"People looking for things to hate will find them"

Acutally, I have to disagree on two points, ani.

1. Anakin's massacre of the Tuskens. . . j/k

These are the real deal:

1. Why the strong backlash against popular culture? Doens't really have much to do with anything, but I was just curious. Also, I was under the impression that U2 isn't exactly counter-culture itself. . .

2. Critics do have a more weighted opinion on movies than other people, I think. Why? Because practice makes perfect. Having been critics as a career, they've probably seen more movies than most people, and probably have a better perspective on the entire body of works on film. Just like sports announcer might be able to make more intelligent commentary on a basketball game than someone who's only heard of Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, or we might be able to make more intelligent commentary on a Star Wars movie than a guy who only saw it one time, a movie critic who has dedicated many years of his life to that profression will likely be able to compose a better critique of a film than we would be able to, since we primarily watch movies casually for entertainment.

 

"What is bad to one well not be bad to another."

Then you are in fact saying that personal opinion is all that matters. Or do you believe that there are elements of cinema that can be objectively rated? It's one or the other, all or none.

 

Critics do have a more weighted opinion on movies than other people, I think. Why? Because practice makes perfect. Having been critics as a career, they've probably seen more movies than most people, and probably have a better perspective on the entire body of works on film. Just like sports announcer might be able to make more intelligent commentary on a basketball game than someone who's only heard of Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, or we might be able to make more intelligent commentary on a Star Wars movie than a guy who only saw it one time, a movie critic who has dedicated many years of his life to that profression will likely be able to compose a better critique of a film than we would be able to, since we primarily watch movies casually for entertainment.

That mean nothing. It just there opinoin the are paid to give there opinion. That's it there are not more right then the next person. To say that you should go by what a critic say is saying you can't choose what you like for your self.

I'm right at this moment listening to a band called Lullacary. They are a metal band with a female singer. If a critic came out and said they are really bad and are a rip off of Limp bizkit I would laguh at the guy. I have heard both bands. Limp bizkit sucks. They have no guitar solos they have no deapth in there music. They sewer in ever song. Lullacry has a lot of deapth. Don't sewer in there songs and have guitar solos.

So why should I care about what the critic says? I have fallen into that before. Never will I do that again. Never will I take the word of a critic. I have wasted my money on really bad music movies because of critics.

I read some good reviews about Pinks CD I got it and I hate it. I wasted my money on crap. All because of a critic, and pop culture.

Then you are in fact saying that personal opinion is all that matters.

Yes that's what I'm saying. If you don't like metal music and I do. Well it's your personal opinion. Well it's my personal opinion that it is very good. You see what I'm saying. I don't like horror movies I feel many of them a really bad movies that my personal opinion. You may like them that's your personal opinion. What is good to one person is not going to be good to another.

Just because you may say AOTC had poor acting. Sure you felt it did. But I don't agree with you. Nor do I have to agree with you because I feel the acting was good.

 

The only difference between what I say and what "gushers" say is that I back my views up.

You back it up with reviews from critics. Are you even giving your opinions or is it just critics opinions?

Whether you like reviews or not, most critics feel that the LOTR is better than the PT. You provide no evidence to the contrary other than personal opinion.

No evidence to the contrary that most critics feel that the THE LORD OF THE RINGS is better than the Prequels? I didn't know what the critics favored was in dispute. I thought what was in dispute was whether the critics reviews had any relevance.

If that's a fact, then it must also be a fact that every single film ever made is on par with every other one, that all movies are, from a coldly technical filmmaking standpoint, innately equivalent in their level of quality. Because that quality totally hinges on the tastes of each individual viewer, right?

I think you misunderstood. Or you're intentionally overstating your point.

I mean, opinions in here are a little skewed don't you think? So, I refer to the only other mediums available: critical reviews.

Some opinions in here may be a little skewed, but some critical reviews can be skewed, too.

I posited that the PT wasn't as good as the OT. I was met with universal condemnation.

You mean a "consensus?"

No one has ever given me a solid answer as to what makes the PT better, apart from personal opinion. If they did, I would surely listen.

What's wrong with personal opinion? It sounds like you're saying Prequel fans opinions aren't good enough. Yet, critics opinions are.

Look, I get your point. I just don't know if you get mine. And if you were given a hard time for your opinions in the past, that's not right. But neither is trying to make Prequel fans feel less for going against the "consensus". And, surely you know the criteria critics use to determine what is and what is not of quality does not make them experts in writing, casting, directing, acting, getting the directors water and so on.

