The Big Picture: Baggage

[Nimcha]

I like the way you describe your viewpoints on things like this, Bob. It's entertaining and thought-provoking. At the end of the episode I came to the conclusion that I completely disagree with you, while I never had really thought about my preference in this matter before.

 

[castlewise]

@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.

What's the difference?

An interesting question:

- At first I thought that one would be more "up front" about being a "biased critique". But I think all critiques are bias in the sense that they are the product of the opinions and knowledge of the person making the critique.

- Then I thought, well it would be whether the critique was "selling" its perspective. In other words, a critique which is encouraging or cajoling the reader into agreeing with it. But that's part of the point of a critique. Why bother explaining or arguing something if you don't think its worth someone else's time or consideration.

- Then I thought its whether the critique admits there are other perspectives or if it presents itself as the "right" answer. But this is just the first two points combined. It would be tiresome to preface every statement with "there are other opinions but..." Its clear enough that even if MovieBob shouts "Transformers is terrible" at the top of his lungs, there are plenty of people who disagree with him. He doesn't need to tell you that.

I think realistically the difference is mostly whether the listener agrees with the opinion of the reviewer or not. If they do then the review seems like a reasonable take on the topic, and if they don't then the review seems wrongheaded.

 

[Rad Party God]

But Bob!, how many FPS does the Enders Game have!?.

Well said Bob, there are a few examples on this very site about a couple of controversial reviews (you know wich ones) and people tend to forget critics (most of the time), simply offer their "honest" opinion about a certain product, in response, people simply keep asking "but what about teh ending!?", "but what about my previous choices!?", "but is the game any fun and how smooth does it run!?".

These are valid points, but if the reviewer didn't seem them important, that's his own opinion, not "bad jurnalizm". Didn't like his opinion?, search for a second or third one, or someone else you can highly trust, ie: your friend, your cousin, your uncle, your workmates, etc.

 

[Floppertje]

When you make a claim against critics that they aren't behavior statisticians you're inadvertently giving credit to Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic. The average scores of users, and critics, is the statisticians way of removing the bias to show the "Normal", or "Objective" view. That's really the only way to do it, but I wouldn't expect a movie critic to understand the wisdom, and madness of the crowd.

Because obviously you're an expert.
MC and RT don't do statistics, they hang up signs for people to either pray to or throw eggs at. Nobody at those sites is handing out questionnaires at a theatre, they just wait for people who care enough to either praise it or shit all over it to come to them. How is that ever going to get you the average of the moviegoing public? Don't let the crowd review things. Don't let the crowd do anything because the crowd is dumb as hell. Instead, critics should try harder to understand for whom they are reviewing.

As for the bigger issue: yes, if some outside political or social phenomenon is relevant to the movie, then it should be discussed during the review. you're reviewing for people and people have those same social and political biases, so why is it so wrong for them to be aware that there is some greater issue involved?

 

[JoJo]

snip

You may want to edit some text into that post mate, a gif on it's own will earn you a low-content warning sooner or later.

OT: Great episode Bob, the best for a while and a nice change of tone from Shlochtober. A lot to think about indeed...

 

[DeimosMasque]

Honestly one of the Best Big Pictures in a very long time, it had aa lot of good insight, a nice historical basis of where criticism started from (something I didn't know actually) and also points out the truth. No one is ever objective, even when they think they are being objective.

I just hope Bob's mention of Anita doesn't turn this whole thread into "How dare Bob, defend her... This is why she's bad... blah blah blah" like the last time she was shown in one image during the Big Picture.

 

[medv4380]

I'd say that these still wouldn't be "normal" or "objective" as there are still a number of sampling errors and choices indicative to the methods. If you're looking at the professional reviews that might mean that its coming from the opinions of an audience with say potentially more of an arts/film education slant. Or if you're looking at the average of all the votes could have a slant for a younger tech savy group or a more affluent group with more access to the internet. Third possible bias country, the USA has more film critics and viewers then say Canada (where I live) which would also shift perceptions in the films (believe me we do in fact think about some things differently). Hopefully a good statistician would realize the limitations of such methods and not claim them "objective".

