The Big Picture: Baggage

[AT God]

Is anyone else having difficulty viewing the videos from The Big Picture, they all worked for me the other day, but now when I try they don't load.. this isn't a problem for any of the other series I watch... has something happened to the channel?

I literally just tried to watch the new BP and it isn't working so I think somethings wrong with them at the moment. Zero Punctuation still works so its probably a server error or something.

 

[Brad Watterson]

any reason the video is down?

 

[shiajun]

For my part, I can't understand people who say there is such a thing as an objective review. Like an utopia, it's a good goal to have yet completely unattainable. The people writing such critiques are...well...people, and therefore either conciously or unconciously influenced by their cultural/social/personal views. As such, I find it kind of futile to lambast a person doing a review for injecting their views into the text. Some people do it (or over-do it), some people restrain, but a review will never be devoid of personal discourse. People too focused on wanting reviews to be clinical, empty of any commentary or context, are just in for a world of disappointment (and in my opinion, are trying to make reviews as dry and boring as a user's manual).

I find a review is more useful if the critic is honest about their views so that I, when reading their work, can see if the opinions contained within are likely to be shared by me and therefore have a similar response to the film/play/book/game/etc. No one can ever predict if you will or won't enjoy or appreciate something, even if you share the mindset of the reviewer. All they can do is convey to you what they felt and thought based on their expertise, knowledge and tastes. It is lazy on the part on the receiver to want the reviewer to give them a precise, digested analysis of the parts and cruch out a definite, unquestionable judgment. Such a person doesn't want to do the self-analyzing part. Numerical reviews are such non-sensical reductions of art appreciation. In games, you can approach a quantification of the technical aspects of the software. However, that has nothing to do with the experience. I have played a bunch of games that wouldn't be remarkable or good from a technical aspect but the experience was pretty interesting. You have to read to get what the jist is. Maybe that's asking too much of the instant consumer mentality.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

This week MovieBob critiques modern criticism, starting with Ender's Game.

[HEADING=1]THANK YOU!!![/HEADING]

I've been trying to explain to people that what Anita is doing is a fairly basic Feminist perspective critique - that it is nothing unusual in the academic world and isn't her personal attack on games - and more often that not I get a lot of people not understanding what I'm talking about.

Hopefully this will change that. At the very least, I can say "watch this video" as part of my "this is what she's doing" explanation.

So, once again, Thank You Movie Bob!

 

[FriendlyFyre]

Art holds up a mirror to the culture we live in, and viewing said mirror through the prism of philosophy, ethics, morality, etc, is the most important function of criticism. I strongly suspect that when people start to whine about "biases" and other such nonsense, they've simply perceived a perspective they don't like and seek to invalidate it the only way they know how, by being a twat. Were they up to the intellectual challenge, they'd seek to refute and argue, and the consistent failure to do so proves how little merit their viewpoint holds.

Damn, you hit it out of the park here. I would go even further and ask WHY people specifically SEEK to invalidate others opinions on an objective level instead of presenting their opinion alongside them.

 

[Strazdas]

Ah, bob, you keep trying to tell us that by "growing up" you have somehow changed, became supergod that knows everything and can tell us what kind of criticism is right or wrong at the same time telling us your opinion doesnt matter. Its usually funny how your doublestandarts work for movies, but this time you tried to claim you dont have any and how "mature" you are for giving us biased reviews of movies based on what the author of a book the movie is based on is doing many years after he actually wrote the book. what your doing is exactly what people review bombing BattleField Earth just because the author later went on to create a religion are doing - criticizing art just because you dont agree with the authors view outside of that art. that wont do. You either criticize the art, or the person, but you dont criticize the art with the persons faults.
In forum aruments this is called Ad hominem fallacy. In your case you call it reviewing. Sorry, i cant buy that.

There is nothing wrong with doing a critique of something like they used to do it before the whole industrial revolution. That one didnt resort to persona attacks though (at least not the ones worth caring about). They critiqued the work the author has created, not the author.

This is why Horror movies get much higher score from viewers than from critics. Most people know before hand that they want to watch a horror movie, but a critic has to watch it because its on the list of opening movies and they have to review it.

