Why do people get upset when something is over-praised or over-criticized?

[Plasticaprinae]

Many people feel that what they like and dislike defines them. In some ways they're right, liking/disliking defines their preferences and what they like to do for fun. But when someone says an opinion against what they like, they feel like they're being called stupid or they're "Just not getting it".

People think the goal of any discussion is to be proved right or attack the opposition. But discussions are really just to become better socially, gain knowledge, and become more understanding.

 

[Fox12]

I mean, what difference should it make to you? I bring this up because of Moviebob's latest review had people moaning in the comments about how he's probably overhyping Elysium like he did Pacific Rim. Now, I disagree with Bob a lot of the time (particularly when he starts accusing other people of ruining his movie experience, see: The Expendables review), but if you are getting so pissed off that someone who loved a film set *your* expectations too high, then I think you need to step back and consider how much other people's opinions influence you.

Look at Half Life and Mass Effect 3. One game is praised so much that the only threads we get nowadays are people asking "why do you like this so much, it didn't meet the insane expectations you guys set!". The other game has been driven into the ground with criticism (that I myself have added to), and you get people arguing against the majority again.


Honestly, I don't get why this is such a big deal for people. If you were disappointed with a film or game, fine, say your peace and be done with it. But when you start deciding to discredit other people's opinions or start accusing others of painting a false image of something you enjoyed/hated, you're toeing the line between expressing yourself and attacking someone.

Well, to fair, he did over hype the film. A critic should give a largely unbiased review, with a carefully chosen list of pros and cons that are completely separate from the critics enjoyment of the film. In other words, even if he likes the film he shouldn't hold back criticism. This is especially true of Movie Bob, who tends to be extra critical of many films. When he tells you a movie is so good that you should just skip his review and go see it, it leads to absurd expectations. People who watch Movie Bob in order to inform their purchasing decisions have a right to be somewhat irritated after he gives a frankly unprofessional review (Pacific Rim). The film was okay, but the characters were terrible, especially Mako, who seemed like a Rei Ayanami rip off devoid of any of the characterization that made Rei Ayanami interesting.

He did better with Elysium, but you can tell his praise for the film is dripping with bias and preconceived political notions that are supported in the movie. Keep in mind that it's not just what a movie has to say, it's how it says it. You want a good story about class warfare? Go read A Tale of Two Cities, or even Les Mis. I can already tell that Elysium is going to be a clumsy, heavy handed sci-fi action fest that takes the term "class warfare" a little too literally. When Movie Bob heaps tons of praise on rather average films, I think it hurts his credibility.

 

[WhyWasThat]

No idea what Breaking Bad is.)

Grey Matter is now worth millions

Millions?

BILLIONS.

With a 'B'.

 

[Diablo2000]

"NO, EVANGELION DID NOT CREATE THE GIANT ROBOT GENRE OF ANIME, IT WAS MERELY THE HIGH OF IT'S POPULARITY", can't believe how many actually tried to argue that with me.

That gave me a pause to process it. How can a work that is a deconstruction of a genre create the genre? Deconstructions are there when the genre is already established. That's why they are deconstructions - all the pieces and tropes and stereotypes and everything is in place, i.e., it's "constructed". And yes, deconstructions do come about at or around the height of the popularity of a genre. That's also a thing deconstructions do. Why could somebody claim otherwise is beyond me.

Yep a friend of mine (total fanboy) and a other wrong people on the internet actually say (rather wrote which is worse) that to me. I can't even...
Yeah, that's why I don't usually that fanboys opinions too serius.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Because people disagreeing with me = being oppressed. Duh.

It's like the Third Reich all over again, first people begin to disagree with our video game opinions and soon we're all herded into the internet gas chamber/4chan.