True, but the User score is Selection Bias. People who had enough interest in a movie and choose to see it are more likely to rate a movie higher than a critic. 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. For movies the User score is much more valuable than the critic score for this reason. If you've self selected yourself as interested enough in a movie to look up the score then the score is more likely to reflect your view of the movie. That's actually why I used sarcasm quotes on "objective", and "normal".

Games are biased in a different way though. Critics are the ones biased by several factors. Time being the first one since most critics don't have enough time to play and finish a game they're review is frequently incomplete. Movies shouldn't ever have this problem. Then there is the fear of being fired. Movie producers don't have as much power to get critics fired as Game publishers do, and that causes game reviews to create a floor in their reviews. You'll rarely see game critics give scores below 3 when compared to user scores.

 

[fraszoid]

EVE Online for Kinect?

I dunno, Bob, I didn't see any spreadsheets on the screen.

I concur, needs more spreadsheets, but damn if that phrase doesn't make me want to see it now. Or read the book.

 

[MysticSlayer]

My biggest issue with this type of critical review is that it very often delves into a couple problems.

The first is that, at least in our current time, reviewers very often intermingle the two so that the social commentary they are bringing feels out of place. GameSpot's review of GTAV is an excellent example of this. It talks about the actual merits of the game from a gameplay, story, and presentation perspective, and then it suddenly goes off on a tangent about the presentation of women without ever having any meaningful dialogue on the subject (obviously, considering it was relegated to a few seconds of the whole review) or without any meaningful links to the other talking points of the review. It was simply treated as a side note, and trying to merge "objective" presentations of the work with your own political, cultural, philosophical, or religious baggage makes the review feel unfocused.

Second is the way in which this analysis often takes place. So often it fails to actually engage in conversation but simply acts as a soap box for the reviewer to monologue for a few minutes. It doesn't look at the work critically, taking into account all the information as it is presented, and use that information as a springboard into meaningful conversation and dialogue. Instead, very often, it is based around taking your perspective, finding what supports it, ignoring what doesn't, twisting facts if necessary, and then claiming anyone that disagrees with you or calls out your falsehood is a bigot. I'm sure we're all familiar with at least one person who does this, but I don't feel like giving her any more attention than that.

Of course, if a review can focus itself and be as objective as possible in its subjective presentation, using the critical review as a means to open discussion rather than a means to monologue about your "enlightened" position, then I have no problem with it. I actually find those types of reviews very interesting to follow.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

It really annoys me when people make complaints like; "Dx You put too much of your own opinion in your review!".
If people reviewed things with none of their own opinion in the review, then the review would be as bland as your "perfect reviewer diet".

That said, I don't see why so many people complained about your review of Ender's Game. You mentioned at the beginning that it's possible that some ticket money might go to a bigot, who could give it to his anti-gay group, and then you went on to review the movie.

I don't see how your "bias" affected the review seeing as it wasn't even really a part of the review. Just kind of a buyer beware warning. Like saying, hey you can buy this diamond, but it may be indirectly funding slave labor in Africa.
Then, you go on to tell us how well cut the diamond is.
[sub][sub]Also, no, blood diamonds are equal to funding anit-gay groups. [/sub][/sub]


Anyway, thanks for this video, Bob. =w= b

 

[Mega_Manic]

@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.

What's the difference?

A review with a bias
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7196-Boob-Wars-and-Dragon-Crowns

A reviewer pushing their bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropes_vs._Women_in_Video_Games

One uses thoughtful insight on the matter, the other twists and bends what they are reviewing to try to make the audience believe that what they are saying is the truth.

Two issues, the first is kinda semantic as one is a review and one is a industry wide critique. I'm not sure if you can compare something that is focused on one game as a case study, and what that is a survey of many games.

The second is, what if I think Anita's is truthful and insightful? What if what she says is true to me?

 

[themilo504]

A much more difficult issue is if you have a movie/book/game that you really like but it has a message you completely disagree with, like me playing a video game that tells me that you can never be truly happy unless you have a boyfriend\girlfriend.

 

[Unesh52]

Excellent video. I'm tired of the popular resistance to critical analysis, and this idea that looking for deeper meanings or relating works to broader, real world topics is just "reading too much into it."

