Howdy folks, this is AnneKrog again.
This time, I would like to review.. reviewers. Same with my debute review of Sucker-Punch
*shameless plug*
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.273659-AnneKrog-Reviews-Sucker-Punch-2011
*/endplug*
I would like to state that this will be a long, rambling, sometimes scary, self-important review where you, the user, can make up yer own damn mind instead of listening to someone whose values, as close as they be to your own, aren't your own.
Reviewers, as of late, are pissing me off. There, I said it. Movie Bob, I don't always agree with you, but at least you look beyond the absolutely shallowest possible view of the movies. So please ignore my scathing scathes.
My people! Matrix currently has a 73% on metacritic, including such reviews as 'There's not much humor to keep it all life-size, and by the final stretch it's become bloated, mechanical, and tiresome'. 300 is currently at 51% metacritic. Sucker Punch is at 35% on metacritic.
What do all of these movies have in common? The *user* reviews all dominate the critic reviews by a huge margin! This applies to games, movies, and just about anything else that can be rated non-objectively.
So why is this an issue? The issue is that these people are supposed to be the ones who hold the yardstick and tell us if a movie is worth seeing. These are the people who often *get paid* to tell us what to watch and what to play. The problem is, how often do they actually speak for YOU.
The problem with the above movies and reviewers is a composition of pre-determined outcomes, weight on people who don't matter to us, suspension of ____, and target audience. Allow me to elaborate! (as if you had as choice).
Pre-determined outcome; the majority of viewers that I see reviews from seem to go into a movie knowing what they intend to rate it, and then rate AROUND it. We are all guilty of this, to a certain extent. We build up a huge hype in our minds, and either get it met or destroyed, or go in with no hype and get pleasantly surprised. The difference is, we don't voice our outcomes that way to a large audience. Or, better, we preface it with 'I expected this is be balls according to the 33% metacritic, but man did this movie rock!'
I don't see a solution for reviewers getting around this fundamental human characteristic. We, as people, judge things based on what we expect the outcome to be - this is a biological survival mechanism. But when it comes to entertainment, this is something that can be overcome through the biggest and hardest thing we as humans can do - getting over yourself.
Weight on people who don't matter to us; most of the time, when a rave review says 'Michael Bay did it again!' I have absolutely no frickin clue who that is. I think he did Transformers. The problem is, this leads back to the pre-determined outcome. The reviewers aren't asking you to weigh the movie by itself, no! They are asking you to weight it as something *by this person*. I wish I had a potent example, but, I don't know directors. But I do know some actors kinda! Now, remove my ovaries, if you will, but I hated Titanic. I truly did. But I loved Gangs of New York. Both movies, whats-his-nuts sucked in them. It wasn't until Shutter Island that I even remotely liked Leo DiCaprio. But you know what? It wasn't his acting that made or breaked (poor sentence is poor) the movie, it was a collaborative effort. Inception wasn't about Leo, it was about the entire cast! So why do we place do damn much merit on ONE person in a movie?
Critics, you need to take a serious step back and start judging movies by their own insular merit. Each movie is its OWN movie. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 500 greatest movies of all time starring this guy directed by this guy, and where this stands. I'm asking you to tell me if this movie, who happened to star this guy and be directed by this guy, is worth dropping 12 bucks for.
Suspension of ____. This is a hard one because most reviewers are so alien to what they are reviewing, they can't suspend their own mind. Lets call it 'enjoyment factor'. Having worked in beta (and alpha.. and post..) testing for games, I know how hard it is to objectively rate something when you have been entrenched in it for so long. People fundamentally want to stay where they are. You, in the real world, would never wish to see someone get impaled by a spear and then have their limbs cut off. But in a game or movie? That's exactly what I want to see! I am willing to suspend my morality, my ethics, and enjoy watching Saw (uh.. kinda). When I watch a horror, I want to lose myself in it and be scared off my ass. I *want* to be so scared I will have nightmares. That's the suspension. The problem is, reviewers don't want to suspend, because, they are being paid to critique something.