Im sorry what? Horror movies specifically recieve far poorer user scores than the critics give due to the fact most of them came into horror movies expecting to watch anything but a horror movie. Horror movies is probably statistically most underrated genre in existence.

Objectivist criticism exists for a reason, which is that it's a fairer evaluation of a piece.

It appears that "Objectivist" doesn't mean what you think it means. You really think that a review filtered through the extreme philosophy of Objectivism is going to be a "fairer evaluation"? If there's anything Objectivists are known for, it's certainly not being fair.

I think he meant bjective criticism instead, because lets be honest, "objectivism philosophy" is the worst naming ever in history of humanity. It can be many things but it is far from beign objective.

as he doesn't let OSC's involvement affect his opinion of the movie?

Have you actually saw his review?

 

[Kingbingo]

Bob decided to come out swinging in another emotionally charged episode rather than just admit he went too far last time. I rather liked his suggestion that ?after he grew up? he realized that bringing baggage into reviews is actually the best kind of reviews.

Well I?m about twice Bobs age, and I disagree. OSC has his view that Bob disagrees with, but OSC is honest about his views and having a different opinion does not make you ?the worst human being? as he spouted last time.

Furthermore growing up as a young Gay man in the 70?s I remember the mainstream gay thought was that marriage was a hideous convention that we should be glad we would never be trapped in. It was popular at the time to launch diatribes against it. For whatever reason since it has become de jour to insist that gay marriage is as fundamental as oxygen and that any suggestion that it be restricted is on a par with the holocaust. For those of us with memories that extend back a bit realize how fickle this notion is. Personally, I just don?t care, it?s just a title.

Furthermore Bob repeated his put down of OSC as ?only having produced the one mega hit book series and not done much since?. Really Bob?? I don?t remember you slamming JK Rowling in the Harry Potter reviews as ?only having produced one mega hit series?. Producing one major hit series of work is more than 99.999% of the population ever achieve. And I know I?m in no position to look down on that accomplishment. And unless Bobs book ?brick by brick? has recently become the biggest seller since the Bible I don?t think Bob gets to look down his nose at that sort of achievement either.

Finally, he claims that its best to dump all over something the first moment it strays from the liberal consensus. Oh please, do you realize what it like for a conservative to watch 75% of what comes out of Hollywood these days. Bob has this huge chip on his shoulder about liberals being these huge underdogs, that?s crap. Liberals control most media in the English speaking world , your agenda IS the agenda. If I cut off all the media with strong liberal bias I would have a hard time watching anything. For example anything by Roland Emmerich desperately wants to portray conservative as the spawn of Satan. Yet I quite liked The Day After Tommorrow because it was a good film, I found Whitehouse Down mediocre at best, (Olympus has fallen was way better, but Bob dismissed it entirely) I judged that shit on merit, and filtered out the background Marxism. But actually since that bias was not just loaded into the movie, but actually a key plot element I had far more right to knock the movie because of its politics.

In enders game Bob gave a shitty review because before the first frames appear Bob had decided he hated it. Even though the politics was entirely outside the movie, and in no way part of it. Bob needs to realize that his massive liberal bias is going to make him a poor reviewer if every time he encounters anything or anyone not fully signed up to the liberal consensus he decides that it is fundamentally immoral evil and wrong. But I have to say exactly the way your typical liberal thinks. Its never ?I disagree with you? its always ?you are evil, and as such everything about you is wrong?, so typical, so tedious.

 

[Sepko]

Furthermore growing up as a young Gay man in the 70?s I remember the mainstream gay thought was that marriage was a hideous convention that we should be glad we would never be trapped in. It was popular at the time to launch diatribes against it. For whatever reason since it has become de jour to insist that gay marriage is as fundamental as oxygen and that any suggestion that it be restricted is on a par with the holocaust. For those of us with memories that extend back a bit realize how fickle this notion is. Personally, I just don?t care, it?s just a title.

Congratulations theoretical gay man from the 70's, you don't want anything to do with marriage, now let the other gays who actually want it try to get it for themselves so they can feel a part of something.