 

[StriderShinryu]

It's certainly something that happens often, and it certainly happens to me, but I'm not sure there really is a good explantion for it. I suppose it's in large part based on two varieties of unrealistic expecations. First, it's when general judgement of something raises it to the point where your own expectation of it can't help but be swayed. Until, that is, you actually experience it yourself and then face inevitable disappointment. Second, it's an expectation that if "Something I don't like X" wasn't as popular as it was then "Something I do like Y" would be able to take it's place. Neither really makes a lot of actual sense, but I'd imagine that's where the impetuc for the feeling comes from anyway.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Because they find eminent flaws that praisers are happy to forget because they're focusing on something the not-fan didn't find that great or overall worth forgetting a bigger flaw.

You can like the texture and color of dog shit, but you can't go all "Well that's your opinion and it doesn't bother me" when someone starts talking negatively of the flavor.

But that's a strawman, so whatever.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

Because they don't think those things are as good as everyone else says it is. Everybody has different tastes man.

Ex: I think The Dark Knight is overrated, clearly Batman Begins is the superior film.

Hello new friend.

Seriously though, I totally agree. And don't even get me started on Rises.

...I liked Rises.......

The Dark Knight, Begins and Rises are all almost totally different from each other, in terms of tone, style and story structures, it's fun spotting those differences. I like all three on equal terms.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

From my experience, it boils down to one of three reasons.

Someone wanting to be hip and contrarian to what they perceive as popular opinion.
Someone who feels their opinion isn't truly "validated" unless it is shared by everyone.
Or finally, someone who derives some perverse enjoyment from insulting, harassing, and/or trolling the fandom of a piece of media. As in, someone wanting to be a douche-bag.

Now, there are plenty out there that genuinely dislike whatever bit of media is being discussed at the time. Which is a perfectly valid stance to have about anything. However, most of them are civil enough to refrain from bitching incessantly about others not agreeing with them. In fact, most will only discuss the matter if someone specifically asks them their opinion on the piece.

Those that start, "______ is overrated" threads are NOT among those civil people.

But this is the internet. The place maturity, civility, and kindness go to die.

The word "overrated" should be banned from the vocabulary of...well, everybody. It's meaningless. On the surface, it means that other people rate something higher than they should, while it's usually the person using the word who just doesn't like the piece in question. So, when they say "it's overrated", they actually mean

Spoiler: this

Because obviously it's everybody else wrong for liking something too much - they should like it less, right? That's what "overrated" tends to be used as. So henceforth, I shall only refer it as "the O-word".

Quoted for fucking truth.

In a vast majority of the cases wherein someone starts a thread in this forum titled "why do you people like X? It's so overrated.", their entire rant boils down to just what you've described. I.E. - "stop liking what I don't like"

Occasionally you'll see someone genuinely wanting to discuss the piece of media at length. Offering and expecting to receive criticisms on both sides. But again, most just want to shit on everyone's parade.

 

[infinity_turtles]

My theory is that because there's a sort of a buzz to really liking/hating something, people having contrary opinions tends to act as a bit of a buzzkill. So they read a contrary opinion, their buzz ends, and now they're agitated because the buzz is gone and reading something they disagree with. Over-reactions happen and then the people with moderate opinions get really annoyed because the extremes are over-reacting and being annoying.

 

[Locke_Cole]

My theory is that because there's a sort of a buzz to really liking/hating something, people having contrary opinions tends to act as a bit of a buzzkill. So they read a contrary opinion, their buzz ends, and now they're agitated because the buzz is gone and reading something they disagree with. Over-reactions happen and then the people with moderate opinions get really annoyed because the extremes are over-reacting and being annoying.

Honestly I believe it's the other way around. People expressing opinions contrary to popular opinion somehow feel their opinion is more unique and thus get a buzz off of that. They either consciously or unconsciously feel that their opinion matters more, since it goes against popular opinion, than all the sheep whom believe that something is amazing.

Saying you personally dislike something is fine.

Screaming out that something is trash while there are millions of people who are saying it's awesome is attention whoring.