Or are they?
Did you ask them to review? Or to critique? When they come out, do you want to know how bad the cinemetography is, or do you want to know if it was worth the 12 bucks?
Last point - target audience. I will say this in the bluntest way possible. Yahtzee should never review a sports game, I should never review a flight sim, and Bob should never review the next Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants movie. Why? Because these weren't made for us. They aren't for us to enjoy. There may be times when they were created for us to enjoy, but for the most part, they aren't the target audience.
I go to work every day, and I do tech support for people who don't know what a USB is. Who get to drive cars. 2,000 lbs of metal and explosives. But dont know what a USB is. *shudder*. I then go home and want to spend the next 5 hours blowing away zombies, rescuing hostages from the Devouring Earth, and watching Big Bang Theory. 300 was made for me. Matrix was made for me. Titanic was NOT made for me.
Let me explain myself a small amount here. I am not saying that people shouldn't go into unfamiliar territory and review it. I am saying that if you know you do not enjoy a particular ____, then if you review it, you need to make damn sure that people know ahead of time that you dont enjoy ____. If I went in and reviewed Bejeweled, which I don't enjoy, and I came out saying it was a bad game, how much weight can you put on it? Millions (or billions, whatever) of people love it. Why didn't I enjoy it? Because it isn't *for me*. I need to preface it and make damn sure people who that it isn't *for me*. See point 3 for why this matters.
Why does any of this matter, you might ask yourself. Well, because of this - we are being told, by so many people, that things are good or bad based on misinformation. If they don't enjoy the movie, FINE, don't enjoy it. But to tell me that there is no meaning, no point, when I can find a HUGE depth of meaning and terrifying level of humanism in a movie made for violence? Maybe the reviewers aren't doing their job.
People, I want you to do something very simple. Go see Sucker Punch. Enjoy the movie, hate the movie, whatever you want. But judge it on its own merits. Not on what you think you should enjoy. Not what they say is excessive or wrong. But on what you think makes a great movie shine.
-AnneKrog from Burnaby
This time, I would like to review.. reviewers. Same with my debute review of Sucker-Punch
*shameless plug*
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.273659-AnneKrog-Reviews-Sucker-Punch-2011
*/endplug*
I would like to state that this will be a long, rambling, sometimes scary, self-important review where you, the user, can make up yer own damn mind instead of listening to someone whose values, as close as they be to your own, aren't your own.
Reviewers, as of late, are pissing me off. There, I said it. Movie Bob, I don't always agree with you, but at least you look beyond the absolutely shallowest possible view of the movies. So please ignore my scathing scathes.
My people! Matrix currently has a 73% on metacritic, including such reviews as 'There's not much humor to keep it all life-size, and by the final stretch it's become bloated, mechanical, and tiresome'. 300 is currently at 51% metacritic. Sucker Punch is at 35% on metacritic.
What do all of these movies have in common? The *user* reviews all dominate the critic reviews by a huge margin! This applies to games, movies, and just about anything else that can be rated non-objectively.
So why is this an issue? The issue is that these people are supposed to be the ones who hold the yardstick and tell us if a movie is worth seeing. These are the people who often *get paid* to tell us what to watch and what to play. The problem is, how often do they actually speak for YOU.
The problem with the above movies and reviewers is a composition of pre-determined outcomes, weight on people who don't matter to us, suspension of ____, and target audience. Allow me to elaborate! (as if you had as choice).
Pre-determined outcome; the majority of viewers that I see reviews from seem to go into a movie knowing what they intend to rate it, and then rate AROUND it. We are all guilty of this, to a certain extent. We build up a huge hype in our minds, and either get it met or destroyed, or go in with no hype and get pleasantly surprised. The difference is, we don't voice our outcomes that way to a large audience. Or, better, we preface it with 'I expected this is be balls according to the 33% metacritic, but man did this movie rock!'
I don't see a solution for reviewers getting around this fundamental human characteristic. We, as people, judge things based on what we expect the outcome to be - this is a biological survival mechanism. But when it comes to entertainment, this is something that can be overcome through the biggest and hardest thing we as humans can do - getting over yourself.