Furthermore Bob repeated his put down of OSC as ?only having produced the one mega hit book series and not done much since?. Really Bob?? I don?t remember you slamming JK Rowling in the Harry Potter reviews as ?only having produced one mega hit series?. Producing one major hit series of work is more than 99.999% of the population ever achieve. And I know I?m in no position to look down on that accomplishment. And unless Bobs book ?brick by brick? has recently become the biggest seller since the Bible I don?t think Bob gets to look down his nose at that sort of achievement either.

JK Rowling has Harry Potter, a couple of off-shoot books set in the same universe, a new book she recently released and lisencing stuff that she has to take care of from the Harry Potter series. I'd say that's a pretty good start. And attacking Bob for not having a bestseller and therefore can't criticise OSC for his one book achievement is laughable. Stupidly laughable.

Finally, he claims that its best to dump all over something the first moment it strays from the liberal consensus. Oh please, do you realize what it like for a conservative to watch 75% of what comes out of Hollywood these days. Bob has this huge chip on his shoulder about liberals being these huge underdogs, that?s crap. Liberals control most media in the English speaking world , your agenda IS the agenda. If I cut off all the media with strong liberal bias I would have a hard time watching anything. For example anything by Roland Emmerich desperately wants to portray conservative as the spawn of Satan. Yet I quite liked The Day After Tommorrow because it was a good film, I found Whitehouse Down mediocre at best, (Olympus has fallen was way better, but Bob dismissed it entirely) I judged that shit on merit, and filtered out the background Marxism. But actually since that bias was not just loaded into the movie, but actually a key plot element I had far more right to knock the movie because of its politics.

"dump all over something the first moment it strays from the liberal consensus"
Please give me the exact timestamp in the video where he even remotely alluded to that.

In enders game Bob gave a shitty review because before the first frames appear Bob had decided he hated it. Even though the politics was entirely outside the movie, and in no way part of it. Bob needs to realize that his massive liberal bias is going to make him a poor reviewer if every time he encounters anything or anyone not fully signed up to the liberal consensus he decides that it is fundamentally immoral evil and wrong. But I have to say exactly the way your typical liberal thinks. Its never ?I disagree with you? its always ?you are evil, and as such everything about you is wrong?, so typical, so tedious.

Are you like a gay version of a unicorn? Like a really crap unicorn? One of those rare self-hating sorts whose self-hatred has permeated through life so now anything out and gay is repulsive to you? That sort of person? From the 70's?
Either that or you're not really a gay man from the 70's. The way you're talking makes absolutely no sense for a supposed gay guy.

 

[chikusho]

So what you're saying is that Bob is completely correct, as he doesn't let OSC's involvement affect his opinion of the movie?
Great!

Bob was claiming that mentioning OSC's involvement with anti-gay movements was acceptable to add to a review about a movie. Chikusho is saying that this had no bearing on the movie, so Bob shouldn't have mentioned it. Thus Chikusho is saying that Bob was wrong to bring up irrelevant points.

Got the names a bit mixed up but sure.
Only, what Bob actually did was bring up the fact that OSC's involvement had no bearing on the movie. So he clearly explained to his viewers that the controversy surrounding the picture was nothing to take into account with regards to the movie, something that otherwise might have affected the review.
Just like movies can't be viewed in a vacuum, reviews are not viewed in a vacuum.

What evidence do you have that art is entirely subjective? If art isn't entirely subjective then it's possible to criticise some or all of it objectively. Also if the subjective area of art only have a small influence on the overall assessment then it's misleading to refer to art as subjective.

Art is entirely subjective because EVERYTHING is entirely subjective. You can only ever view things from one perspective: your own. Even when you are viewing things from another persons perspective, that's your interpretation of what that perspective is.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? If I say a movie is bad because the main villain has no motivation for what they're doing or because the plot is incoherent I'm not making this assessment based on my cultural/social/personal views. I'm making an objective assessment of the plot or a character's motivation.

If you say a movie is bad because YOU THOUGHT the main villain has no motivation for what they are doing, or because YOU PERCEIVED the plot to be incoherent, you are making that assessment based on your experience with the film.
Another person might make a different assessment. Ergo, your view is subjective by default.
What you CAN do is ASSUME what people IN GENERAL might experience, or check of a box of the common hollywood movie structure to note whether or not the story beats hit at the right place and at the right time. But I'm guessing that's not what you are saying.