 

[piinyouri]

The word "overrated" should be banned from the vocabulary of...well, everybody. It's meaningless. On the surface, it means that other people rate something higher than they should, while it's usually the person using the word who just doesn't like the piece in question. So, when they say "it's overrated", they actually mean

Spoiler: this

Because obviously it's everybody else wrong for liking something too much - they should like it less, right? That's what "overrated" tends to be used as. So henceforth, I shall only refer it as "the O-word".

I always think back to an old music forum I used to haunt.
They had competitions with bands, where users would vote and the one with the most went ahead, you know the usual setup.

After several months people started seeing the same bands every time, and it made things boring cause everyone knew who was going to win every time, to the point where these crazy popular entrees would be swapped out for others.

This is what I think of when the word overrated is used. I imagine a lot of people don't think something popular is necessarily of lesser value, it just get's tiring hearing about something all the time, and it's nice for something else to get a time to shine a bit.

I realize my analogy was probably crap. >.>

 

[xaszatm]

Well, to fair, he did over hype the film. A critic should give a largely unbiased review, with a carefully chosen list of pros and cons that are completely separate from the critics enjoyment of the film. In other words, even if he likes the film he shouldn't hold back criticism. This is especially true of Movie Bob, who tends to be extra critical of many films. When he tells you a movie is so good that you should just skip his review and go see it, it leads to absurd expectations. People who watch Movie Bob in order to inform their purchasing decisions have a right to be somewhat irritated after he gives a frankly unprofessional review (Pacific Rim). The film was okay, but the characters were terrible, especially Mako, who seemed like a Rei Ayanami rip off devoid of any of the characterization that made Rei Ayanami interesting.

He did better with Elysium, but you can tell his praise for the film is dripping with bias and preconceived political notions that are supported in the movie. Keep in mind that it's not just what a movie has to say, it's how it says it. You want a good story about class warfare? Go read A Tale of Two Cities, or even Les Mis. I can already tell that Elysium is going to be a clumsy, heavy handed sci-fi action fest that takes the term "class warfare" a little too literally. When Movie Bob heaps tons of praise on rather average films, I think it hurts his credibility.

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but how do you make an unbiased review? If you are listening to a critic, you are listening for his opinion. That in by itself means he's going to be biased. The very nature of criticism is to give your thoughts on a thing. So I never understand people asking for an unbiased opinion. All he could say is "This is [movie]. [Actor/Actress] is staring in it. It has color."

Also,

[Pacific Rim] was okay, but the characters were terrible, especially Mako, who seemed like a Rei Ayanami rip off devoid of any of the characterization that made Rei Ayanami interesting.

I can already tell that Elysium is going to be a clumsy, heavy handed sci-fi action fest that takes the term "class warfare" a little too literally. When Movie Bob heaps tons of praise on rather average films, I think it hurts his credibility.

You're not exactly posting unbiased opinions either.

OT: If you like it, you like it. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Debating the points of why someone likes or dislikes a movie is fine. When someone (like Moviebob AND his haters) attacks someone who has a different opinion is where the problem is. But I don't know why people do it.

 

[Abomination]

If something I feel is bad or a waste of resources is well received by the public I am upset because market forces will dictate that focus will be allocated towards generating more of the same, and probably less of the same of the stuff that I like.

That being said, I don't ram my opinion of it down anyone's throat because people are entitled to like what they like. I think I'll mention it once should I feel the need and move on? "This is not a type of thing I would like because I do not like X aspect of said thing."

I mean, I don't like tower defense games, racing games, fighting games (Street Fighter etc.) or platforming games (Mario/Zelda etc.) so seeing those do well is something I'm not exactly happy about because I feel the effort placed into those games could have been placed into genres I DO like.

 

[Signa]

In the context of games like Halo and CoD, I feel that the high popularity of those titles demands higher scrutiny. Neither hold up as far as I'm concerned (it doesn't make them bad games though), so just making remarks against them make me sound like a hater.