 

Jabba-Wocky:

Excellent post. It seems like an embrace or justification of popular culture to her is pariah. although it seems she likes U2 which in an of itself can be characterized as part of pop culture given their tremendous mainstream appeal. But I digress, its not about her.

Darth Insidious:

Yes, I agree. There are elements of cinema that can be viewed objectively. Certainly that has to be the case, otherwise there would be no filmmaking schools, right? to teach ability, direction, filming, editing, even screenplay writing. Surely there must be some objective criteria for judging film besides ones own whims, biases and personal beliefs.

Your response to jabba-wocky:

That mean nothing. It just there opinoin the are paid to give there opinion. That's it there are not more right then the next person. To say that you should go by what a critic say is saying you can't choose what you like for your self.

you go on to say:

Just because you may say AOTC had poor acting. Sure you felt it did. But I don't agree with you. Nor do I have to agree with you because I feel the acting was good.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm simply trying to apply, what I feel are objective critiques of films that are from the same or near the same genre, that is, filmmaking inclusive of special effects that dealve into fantasy, science fiction, etc. And in your response to Jabba, you dismiss it entirely without even attempting to even look at another persons opinion apart from what we see on the board.

 

anidanami124, you have made some really good post.

 

Excellent post. It seems like an embrace or justification of popular culture to her is pariah. although it seems she likes U2 which in an of itself can be characterized as part of pop culture given their tremendous mainstream appeal. But I digress, its not about her.

I'm a HE not a she.

Yes, I agree. There are elements of cinema that can be viewed objectively. Certainly that has to be the case, otherwise there would be no filmmaking schools, right? to teach ability, direction, filming, editing, even screenplay writing. Surely there must be some objective criteria for judging film besides ones own whims, biases and personal beliefs.

What you learn in school and on the work place a two different things. All you are doing in school is learning a few things here and there that will help you. But once you get into the real world all bets are off. People will like what they want to like hate what they want to hate and so on. You can feel you made the best movie ever and yet you still get peopl who feel it is a bad film. That is because people choose what they like.

Look at cars for exmaple. I will take a corvette and a viper. Some will like the viper more corvette. Some will like the corvette more then the viper. They are choosing what they like and what they want and so on. So well yes you do learn somethings in school. It is not everthing. You learn for more by going on the job and seeing what others do.

You may feel you are the best writer in the world and want to write for a newspaper. You go in and the edited ripes what you have apart and tells you to go back and write it again. You may ask what is wrong with it he will tell you. Sure you may have learned to write in school. But out side of school it's a whole other ball game.





For the umpteenth time, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm simply trying to apply, what I feel are objective critiques of films that are from the same or near the same genre, that is, filmmaking inclusive of special effects that dealve into fantasy, science fiction, etc. And in your response to Jabba, you dismiss it entirely without even attempting to even look at another persons opinion apart from what we see on the board.

Ok many critics write for mags, newspapers, or some show on TV. They are giving there opinion. It's not any more inforamed then many. On less all those realtiy shows really are good.

Edit: People who write newpapers are only giving there opinions. That's what they are paid to do. They are paid to give there said of the story what they thought of a movie. Same with people who write for mags. They are paid for there opinions of something.

The way they write is in the I, we and so on. Were as if you were for a company they tell you to write a paper about how the company is doing. Well you can't use I, we, you have to use MLA.


Edit: Oh and sure people who write newpapers need to get some facts. But it's still there opinion.

 

Critics do have a more weighted opinion on movies than other people, I think. Why? Because practice makes perfect. Having been critics as a career, they've probably seen more movies than most people, and probably have a better perspective on the entire body of works on film. Just like sports announcer might be able to make more intelligent commentary on a basketball game than someone who's only heard of Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, or we might be able to make more intelligent commentary on a Star Wars movie than a guy who only saw it one time, a movie critic who has dedicated many years of his life to that profression will likely be able to compose a better critique of a film than we would be able to, since we primarily watch movies casually for entertainment.

But critics can also be blind. Unobjective. Sometimes it's easy to tell when a critic isn't a fan of cerain kinds of movies. Some critics, it's obvious they are not fans of Horror movies, for example. Their not always objective.

 

But critics can also be blind. Unobjective. Sometimes it's easy to tell when a critic isn't a fan of cerain kinds of movies. Some critics, it's obvious they are not fans of Horror movies, for example. Their not always objective.