They're reading a review because they want to know if a movie is worth seeing.

And whether a movie is worth seeing or not is entirely subjective.
A review qualified to your tastes would be much more accurate in that recommendation rather than a review that tries to be as bland and general as possible.

 

[Kingbingo]

Congratulations theoretical gay man from the 70's, you don't want anything to do with marriage, now let the other gays who actually want it try to get it for themselves so they can feel a part of something.

Ok, stop and breath. I am not against anyone wanting marriage. I?m against demonising someone for having a different opinion.

JK Rowling has Harry Potter, a couple of off-shoot books set in the same universe, a new book she recently released and lisencing stuff that she has to take care of from the Harry Potter series. I'd say that's a pretty good start. And attacking Bob for not having a bestseller and therefore can't criticise OSC for his one book achievement is laughable. Stupidly laughable.

There is no doubt that JKR has produced a phenomenon, and good for her. But I?ll let you into a little secret, the author does not actually personally manage the merchandise and licensing. That?s done by Warner in this case.
You also need to slow down here. I AM NOT attacking Bob for not having a bestseller, I am attacking Bob for attacking QSC for only having one which as I said is actually a major achievement and far more than most people ever have. If you could get over your bile you would see the point is perfectly valid, and if you don?t agree feel free to give actual reasons, rather than just assert something is ?laughable? even though you could not articulate why. But please don?t twist and distort what I said.

Are you like a gay version of a unicorn? Like a really crap unicorn? One of those rare self-hating sorts whose self-hatred has permeated through life so now anything out and gay is repulsive to you? That sort of person? From the 70's?
Either that or you're not really a gay man from the 70's. The way you're talking makes absolutely no sense for a supposed gay guy.

This bit really takes the biscuit, I wish you could see how bigoted you are being.
Liberals refuse to see people as individuals, but rather as only a member of a group. I have a black friend who is also a conservative who is constantly being told he is a ?sellout? and an ?uncle Tom? because he is a republican and because he is black he is required to be a democrat. The sheer hubris in that kind of thinking is startling.
So I?m self-hating because I don?t want to ram a liberal agenda down the throats of everyone I met? I?m ?fake-gay? because I don?t give a shit about gay marriage? I find being gay ?repulsive? because I don?t agree with your world view of what I am allowed to think? Really? Please take a moment to step back and look at what your saying, it?s a pretty repulsive set of views. Nobody owns me except me. I?m a hundred things that make up my identity, I am not a label or a category of people that is required to think what I?m told by liberals. You would not automatically pigeonhole what someone is supposed to think knowing nothing more about them than the fact their straight. You would not pigeonhole a white person and what they are supposed to be for and against simply on their colour, but liberals have decided that they own blacks and gays, and the moment any of us dare to have our own world views we get told we are either fake, uncle toms or sell-outs. Really disappointing, you live the way you want pal, I?ll live my way, just don?t tell me what I must think.

 

[Sepko]

I'm against demonising someone for having a different opinion.

Your little sentence there would have some form of merit if OSC also didn't donate his money to viscously anti-gay groups who lobby for very bad laws for LGBT* folk. This is a case-by-case thing, and in the case of Orson Scott Card, he is a terrible human being.

So I?m self-hating because I don?t want to ram a liberal agenda down the throats of everyone I met?

No you're a really crap unicorn, a very weird offshoot where the complete opposite of sensible is happening. I'm only speculating your self-hating-ness. Also what kind of gay guy says "liberal agenda" without it being hilarious?

I?m ?fake-gay? because I don?t give a shit about gay marriage?

You're 'fake-gay' cuz you're somehow from the 70's. And conservative, allegedly. And gay. Supposedly. On a gaming forum. You're like a super-crap unicorn, the statistical unlikelihood of you being here is astounding. And yet here you are, somehow. You're just boring for not giving a shit about gay marriage.

I find being gay ?repulsive? because I don?t agree with your world view of what I am allowed to think? Really? Please take a moment to step back and look at what your saying, it?s a pretty repulsive set of views.