Some things do hold up though. Harry Potter reached mainstream popularity, and they were both good movies and great books. Then you have other popular things like Twilight...

 

[Fox12]

Well, to fair, he did over hype the film. A critic should give a largely unbiased review, with a carefully chosen list of pros and cons that are completely separate from the critics enjoyment of the film. In other words, even if he likes the film he shouldn't hold back criticism. This is especially true of Movie Bob, who tends to be extra critical of many films. When he tells you a movie is so good that you should just skip his review and go see it, it leads to absurd expectations. People who watch Movie Bob in order to inform their purchasing decisions have a right to be somewhat irritated after he gives a frankly unprofessional review (Pacific Rim). The film was okay, but the characters were terrible, especially Mako, who seemed like a Rei Ayanami rip off devoid of any of the characterization that made Rei Ayanami interesting.

He did better with Elysium, but you can tell his praise for the film is dripping with bias and preconceived political notions that are supported in the movie. Keep in mind that it's not just what a movie has to say, it's how it says it. You want a good story about class warfare? Go read A Tale of Two Cities, or even Les Mis. I can already tell that Elysium is going to be a clumsy, heavy handed sci-fi action fest that takes the term "class warfare" a little too literally. When Movie Bob heaps tons of praise on rather average films, I think it hurts his credibility.

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but how do you make an unbiased review? If you are listening to a critic, you are listening for his opinion. That in by itself means he's going to be biased. The very nature of criticism is to give your thoughts on a thing. So I never understand people asking for an unbiased opinion. All he could say is "This is [movie]. [Actor/Actress] is staring in it. It has color."

Also,

[Pacific Rim] was okay, but the characters were terrible, especially Mako, who seemed like a Rei Ayanami rip off devoid of any of the characterization that made Rei Ayanami interesting.

I can already tell that Elysium is going to be a clumsy, heavy handed sci-fi action fest that takes the term "class warfare" a little too literally. When Movie Bob heaps tons of praise on rather average films, I think it hurts his credibility.

You're not exactly posting unbiased opinions either.

OT: If you like it, you like it. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Debating the points of why someone likes or dislikes a movie is fine. When someone (like Moviebob AND his haters) attacks someone who has a different opinion is where the problem is. But I don't know why people do it.

I should really elaborate. Yes, reviews will be biased, but I feel like his last few reviews were less clear as to why the film in question is good or bad. In Pacific Rims case his main praise seemed to amount to "giant robots punch monsters, it is cool." This is fine for a group of friends, but a critic should be a little more clear about WHY his opinion is what it is. As for me, I'm not a paid critic. I don't have to be professional

All jokes aside though, I'm not a moviebob hater, I just feel like his last few videos weren't quite as well thought out. As for why people discuss why they like or dislike something, it's because they enjoy discussion, or debate. They don't just want to love or hate something, they want to understand WHY they love or hate it. Deconstructing stories is fun for some people. If someone is really hateful towards another person because of their interests, it's because they're an asshole. It's as simple as that.

Some people just see something that's frankly awful, see it's insanely popular in comparison to something they love, and feel the need to condemn the fans. I admit I've been guilty of this in the past (shame). Look at Twilight, I think the critics actually became more annoying than the fans, which is really saying something. I saw it was stupid, and ignored it. Some people just couldn't let it go though. Maybe they're just baffled.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think you may be overthinking issues that aren't that complex.

It annoys me when something is overpraised because if I don't like it, I don't want to see it or things like it. The praise causes both of these.

When something is overhated, it also annoys me for the exact opposite reason. I WANT to see it and thing like it and the majority negative opinion makes that difficult.

As for discrediting someone based on an opinion, I find it perfectly reasonable. If I disagree with someone to a massive degree, it's proof that they and I are on completely different wave lengths when it comes to quality, so there's not much point in giving their other opinions a chance.