And again that all comes down to the fact that they are paid by newspapers, mags, and TV people to give there opinion. That's all they want from them. They want that persons opinion. What they really felit about something. They want them to ripe something apart. Of give it the best reveiws ever.

 

Critics are a funny sort of animal.

Strange this is, the two major critics I read (Roger Ebert and Harry Knowles) are not people I generally agree with.

Harry just plain seems to like everything, and Ebert and I disagree on 90% of movies.

I don't read them to see 'is this flick worth seeing'? (Though Ebert tends to be a safe barometer for me, in his own way. Heh.) I read Ebert because he writes well, always has something intelligent to say and often points out things other critics doesn't. He doesn't just write the same damn thing.

As for Harry, well, he's just fun to read because he's so enthusiastic.


Oh yes, another 'reviewer' I like, from AICN of course... Neill Cumpston...



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"Yes that's what I'm saying. If you don't like metal music and I do. Well it's your personal opinion. Well it's my personal opinion that it is very good. You see what I'm saying. I don't like horror movies I feel many of them a really bad movies that my personal opinion. You may like them that's your personal opinion. What is good to one person is not going to be good to another."

Then you believe that taken purely as individual scenes put together to form a narrative line, The Phantom Menace is on the same level as Gigli, From Justin to Kelly and Plan Nine From Outer Space, because all films are innately technically as well-put-together as eachother, and cannot be said to be of different levels of quality until subjected to the tastes of a viewer. No two ways about it, if you believe it's all subjective, then you must believe that, or else you'd be contradicting yourself.

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Going with your car analogy, compare a Rolls Royce to a Buick. The former is a more well-made car. That's a fact, not an opinion. You may enjoy riding around in a Buick more than in a Rolls, and that's fine. You can like the Buick better, but the Rolls is still the better car.

 

Indeed some can be unobjective or biased. But it is a known and well-acknowledged principle that increasing one's sample size will help eliminate biases. That is, we must assume biases arise by chance only--there's no reason to believe an overwhelming or significant number of critics are unfairly biased against Star Wars, horror movies, or anything else.

Therefore, if we take a consensus of several critics (as we are talking about doing) and their is a strong trend towards disliking a certain film(s) (read: the PT), we can pretty safely assume that the cause of that trend is not some unreasonable or inexplicable bias against said films.

And ani there are many lukewarm reviews by critics--the vast majority, actually. They don't just "rip things apart" or "give them the best reviews ever."

Finally, yes critics just give their opinion, but there's such a thing as an informed opinion, as you well know. For instance, take a given issue. Someone with an informed opinion has been delaing with that issue for a long time, read a lot about, and a lot of what other people thought about it. Someone with an uninformed opinion is just shooting off at the mouth. To give us a real life example to grab on to, let's look at US politics, specifically presidential candidates. Many people have an opinion on who would make the best President. But there are poltical analysts with informed opinions, who, because they've read and studied the policies of respective candidates, can say things like, Candidate X is good because of his healthcare/defense/domestic/"insert something here" policy. Whereas if you asked a young child who had an uninformed opinion, he might say something like "Candidate X is better than Candidate Y because Candidate Y is stupid." Informed and uninformed.

In the same way, critics have a relatively more informed opinion than the average movie-goer. Why? Because they spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (in all likelihood much longer), watching them, reading about them, discussing them, and analyzing them. And all the while, there ability to survive is based solely on how well they do that.

We can even see it on these boards, unless you think that some guy that saw one Star Wars movie and then only casually has as informed an opinion of it as someone from these boards.

 

And I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

No I'm not wrong. You don't think AOTC has good acting. That is your opinion. That does not make you right.

Going with your car analogy, compare a Rolls Royce to a Buick. The former is a more well-made car. That's a fact, not an opinion. You may enjoy riding around in a Buick more than in a Rolls, and that's fine. You can like the Buick better, but the Rolls is still the better car.

Really know? Talk to someone who makes car for a living. They will tell you the best put together car is one that runs.

Finally, yes critics just give their opinion, but there's such a thing as an informed opinion, as you well know.

When you look at your paper you see what the critic said. He is giving his opinion. But he is not in any way more informed then you are. He is a write for a newspaper. he is paid to tell what he thought. That does not make him more informed.

 

there ability to survive is based solely on how well they do that.

I just got this hilarious image of Gene Shalit and Pauline Kael running around like cavemen bonking on rats with clubs to survive. Darwinian film criticism. You've made my night.




Rick McCallum loves you!

 

I don't think AOTC had all bad acting. It was mixed.