Weight on people who don't matter to us; most of the time, when a rave review says 'Michael Bay did it again!' I have absolutely no frickin clue who that is. I think he did Transformers. The problem is, this leads back to the pre-determined outcome. The reviewers aren't asking you to weigh the movie by itself, no! They are asking you to weight it as something *by this person*. I wish I had a potent example, but, I don't know directors. But I do know some actors kinda! Now, remove my ovaries, if you will, but I hated Titanic. I truly did. But I loved Gangs of New York. Both movies, whats-his-nuts sucked in them. It wasn't until Shutter Island that I even remotely liked Leo DiCaprio. But you know what? It wasn't his acting that made or breaked (poor sentence is poor) the movie, it was a collaborative effort. Inception wasn't about Leo, it was about the entire cast! So why do we place do damn much merit on ONE person in a movie?
Critics, you need to take a serious step back and start judging movies by their own insular merit. Each movie is its OWN movie. I'm not asking you to make a list of the 500 greatest movies of all time starring this guy directed by this guy, and where this stands. I'm asking you to tell me if this movie, who happened to star this guy and be directed by this guy, is worth dropping 12 bucks for.
Suspension of ____. This is a hard one because most reviewers are so alien to what they are reviewing, they can't suspend their own mind. Lets call it 'enjoyment factor'. Having worked in beta (and alpha.. and post..) testing for games, I know how hard it is to objectively rate something when you have been entrenched in it for so long. People fundamentally want to stay where they are. You, in the real world, would never wish to see someone get impaled by a spear and then have their limbs cut off. But in a game or movie? That's exactly what I want to see! I am willing to suspend my morality, my ethics, and enjoy watching Saw (uh.. kinda). When I watch a horror, I want to lose myself in it and be scared off my ass. I *want* to be so scared I will have nightmares. That's the suspension. The problem is, reviewers don't want to suspend, because, they are being paid to critique something.
Or are they?
Did you ask them to review? Or to critique? When they come out, do you want to know how bad the cinemetography is, or do you want to know if it was worth the 12 bucks?
Last point - target audience. I will say this in the bluntest way possible. Yahtzee should never review a sports game, I should never review a flight sim, and Bob should never review the next Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants movie. Why? Because these weren't made for us. They aren't for us to enjoy. There may be times when they were created for us to enjoy, but for the most part, they aren't the target audience.
I go to work every day, and I do tech support for people who don't know what a USB is. Who get to drive cars. 2,000 lbs of metal and explosives. But dont know what a USB is. *shudder*. I then go home and want to spend the next 5 hours blowing away zombies, rescuing hostages from the Devouring Earth, and watching Big Bang Theory. 300 was made for me. Matrix was made for me. Titanic was NOT made for me.
Let me explain myself a small amount here. I am not saying that people shouldn't go into unfamiliar territory and review it. I am saying that if you know you do not enjoy a particular ____, then if you review it, you need to make damn sure that people know ahead of time that you dont enjoy ____. If I went in and reviewed Bejeweled, which I don't enjoy, and I came out saying it was a bad game, how much weight can you put on it? Millions (or billions, whatever) of people love it. Why didn't I enjoy it? Because it isn't *for me*. I need to preface it and make damn sure people who that it isn't *for me*. See point 3 for why this matters.
Why does any of this matter, you might ask yourself. Well, because of this - we are being told, by so many people, that things are good or bad based on misinformation. If they don't enjoy the movie, FINE, don't enjoy it. But to tell me that there is no meaning, no point, when I can find a HUGE depth of meaning and terrifying level of humanism in a movie made for violence? Maybe the reviewers aren't doing their job.
People, I want you to do something very simple. Go see Sucker Punch. Enjoy the movie, hate the movie, whatever you want. But judge it on its own merits. Not on what you think you should enjoy. Not what they say is excessive or wrong. But on what you think makes a great movie shine.
-AnneKrog from Burnaby
