The Big Picture: Baggage
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But it doesn't. It's only because in this case the issue being brought up is likely one you don't feel resonates or conforms to one you have a firm grounding in.Andrew Siribohdi said:
All reviews do it, but you tend to 'resonate' more with ones where the values and comparisons and baggage being brought along are ones you already have firm, comfortable stances on and ones that pertain more to your life and issues.
That's why having multiple 'review' sources is always going to be a good thing.
Bob comments on how he grew up from knowing all the answers he thought he had after graduating collage, to acting as if he still has all the answers now. Just a different set of dogmatic answers that pleases a different audience to make themselves feel better about being them.
Well, I came back to watch one episode seeing how little of the tone has changed, I'll go back to my not watching big picture/movie bob for the time being.
Well, I came back to watch one episode seeing how little of the tone has changed, I'll go back to my not watching big picture/movie bob for the time being.
MovieBob said:
so in a nutshell opinions are like arseholes we all have one, and critique is pretty much pointless now because it is purely subjective so were wasting our time watching escape to the movies because whats bob's idea of a good film isnt what my idea of a good film is. and if we overnight lined up all the movie and video games critiques and put a round in each dome we would loose nothing of worth.
time to get a real job bob?
Well as an example. Bob could have simply reviewed Ender's Game through his own mental filters, and told us what he thought of the movie. That is "Critique With a Bias". It is a natural thing. Bob is offering HIS opinion on the matter at hand based through the lens of his worldviews. Everyone does that, and most of us as people are bright enough to apply our own such filters to both the property under discussion and the reviewer.Mega_Manic said:
Whereas putting an opening blurb into ones critique calling the creator or the work being reviewed some sort of evil and twisted person for reasons unrelated to the subject being reviewed, and with limited supporting information (OMG he doesn't support gay marriage! BURN THE WITCH!) is a rather blatant example of the second "pushing the reviewers own bias on the audience".
Bob has an absolute right to push his own bias. It's his show. He answers only to his employers that publish it. however it is something that can reflect negatively on his ability to critique at least to a portion of his audience.
The fact that two people can observe and analyze the same set of circumstances and agree on their premises, but still maintain differing opinions on them, is the foundation of subjecivity. The fact that two people could disagree about a plot being coherent (informed, maybe, by a better understanding of structure), character's decisions ACTUALLY being poor, the characters being boring (who are you to say that? Maybe they're just completely beyond you?), inconsistencies in their behavior, or poorly implemented romances, but played the same game, means that all of those fields are completely subjective. The adjectives you assign to characters, plot, romances (boring, inconsistent, incoherent, or poor) are completely informed by preference and perception. An objective analysis wouldn't be an analysis at all. It would be a summation, a retelling. Everything you mentioned isn't even superficially objective.uanime5 said:
This reads quite fluidly as "I don't agree with Bob, and can't be bothered to offer a reason why, but I sure as hell enjoy projecting! [Close with passive-aggressive pledge to abstinence you make after watching every episode, every week]"th3dark3rsh33p said:
EDIT: Typos
Overwhelmingly. Not always, but overwhelmingly. And frankly, in my opinion she is right.uanime5 said:
On topic... I'm reminded of a review for Prince Of Persia: Warrior Within that earned a 7/10. the reviewer made clear that in technical terms, this was a fine game and in pure gameplay terms was better than sands of time and thus earned its score... but also made it adamantly clear he LOATHED the game because of how it tore down all the art design, music and characters that made the original so charming and engaging, and replaced it with generic male teen pandering BS.
I'd stopped watching his videos 2 or 3 months ago. I came back once more to see if he'd changed a prevailing trend I felt was bringing his content down. I was also interested to see if he would show some level of introspection on his own sincerely held beliefs on a topic that I knew he'd be very opinionated on. There is a tone of self satisfaction in his own beliefs, that I got tired of listening to in his content. I don't enjoy it. There are things about Bob I do enjoy, and want to watch his videos for. Those aren't the politics or social issues I feel Bob brings little original thought too, and merely parrots other thinkers, while chastising other people for parroting other thinkers. His extensive knowledge on a lot of nerd related subjects are what I find interesting about the man and what I wish he'd keep to. I think he's good at it, and I want to support him when he does it. I don't want to support him when he's being extraordinarily smug about his own political beliefs.Iszfury said:
And, expounding on those definitions as virtually every philosopher has, subjective is of the self, of perception, and objective is INDEPENDENT of the self, and perception. If you "base your review on feelings or opinions", that review would certainly be subjective. Objectivity constitutes, as I said, things independent of human experiences or perceptions - only facts about reality, qualitative observations without external assessment, observations. I will say this again - "boring" is not an objective statement - it is direct, subjective commentary on an objective observation. There is no grey area at all here. Clarified?uanime5 said:
Now, your statement about backing up your claims (which, in a critical context, are generally value judgements) - with evidence - and that this makes them objective - is absurd. Think of this in a scientific context - your claim can be completely bollocks, even if the evidence you produce to rationalize it is sound. There is an inductive leap you take when making that statement, a leap that depends on experience and perception. If we make the assumption that objective observations are true statements about reality (this basically assumes that you're not drugged/under some mind-altering influence), this conflicts wholly with situations like this - where somebody can have all of their ducks in a row, not argue fallaciously at all, but still be dead wrong. The "why?", in an artistic sense, is because people have experienced different things. Der. People are different! They interpret readings of situations differently - there is no "absolute normal." Even stripped-down, clinical subjectivity is ultimately subject to some bias. There is no such thing as objective criticism - at all.
Thank you! I can understand if a particular website is known for politics or particular social views, but generally speaking I don't want to hear what the critics personal opinion is on issue like politics or social issue. I just want to know if the movie or game is entertaining or not.Saippua said:
hahashadowmagus said:
Removal of personal bias is not a possibility. It's almost funny how people attack critics or commentators on any subject with the BS idea that they should be approaching whatever subject without a bias. That said, you don't have to agree with the critics bias or find their slant on any given subject valid. Just deal with the fact that it's an opinion, all opinions and theories are informed by worldview, worldview is not in any way based on anything empirical. This is a fact.