Kel Riever wrote...
Darth Brotarian wrote...
Kel Riever wrote...
Darth Brotarian wrote...
o Ventus wrote...
Darth Brotarian wrote...
****iest response I've heard to people having different opinions today. Though I will give you props for not resorting to "EAware paid them to like it" or "Your just a mindless drone for bioware" or even better "Your just an employe of EA"
It's also true.
Talk to anybody who knows anything about film and say that Biodome is a better movie than Citizen Kane. Gauge their reaction.
So you mean talk to pretentious people who all like art movies that border so closely to exploitation films the two might as well be the same thing? Or the movie critics who insist that everyone have the same taste of film as they do and anyone who doesn't is wrong? Or that third group who measure the quality of a film by it's obscurity and lack of traits found in other films, such as a soundtrack or narrative?
Or just regular people who call themselves film buffs or film experts and who get most of their opinions from other film buffs? Biodome is a horrible movie, truely it is, but mass effect 3 isn't biodome. If anything, it's more like pacific rim or iron man, it's an action game meant to showcase a battle between giant robot aliens who can exist for billions of years without any problems or maintenance issues, and us protectin the one thing needed to fight against them.
Personally I think while there is a objective way to measure a films quality, most of the criteria are more hardware or physical based, are the shots done well, is the sound for the film correct, are the effects decent visually, is there film continuity between the shots, and the acting ability. The rest of it regarding the plot and dialouge are more subjective things for people to see if they feel it's bard or not based on their own preferences. It just so happens that with movies like biodome, the consensus is almost unanimous about it being bad in both fields.
Ah, the, 'they're pretentious' arguement.
This is one of those generalizations that stems from one bad apple ruining the whole bunch. We LOVE to pick on critics that are wrong, and then say, "All the critics suck!" It makes us feel good. It is fun to pick on them. Especially since a lot of them couldn't necessarily produce a book or movie themselves.
But why, then, did so many people listen to Siskel and Ebert? How come so many people get caught up in fighting with the critics instead of just moving on? (oh yes, the secret is in there regarding posting on BSN. Find the gold....)?
Because people who do produce work need criticism that goes beyond chalking it up to 'Just everyone's opinion." If you are in the industry to create Mass EAppeal, you have to come up with criteria that covers a broad spectrum of people, if not every single one. And that becomes the definition of what is good. It changes, it is malleable, and it SHOULD be. Because sometimes people are wrong.
But that doesn't mean they are all the time, or even most of the time, just because "WELL, everyboyd has a different opinion!"
Honestly I wasn't trying to call out all critics, I like listening to them once in a while to get a good gauge of a film. I was more talking about the ones who like films like Melancholia, critics who watch films by Harmony Korine and say "this is a great movie", and generally people who I associate with using the citizen kane reference in their movie argument. Also I find the gambit cheap because, who the hell is going to dispute it? It's like comparing mafia films, and than there's the one guy who needs to be like, "It's good, but is it better than the godfather?" and the whole discussion stops becuase of course it won't be, becuase very few if any films can get up to that level of filmmaking masterpiece. It just comes off as cheap to me, and a rigged comparison.
Didn't mean to rustle your jimmies that much guy.
You always do!
Actually, if it isn't your point, and that's fine, it certainly is worth saying anyway. I'm not a critic, paid at least, myself. But in those industries where they exist, I can find the ones I respect. Paid video game critics are not on that list right now. Eventually, I'm sure there will be one.
@IntelligentMEFanboy: Yes, you won that round. Though I didn't realize I was fighting. Good Sun Tzu and stuff there. I'm not a PS3 guy but I have to admit, what I hear about exbawx Wun has me thinking about switching...
I prefer the more common man reviewer who manages to make profit from more or less ranting about a movie in a comedic way on a camera and uploading it to the internet.
Angry joe is a good video game reviewer I would trust, since he tends to be very fair and professional, despite some of the more comedy skit antics in the openings of his reviews. As well as a few other internet reviewers.
In fact I think I'm more in the reviewer camp than critic camp, if that's even a thing.
Closest I ever get to watching a film critic is the Midnight Screening thing going on by a website called the the cinema snob. And that is basically a guy who does one of these review shows going with his friends to see these movies and talk about them when they get back to the car.
Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 26 juillet 2013 - 05:53 .
Retour en haut