Oh you're free to think all the things you like and I'm free to tell you "what the hell, dude?"
Again, only speculating on your repulsiveness.

Nobody owns me except me. I?m a hundred things that make up my identity, I am not a label or a category of people that is required to think what I?m told by liberals.

You're just swapping out one for the other, man.

You would not automatically pigeonhole what someone is supposed to think knowing nothing more about them than the fact their straight. You would not pigeonhole a white person and what they are supposed to be for and against simply on their colour, but liberals have decided that they own blacks and gays, and the moment any of us dare to have our own world views we get told we are either fake, uncle toms or sell-outs. Really disappointing, you live the way you want pal, I?ll live my way, just don?t tell me what I must think.

I don't believe I've actually told you to do anything. I can, however, tell you that what you think is ludicrous.

Captcha:
adapt.
improve.
succeed.

Truer words have never come out of you, Captcha

 

[Something Amyss]

Well I?m about twice Bobs age, and I disagree. OSC has his view that Bob disagrees with, but OSC is honest about his views and having a different opinion does not make you ?the worst human being? as he spouted last time.

Two things: the first being that age doesn't equal growing up. Not automatically, anyway. But that's nice, I guess.

Second, "having a different opinion" is a bit of a strawman, isn't it? We're talking about a man who has campaigned to restrict peoples' rights, a man who called for an uprising if he didn't get his way, a man who compares gays to pedophiles.

I don't think this is merely a "difference of opinion" that's at issue here.

Furthermore growing up as a young Gay man in the 70?s I remember the mainstream gay thought was that marriage was a hideous convention that we should be glad we would never be trapped in. It was popular at the time to launch diatribes against it. For whatever reason since it has become de jour to insist that gay marriage is as fundamental as oxygen and that any suggestion that it be restricted is on a par with the holocaust. For those of us with memories that extend back a bit realize how fickle this notion is. Personally, I just don?t care, it?s just a title.

A lot of those people grew up. Having established an identity, they no longer needed to rail against it. When homosexuality became more normalised, it was quickly realised issues with long-term same-sex relationships in the current society. It's not fickle, it's dealing with new issues as they come along. there came this radical idea that maybe gays weren't some freakish mutant offshoot of humanity and maybe, just maybe we weren't all that different from so-called 'normal' people. Perhaps you disagree. That's your right. But it's still ridiculous to call this "fickle."

And worse still is "it's just a title." Well, it is, unless you count the numerous legal benefits. I mean, maybe you don't have a SO you'd want to visit in the hospital (where many states still allow them to kick you out, even if you have legal contracts) or have taken care of should you die, but to say it's "just a title" is wrong.

But it's natural for you to be a product of that era. Just as politicians from the same era are proponents of bullying gays.

But hey, that's just a difference of opinion, right?

Furthermore Bob repeated his put down of OSC as ?only having produced the one mega hit book series and not done much since?. Really Bob?? I don?t remember you slamming JK Rowling in the Harry Potter reviews as ?only having produced one mega hit series?.

Maybe if, in 30 years time, she's spent most of her career using that to promote anti-Islam laws or something, there'll be a parallel.

And unless Bobs book ?brick by brick? has recently become the biggest seller since the Bible I don?t think Bob gets to look down his nose at that sort of achievement either.

where's your hit book/game/movie/comic? is one of the oldest and laziest criticisms one can lob at a critic.

Finally, he claims that its best to dump all over something the first moment it strays from the liberal consensus.

[citation needed]

Oh please, do you realize what it like for a conservative to watch 75% of what comes out of Hollywood these days.

Probably very tiring, given all the tantrums they throw if everything isn't precisely their way. But then, that would make your retelling of Bob nothing more than a liberal doing what's been normalised for conservatives to do.

Bob has this huge chip on his shoulder about liberals being these huge underdogs, that?s crap.

Unless you live in the real world, and not on the silver screen.

If I cut off all the media with strong liberal bias I would have a hard time watching anything.

You're taking the piss, right?

 

[Sepko]

If I cut off all the media with strong liberal bias I would have a hard time watching anything.

You're taking the piss, right?