So are you telling me a Buick is a better car than a Rolls?

 

In the same way, critics have a relatively more informed opinion than the average movie-goer. Why? Because they spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (in all likelihood much longer), watching them, reading about them, discussing them, and analyzing them. And all the while, there ability to survive is based solely on how well they do that.

No they don't. They are working for a newpaper, or mag, or someone. But they are just giving there opinion of something. Just because someone says said game, book, or movie, or what ever is better and they liked it does not mean others well.

Go back and take a writing class. They even tell you there that when you write a review you are just giving your point of view. People will then agree or disagree with you.

So are you telling me a Buick is a better car than a Rolls?

Yes because like the Rolls it runs. If you buy your Rolls you going to start it and it does not start don't tell me it is a better car then the Buick. Because my Buick is starting up and running just fine. The car that runs is the best car.

 

I've already acknowleged that it's just an opinion. But someone who spends more time on a topic is likely to have a more informed opinion on that topic than someone who spends less time on it. Be it sports, cars, SW, or films in general, it applies everywhere. That doesn't mean people will necessarily agree with them, you're right.

But that's not what we're talking about. And that's not even necessarily their purpose. Most importantly to our discussion, it doesn't change the fact that their opinion is more informed. Think of it in terms of educated and uneducated guesses. Yes, you can make an uneducated guess that is closer to the truth than an educated one. But it's still better to go with the educated guess. In the same way, the informed opinions of critics do have more validity than what you give them credit for. They certainly aren't some hoard of demons or secret conspirators trying to make this overblown "pop culture" take over the world and control everyone's lives, as you seem to imply. There's no reason to assume that they have a motive that's evne remotely like that.

In the car analogy, ani, we have to be fair. Assuming both cars are functioning as intended, it's generally acknowledged that the Rolls Royce is the better engineered of the two.

Adam, imagine that with "Also Spake Zarathrusta" in blaring in the background.

 

*sigh*

And if the Rolls explodes on ignition due to a car bomb set up by a rival drug-trafficking cartel in order to assasinate me because the coke I'm pushing is of a better grade than theirs, then the Buick is a better car because it's owned by a mild-mannered news reporter named Clark Kent who is not the target of such an assasination, and although able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, cannot afford to expose his secret identity as Superman by flying through the streets on his way to work.

And if, and if, and if...

Obviously I intended you to assume that both cars actually work in my analogy.

 

But someone who spends more time on a topic is likely to have a more informed opinion on that topic than someone who spends less time on it.

So some who writes about movies knos what is good and what is bad for ever one? No sorry that is not true. You may spend time with it but again that does not make you a better judeg of what is good and what is bad.

Be it sports, cars, SW, or films in general, it applies everywhere. That doesn't mean people will necessarily agree with them, you're right.

Oh really then I would like you to meet the guy who runs the Lions. He may have been a football player. But he has no idea what he is doing. He has got the wrost players for the time.

Sure Roger writes about movie. But he was given the job because he was good at what he did. He gave his opinion and would write in a way that the paper liked. They did not give him the job because he knew more about movies. You can know a lot about how to make movies. But if you can't write the way a paper wants you to write you want be getting a job.

Sure a race car driver may race cars all day. But that does not mean he knows what a good car is. He may like a Rolls. But that does not make it a better car. It just means he liks a Rolls.

Think of it in terms of educated and uneducated guesses. Yes, you can make an uneducated guess that is closer to the truth than an educated one. But it's still better to go with the educated guess. In the same way, the informed opinions of critics do have more validity than what you give them credit for. They certainly aren't some hoard of demons or secret conspirators trying to make this overblown "pop culture" take over the world and control everyone's lives, as you seem to imply. There's no reason to assume that they have a motive that's evne remotely like that.

Do you know why Roger Ebert got the job he did? It had nothing to do with him being more informed aobut what makes a good movie. It was because he was a good writer. They don't look for how informed you are with movies. They look at how well you write. If you can't write they don't care how well informed you are.

I have seen people give reveiws of movies were I could not even finish reading because the guy did not do a good job writing.

 

So some who writes about movies knos what is good and what is bad for ever one?

I never said that. I admitted that informed opinions and educated guesses can often be wrong. And I never said that educated guesses of informed opinions mean "knowing what's right for everyone" I just said that they were, in general, more reliable than uneducated guesses and uninformed opinions.

Oh really then I would like you to meet the guy who runs the Lions.

I'm sure Bill (William Clay) would be quite offended if he read this.

