Proud to be Unpleasable?

[Rikun]

So many critics and wannabe critics in both print, online, and YouTube often pride themselves in having high standards. I've noticed too that when it comes to geek focused stuff (i.e. comics, movies, cartoons, video games, etc.) there are many nerds who wish to see the things they loved as kids elevated into something much more than mindless kiddie crap. However, I've also noticed that in this strive for excellence many critics have proudly built a standard that seems nigh unattainable these days. It's not enough that a movie is a ton of fun to watch, it has to be a breakthrough. It's not enough that a TV show is good, every episode must be more revolutionary than the last. It's not enough that a game is fun little romp, it has to be an earthshattering experience that'll forever change gaming as we know it. And for many people out there anything that falls less than these expectations is nothing but a sea of disappointment and a great cause for misery in the media.

I've heard the phrase, "Never be satisfied, always yearn for more" or some variation of that, but is it really a good thing to never be satisfied? Is there a sense of pride in being "that guy" who's impossible to please?

Perhaps it's because I've been watching too many exasperated reviewers complaining about every little thing about a show they like. Maybe it's because I've seen reviewers who can never bring themselves to give a movie they love a perfect score because perfect is an impossibility. Or maybe I've seen so many critics say, "I WANTED to like this, BUUUT...." that I wonder if they'd still complain if something was tailor made for their specifications.

I get that having high standards are good, but when do those standards become impossible even by a critic's admission? It really makes me wonder if we're going to have people turn back on established historical media classics and rip them apart just to prove that even the "greatest film/show/game in the world" isn't as great as we thought it was.

I want to hear from you guys if this "Proud to be Unpleasable" streak is really a thing or if it's just something I'm imagining. While it's great that high standards keep companies on their toes, is it really a good thing to be impossible to please?

Hope this can spark a discussion, especially if you yourself have fallen into the cycle I've just described to you.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Most people seem to take the stance that "I see flaws in this thing that you don't" is a mark of their superior analytic skills or some shit. Not everyone will see every flaw, and even among those who do see a flaw, how much it matters to them is entirely subjective. I respect critics like Angry Joe who preface almost every score with a reminder that it's just their opinion (because seriously some people NEED to be reminded of that), whereas the ones who take such a reminder for granted tend to have their meanings misconstrued often, like Spoony (though I still like Spoony because he's hilarious).

Professional critics who aren't all highbrow and douchey tend to do this pretty well. Break it down into amateur critics or hearsay, however, and people forget that their opinions won't be considered gospel by everyone and then they get all uppity.

For me, I'd say my standards are relatively but not dramatically lower than average. I like a lot of stuff most people would be hesitant to admit to liking, like Jeff Dunham or Dane Cook's comedy or professional wrestling, but I can still appreciate the smartypants crap as long as it doesn't get so bogged down by its own smartness that it forgets to put on a show.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't think it's A Thing. Some people are just like that. Some people who are like that are professional critics. And a critic with low standards is a borderline useless critic.

I actually agree with the notion of not being satisfied with average. When there's enough of a given thing on offer, one can afford to keep their consumption at above average quality.

That said, it can kind of annoy me when someone points to a single flaw and says, "Therefore it is bad." Imperfection is not shit. Imperfection is inevitable. I think a good critic should recognise that.

 

[Vault101]

I think being cirtical and picky is good as long as it doesn't destroy your ability to enjoy things

I don't think it's A Thing. Some people are just like that. Some people who are like that are professional critics. And a critic with low standards is a borderline useless critic.

I actually agree with the notion of not being satisfied with average. When there's enough of a given thing on offer, one can afford to keep their consumption at above average quality.

That said, it can kind of annoy me when someone points to a single flaw and says, "Therefore it is bad." Imperfection is not shit. Imperfection is inevitable. I think a good critic should recognise that.

I'm very critical of the books I read because there are a lot of then, thats not to say I expect them to be masterpeices, I can and do enjoy "average" stuff as long as it fills a critera (female protagonist, fun sci fi) the better it is the less I need it to fit my criteria...but ideally having both is great

games I'm less critical, if the plot is bearable I'll play it

movies...I'm in between...

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think you first need to reconsider your relationship with critics and criticism. Their job is to inform you about the movie, with complete honesty about what they felt and some humor if they can pull it off. All they're trying to do is help you decide whether you'll be seeing a movie or not, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. And if you've already seen the movie, then think of reviews as a moment of respite for analyzing and reflecting. Again, even if you don't agree with someone, you'll be constructing your own opinion and developing criteria.

Personally I can't think of a single critic, professional or not, who is "proud to be unpleasable". Maybe Doug Walker ("The Nostalgia Critic"), but then that guy deliberately targets awful movies for comedic effect. Yahtzee feels like this sometimes as well. I don't recall the last time he absolutely loved all of his 5 picks for Game of the Year, meaning that of all 50 something games he reviews every year, he likes less than 10%. But again, he's mostly doing it for the laughs. And while I don't have to agree with what he says, he's sharp enough to steer me into what I like and I don't like. Like I said before, the best critics are the ones who give you an accurate projection of whether you, personally, individually, of all people, will like a certain product - regardless of their own appraisal. Can you cite any examples of such "proud to be unpleasable" reviewers? Leaving gimmicky reviewers like Walker et al aside I can't think of any that fit the description. Even Pauline Kael was bound to like something.

Let's take a popular hot button these days, Godzilla, which seems to be dividing a lot of people, or at least enough people to merit controversy. Did you read or hear any reviews? Have they encouraged you or dissuaded you from watching the movie, and are you satisfied with your decision? You won. Have you been sitting around developing a carefully constructed argument in favor or against another's appreciation of the movie you already saw? You also won. People who worry about agreeing or disagreeing with a critic have got it all wrong. And critics who write without thinking of their audience have got it all wrong as well.

About TV, I guess it's the same principle - write for a hypothetical audience that follows the show with every other episode (and every other similarly driven show you've ever seen) in mind. Your goal is to provide a clear idea of what's coming, and either help people choose whether they'll like it or not, or provide some intelligent or at least interesting "hindsight insight".