies - which would not be an unreasonable thing to want - there are plenty of movie critics out there that should suit your preference just fine. Part of Bob's appeal is that he isn't like that. He wears his personal biases on his sleeve, and shares them with the audience so that you always know exactly where he's coming from when he presents an opinion. Some people enjoy and appreciate that, others don't, and that's totally fair. But don't say he's unprofessional, because that simply isn't true.

 

[mr_rubino]

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...

Escapisteers are, on average, fiercely anti-intellectual.
That simple truth can be used to explain pretty much every seemingly inexplicable thing on this site. It's why people sling words like "elitist", "bias", and "pretentious" around as if the words actually mean anything anymore outside of "This discussion or position offends me and must be shouted down".

 

[Hitchmeister]

Dear MovieBob:

I don't always agree with your reviews. More often than not I do, but that's not important. What's important is that when I don't your column is still valuable to me. You're not a bad critic because you disagree with me. The important thing is, I'm looking for more than "thumbs up/down" or "4 stars" or "9.6." Most of your reviews take the general format of "I can/can't recommend this movie because ______." That blank is the important bit. I've read enough of your reviews to understand your taste and how they relate to mine. Sometimes you praise a movie for things I don't care about. Other times you dismiss a movie for things that don't bother me. And occasionally your biggest complaint about a movie is that it's just the sort of thing I'm looking for in that movie.

So, I will continue to read and enjoy your reviews. But at the same time I will sometimes go to and enjoy movies that you claim are very bad. I won't call you a bad reviews and you don't call me a bad movie goer just because our tastes sometime differ.

 

[Frylock72]

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?

This is late to the party, but whatever. My only problem with Moviebob was when he insulted everyone who enjoys the Fast and the Furious franchise for liking the movie. It's the same thing he did with the Michael Bay movie fanbase. While he did say that critics don't live in a vacuum, and I agree with that, he shouldn't be calling people douchebags just because he's paid to watch this movie and review it and he doesn't like the franchise.

He should be reviewing the movie on its merits/flaws alone without ever touching on the people who actually like or dislike the movie. It just shows that he can't keep his emotions and preconceptions clear enough of the movies to give a review of it. Clear enough in the sense that he tries not to let it color it completely (a la the review of Fast Five).

 

[Skyy High]

I think everyone who thinks Bob hates everything popular and successful needs to rewatch his 2012 review....the review part, not the intro bit. The G.I. Joe review works well here, too. It really cuts to the core of what I think he was saying: there are good bad movies, and then there are bad bad movies. Throwing millions at the latter when there are plenty of the former (or, you know, just good movies) around results in more bad bad movies being made, at the expense of everything else. The excuse "I like to shut my brain off" is ridiculous, as I've already said, because there is plenty of mindless entertainment out there that _isn't_ terrible.

As a sidebar: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, since this is the Internet, there are at least a few (and, statistically, probably more) of the "omg he insulted us for liking crappy movies!!!" crowd who has, at one point or another, put down Twilight and its (rabid) fans. My evidence for this is that Bob was just as hard, if not worse, on those movies, their creator, and its fanbase as he was on the Fast Five audience, and yet no one has called him on it, at least not here. So....hypocritical, much? I mean, you can't find a more insulted fanbase right now, and yet very few people (who aren't themselves fans of the book) ever seems to care whenever the Twilight bashing starts. I say this as someone who's done quite a bit of it myself.

 

[PlasticTree]

Let me be blunt: If we weren't so jaded, things would almost never get better. That, in the end, is our job - nay, our duty. Movie studios, like all businesses, take the path of least resistance, and they'd be all too happy to take advantage of the average person's inability/disinclination to see everything and just keep giving you the same five movies over and over again. Smug, impossible-to-please know-it-alls like me, frankly, keep them from doing that - perhaps only a little - by sharing our informed opinions with people who might benefit from them.

The whole 'keeping film makers in line'-idea could very well be a great benefit of the existence of film critics, but I think you make an integral mistake by thinking it's anything else than a side effect. For a god-like person who rules over our society, this would indeed be the reason of your existence, but for you personally (and for every other film critic), your main goal is nothing more than being an added value for your audience to the magazine/website/other medium you write for. This is done by providing your audience with 2 things:
- Entertainment;
- Useful info about movies. This can be anything from your opinion, which we can compare to ours, to plain info about the movie itself.

If you can fulfill these goals with a main focus on stimulating film makers to enhance the quality and originality of their movies then that's fine. If you can reach both your own, much more 'noble' goal and the goals I mentioned, then that's fine. But just don't forget why wé are here.

Not that that's what you are doing with your movies and articles, and in my opinion your job can still be a challenging, 'intellectual', respectable profession, but I always get itchy when I see people pretend that their job is done for a higher cause. Especially when it's not.

 

[Boba Frag]

Great article, Bob.
I'm grateful that you've ignored some of my criticisms of various points you've made in the past that I heartily disagreed with- seriously, you seem well able to take it on the nose and I admire you for that.

More often than not I enjoy your stuff immensely- that's not hyperbole either.
Thoughtful, well reasoned and incisive criticism is something I treasure. More so since I moved away from buying film magazines like Empire and Total Film (prices like that? fat chance).

Keep up the good work and the entertaining criticisms coming.

Oh, and sad but true- I work in a movie theater. We sold out all of our showings of the Hangover Part 2.
*sighs*

 

[370999]

I'm soory but I'm a bit disapointed by this article. IMHO none of these have any been an issue that I or if I may be so bold, most people at large have ever really had with MovieBob. I can't shake the feeling he has purposely picked the ridicuous complaints in an effort to make a strawman of anyoen complaining about his show. While understandable I do feel this shows a certain lack of confidence if he iis unwilling to address the major concerns.