But seriously, you aren't even addressing my point. I never said what the final outcome would be--nor am I trying to. I just said that people who spend more times with things will have a more informed opinion about those things as they continue to do so.

That's one of the basic principles behind learning. If it's not true, then why education, why science, hell, why even have chimpanzees if it doesn't mean anything. If you can't refine your skills or opinions by dedicating time to them, why do animals even bother with play behavior? What is anything around for at all??????

They don't look for how informed you are with movies.

That's not what I said. I said that because a critic spends so much time reviewing movies (once they get the job) they will probably become better at writing reviews as they go on, since practice makes perfect, and having seen and analyzed more movies, their opinions will be more informed.

If you don't belive this, then explain to me what exactly an "expert opinion" is in a court of law, please.

I have seen people give reveiws of movies were I could not even finish reading because the guy did not do a good job writing.

What does this have to do with anything???

 

I'm sure Bill (William Clay) would be quite offended if he read this.

No that would be Matt Millen. Sure Bill owns the team. Be he does not run the team. Matt does and he has no idea what he is doing. He got the wrost players ever.

I said that because a critic spends so much time reviewing movies (once they get the job) they will probably become better at writing reviews as they go on, since practice makes perfect, and having seen and analyzed more movies, their opinions will be more informed.

A better writer but no more well informed as to what how good a movie is.

 

How exaactly does one become more informed on a topic, then?

 

Most film critics are failed fimmakers with lots of issues.

I really don't think there's a generation of kids out there that are dreaming of being film critics. Most of them are dreaming about being famous. If you went to film school with someone (with talent, sorry) and they got all successful and you haven't, you tend to take the bitterness out on those who you believe that you "could've been" better than. Most film criticas are men. In fact, all of them are. Men tend to be jealous, and put down what they can't compete with.

 

Got anything to back that up with? The whole "Most film critics are failed fimmakers with lots of issues" thing?

 

How exaactly does one become more informed on a topic, then?

Look just because some guy in a newspaper has seen X number of movies does not mean he has a better opinion. He's just giving he's point of view.

So if I say I don't agree with him and I say I like said movie he did not. It does not mean I'm less imformed.

You become informed by looking things up and learning about things. But when it comes to giving a review it does not matter how many movies you saw. Because in the end the paper just wants you to tell what you thought of the movie. What did that person think of said movie. Did they like did they not like it. But to say because he has seen more movies that he knows what he is talking about and is more well informed as to what a good movie is is not right.

This guy came in because people read his review they liked how he was writing reviews. But it has nothing to do with how well informed you are as to how good a movies is.

This is just a movie. I don't need to see X number of movies and learn how a movie is bad to say if I liked a movie or not. I liked AOTC. I feel it is a really well made movie. Why do I need some critic agreeing with me to make my opinon better? Why is his opinion know better then my opinion? Because he has seen more movies? So what big deal he has seen more movies. Just because he feel something is good or bad will not be the same for the next.

So it all comes back to I dont' care what critics have to say about what is good and what is bad. I have been burn by them 2 times already. I'm not going to do that again.

I don't care what pop culture has to say about what they like or don't like I have be burned two times by them already. All the music I have bought in the last three months has been from Indie labels. I could not be happyer then I'm know with the music I got. I listen it to day in and day out. I don't listen to what is on the radio any more.

I have walked away form critics and pop culture and I love it. I love feeling free from them making chooses for me. I love saying I hate this, I like this and so on.

I will say I hate Limp bizkit they suck the more I hear there music the more I can't believe I bought one of there CD's. I love badns such as Flowing Tears, Nightwish, Lullacry. I have there music on loops I listen to it again and again.

I love Star Wars, I love Lord of the Rings. I hate Spider-man. I have watched SW and LOTR more times then I can count. Spider-man I have seen it one time and I will never watch it again.

Edit: I really don't think there's a generation of kids out there that are dreaming of being film critics. Most of them are dreaming about being famous. If you went to film school with someone (with talent, sorry) and they got all successful and you haven't, you tend to take the bitterness out on those who you believe that you "could've been" better than. Most film criticas are men. In fact, all of them are. Men tend to be jealous, and put down what they can't compete with.

Like DI said can you back them up. They are not film makers they are writers. Young people who want to write will want to write storys or even somethinf for a paper or a mag. That would be like me learning how to program a computer but then find out I'm not good at it then go write in a paper about it yet I have no idea how to write a paper for a newpaper. Not only that but I'm not good at it.