 

[teamcharlie]

So, what then? Movie reviewers can say whatever they like and anybody who criticizes what a reviewer says needs to grow up because every opinion is valid?

I thought Orson Scott Card wrote a great book in spite of his later revealing himself to be a douchebag, and that the movie was a fantastic and faithful adaptation of that book with great acting, a thorough treatment of almost all the difficult issues of the book (barring the latent undertones of child sexuality and the fact that Ender totally killed that kid at the beginning of the book, both of which I forgive because mass market etc.), some legitimately awesome space battles, and nuanced interactions amongst the characters. The movie even respects the audience enough to let them come to their own conclusions about war, keeping information from people who can do good with it, how much the 'greater good' is worth, the dangers of demonizing an opponent, and the costs of the 'be the best at all costs' mentality when it gets applied to children, all without really dumbing it down to a significant degree.

But it seems as though Bob's and my review of the movie are in tension, since we both acknowledge the same bias and come to a different conclusion. Do we just nod silently and ignore it? Or do we have a discussion that acknowledges that one of us might be wrong, might be unknowingly biased in some way, and might have to change our opinion as a result? I would hope that the latter is possible or even preferable, because the ability to change as a result of rational discussion is part of how intelligent people learn and grow.

 

[RaikuFA]

My only issue with reviews is the ones that clearly have a very disturbing bias that prevents them from giving an actual review.

Good example: that review of Melee from Judgment Day. A 3/10 because Kirby was in it. No other reason.

 

[BlindChance]

That's unique perspective. But, sometimes I feel that bringing baggage into the review sometimes sidelines the review of the actual merits of the film and gets caught up in political agendas that may or may not be in the film.

And, as Moviebob was arguing, that's not always a bad thing. Indeed, that's his whole point: Criticism that uses a common reference point (the work being critiqued) as a jumping off point into discussions of wider culture is pretty freaking valid.

Now, where and when to do that is pretty fair. And I think it's also pretty important to acknowledge the wider social implications in a review anyway; I thought Carolyn Petit's review of GTA5 was spot on for instance. After all, themes and ideas are part of the game and they do affect the experience.

Also, Moviebob?

Spot. On.

 

[Teoes]

I think this is one of my favourite Big Pictures in a long time. I'm now away to think about what I don't think about, then see what I think about those things and the fact that I don't think about them.

 

[Mega_Manic]

@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.

What's the difference?

An interesting question:

- At first I thought that one would be more "up front" about being a "biased critique". But I think all critiques are bias in the sense that they are the product of the opinions and knowledge of the person making the critique.

- Then I thought, well it would be whether the critique was "selling" its perspective. In other words, a critique which is encouraging or cajoling the reader into agreeing with it. But that's part of the point of a critique. Why bother explaining or arguing something if you don't think its worth someone else's time or consideration.

- Then I thought its whether the critique admits there are other perspectives or if it presents itself as the "right" answer. But this is just the first two points combined. It would be tiresome to preface every statement with "there are other opinions but..." Its clear enough that even if MovieBob shouts "Transformers is terrible" at the top of his lungs, there are plenty of people who disagree with him. He doesn't need to tell you that.

I think realistically the difference is mostly whether the listener agrees with the opinion of the reviewer or not. If they do then the review seems like a reasonable take on the topic, and if they don't then the review seems wrongheaded.

Thank you and I appreciate the brain storm! Really the process of reaching an opinion is just as, if not more important, than the actual opinion. It's funny how a simple "what" or "why" can do that.

But, agreed. The only issue is then is if the reason we agree or disagree with a review is because of our own biases. At least that's where that line of thought brought me. Of course that's assuming their logic is sound. But then that's assuming our logic is sound. Which is assuming logic is a real thing and not just an agreed upon set of rules that we got from the Greeks......

Anyway, this made me want to share this.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

 

[medv4380]

MC and RT don't do statistics

They post Averages which, if you've never taken a statistics course, is basic statistics. Meta Critic even goes as far as showing a critics deviation from other critics. If you've ever bothered to look at the profiles. Which is good to see if a critic is obeying regression towards the mean, but you probably wouldn't understand why you'd even want to know that because you're clearly not a statistician, or involved in research.