 

[MovieBob]

Dear Bob,

I hope you take your time to answer this one post, before you can continue with your saga on Movie Critics.

Lemme introduce myself first, I am from Malaysia, 30 years old, Pisces, have a steady job at a local retail bookstore and wish to make films someday.

I'm planning to raise some money to enter film school by doing movie reviews, and talking about films, and hopefully make movies in the near future.


Is it possible? Can a movie critic or reviewer become a filmmaker?

I understand there's a cautionary tale about movie critics becoming filmmakers.

Roger Ebert, right? That "games not art" guy? The movie critic from Chicago Tribune? Yeah, I heard he wrote a screenplay for "something...something...Valley of The Dolls," right?

But what about that other movie critic, some dude from France?
What's his name?

Jean-Luc Godard?

Yeah, I heard he was a movie critic & theorist before he went on to make films, and change the the course of film history, like Breathless (remade into a Richard Gere starrer), Pierrot le fou (also a title of a Cowboy Bebop episode) and ALphaville.

Well, I may not change film history, but at least I hope to make some simple films.

So again, is it possible for movie critics be movie makers?

Of course it is.

Part of the reason you don't see it very often is that A.) conventional film-criticism - or any kind of "reporting" journalism - takes up a tremendous amount of time, so it's often difficult for someone to do that job in a capacity that they can earn a living AND work the even more time-consuming job of actually making a movie; and B.) most critics who transition into filmmaking end up leaving criticism behind because they find the "business side" of the two industries end up clashing in the view of some, i.e. readers asking "does he like this actor because they're buddies and worked on another movie together" or "who's HE to talk, his last movie sucked!"

A close modern example of this might be Quentin Tarantino, who is writing about movies and doing interviews about movies and organizing screenings "in between" his movies - but keep in mind, he's sometimes had as much as FOUR YEARS without actually making a film.

In other words: YES, it's entirely possible to be a critic-turned-filmmaker... but is it possible to be Roger Ebert and Steven Spielberg at the same time? Probably not

 

[repeating integers]

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.

That's not at all the point. A movie doesn't have to be The King's Speech to be a good film. I mean, look at the Fast and Furious movies. They are not good films. The plots suck, the acting is mediocre, the action is almost cartoony. But they are fun movies. That doesn't mean critics shouldn't slam them for what they are.

Call of Duty is one of the worst offenders in the video game arena for being formulaic and repetitive. They all have the same multiplayer and they all have pretty mediocre single player campaigns when you consider the scope of what video games have done - including single player FPS games. The franchise is pretty stagnant but people love it. People are also stupid. It should be slammed for being generic, for being yet another grey brown shooter, for having a same-old same-old multiplayer experience. That doesn't mean people shouldn't buy it, or like it, or play it. It just means it's not something to hold up as a shining example of video games... Games that are given 9/10 and 10/10 should be games we can all point to and say hey, look at that game. This is what video games are about, what they can be. CoD, as much fun as it is, is just a shitty action movie. It's fun, but it's dumb. I would think it deserves at best a 7.5 thanks to the amount of fun you can have, but otherwise..?

Also... how can a game critic possibly judge a game for enjoyment, something that is so personal and subjective? That doesn't take skill or knowledge. On that critera, my 8 year old cousin could be a great game reviewer. No, MovieBob is right. Reviewers need to delve into the nitty gritty details and look beyond if it's "fun" or not.

Personally, as a tremendous optimist towards most media (but especially films), the rather snobbish attitude of critics towards them is something I resent. You're right, a film doesn't have to be The King's Speech to be good - which is something critics don't seem to understand. I think movies should be judged based on how well they succeed at what they were attempting to do - which is subjective, of course, but near-everything about movie reviews is anyway. Pirates 4 wasn't trying to be artistic in any way, it shouldn't be bashed for this.

Calling CoD generic, yet-another-brown-shooter doesn't work as well when you realise it's responsible for that becoming generic in the first place, but I'll let that slide since it has indeed changed little. But it was always just trying to be your annual wartime romp which you play with your friends, and nothing deep or artistic. I will grant that it doesn't deserve 9s or 10s, because it takes a hell of a lot to deserve a 9 and an impossible amount to deserve a 10. But if game critics were like film critics, it would be in the 40%/100 range, which I feel it really doesn't deserve in the same way that Pirates 4 doesn't deserve its 45/100 rating on Metacritic right now.

 

[Chaos Incarnate]

Movie Bob your videos are by FAR my favorite on the Escapist, just being a Fanboy and saying dont worry about any criticism your videos are some of the few things on the internet that are hilarious and incredibly though provoking, so keep doing what you do. Looking forward to Tuesday

 

[Blind Sight]

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.

Thank you, that's pretty much one of my major issues with Moviebob's work. He openly insults people for having differing opinions then him, especially when it comes to subjects he uses in the 'Big Picture'. I mean, hell, Moviebob sure liked to defend Other M by calling people sexist because they had a problem with a character being in such a submissive position. Note that the people calling other M sexist were calling the game that, not the individuals who enjoyed it. Methinks Bob took that too personally.

My other problem is that Moviebob takes (more so in his Game Overthinker and Big Picture series) complex philosophical, political, or scientific issues or concepts and dumbs them down to a fairly basic level, ignoring a more in-depth analysis of some things (hell, just look at his Big Picture episode on genetically modified foods). I mean, he even does it in this article. Rather then take direct, legitimate points from viewers he instead writes an article where he discusses the most basic complaints he could possibly receive simply because they're easy to answer and it makes the complaints he receives seem petty. It's borderline manipulative and dishonest in my opinion.

Oh yeah, and he strawmans like mad. Good god the strawmans, Bob's got a frakking strawman army.