Furthermore growing up as a young Gay man in the 70?s I remember the mainstream gay thought was that marriage was a hideous convention that we should be glad we would never be trapped in. It was popular at the time to launch diatribes against it.

As it happens my wife is of another race from me

The phony is a phony is a phony.
Probably.

 

[Banzaiman]

I really like the Big Picture videos, they're usually thought-provoking or fun or both. This one in particular I think comes at a good time, when the question of objectivity is starting to crop up a bit more. As for me, I agree (mostly) with Mr Chipman again, but there is always something to be said for the 'objective' reviews. We still need people to tell us whether something is worth paying for or not. It's all good letting me know that Mr Card is homophobic, but when I just want to know whether I should buy a ticket to Ender's Game I'd appreciate being told.

On the other hand, it's precisely because these critiques bring up some thoughts we don't usually entertain that there should be more of them. It informs the audience of something they might not usually pay attention to, and the more people think about it the more they will understand both their own opinions and those of others. It could lead to less arguing from a lack of knowing and more discussion as to what might be done. But that's just me being hopeful.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

It's only a feminist perspective critique if the game is critiqued based on feminist theory. So if Anita was to explain a school of thought in feminism, then explain whether the game good or bad based on this school of thought then this would be doing a feminist critique. However that's not what Anita is doing. Anita is critiquing games based on her own opinions and claiming that because she's a feminists that what's she's doing is a feminist critique. So all she's doing is attacking games because she doesn't like them.

No. You're wrong.

Considering your response to others, I doubt this will change your mind, but I'll try anyway.

If Anita was simply attacking games based on her own opinions with no basis in feminist theory, then I wouldn't remember half of her points from my classes on feminist theory.

I don't know how to make this simpler. She is using standard feminist theory arguments (with a leaning towards Second Wave). That isn't her opinion - I am 100% sure that all of her theory she learned from textbooks and classes much like the ones I attended.

The fact that you are ignorant of what feminist theory entails does not mean that what she's doing is not a proper feminist critique. Not because she's a self-proclaimed feminist, mind, but because she is using other people's feminist theory (usually applied to novels and films) and applying the same criteria to games.

 

[Kingbingo]

You're 'fake-gay' cuz you're somehow from the 70's. And conservative, allegedly. And gay. Supposedly. On a gaming forum. You're like a super-crap unicorn, the statistical unlikelihood of you being here is astounding. And yet here you are, somehow. You're just boring for not giving a shit about gay marriage.

Ok kid, when you?re in your early 20?s someone in their mid-forties must seem like they are on the verge of death itself, I guarantee your revise your views pretty radically over the next decade. Actually I may be have been guilty of that myself when I was your age. But I was younger than you are now when I got given pong for Christmas, and I have been hooked ever since.

But frankly your arrogance is showing yet again. I can?t possibly be a gamer because I?m too old. I?m the same age as Ken Levin for heaven?s sake. Maybe you were sat in the back row heckling as he picked up the Golden Joystick? Did you think Gamers magically popped into existence when Call of Duty Modern warfare appeared on the shelves?

The liberal arrogance I have been opposed to my whole life is strong in you. YOU know what gamers, gay people are all about (plus who knows whatever other groups you claim ownership of), YOU get to decided what makes them authentic or not. YOU know it all. Well that?s great, congratulation being the big man.

But you know what screw this. As always with liberals they don?t want to attack your actually arguments, they prefer to bypass that and immediately attack the person making the argument, I guess it is easier. My great crime is that I?m pretty tolerant, even of intolerance. If someone wants to take a view on something, fine. I need not agree, I certainly need not hang on their every word so I can work myself into a righteous indignation.

where's your hit book/game/movie/comic? is one of the oldest and laziest criticisms one can lob at a critic.

Yeah I agree. But selective reading is a wonderful thing isn?t it. If you read what I was actually saying as opposed to what you would like to respond to then you would see I was not criticizing Bob for not having a produced a bestseller. I am huge fan of Bob, I'd love to have a beer with the guy, I've watched his every video here. However, I was clearly saying that it was unfair of him to put down OSC for only having produced one big hit series, a standard I have never heard him apply elsewhere.

But of course it?s easier to distort my word out of context, into something that you can attack.