Support NeoGAF

[Xisiqomelir]

I was strongly considering making this thread in Gaming, but now that we have the Ready Player One opening grosses in a more general thread seems better suited to the discussion.

To begin with the news which I wanted to talk about, Where the Water Tastes like Wine (henceforth WTWTLW), a game I wouldn't blame you for never hearing about, has bombaed miserably across all platforms. This is significant because it basically is a product of modern "games journalism". Austin Walker, Gita Jackson and Leigh "Gaming is Over" (then why did you write a game?!) Alexander wrote for it. The cabal hyped it endlessly in their usual outlets, and now we have the news that it sold under 4,200 copies.

The obvious contrast here is with Vavra's Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which as far as I can tell got panned by the games media because the designer enjoys irking them? It went Platinum in under 2 weeks.

Then, as I mentioned at the beginning, we have the new loved:hated, "critics": people who pay for their tickets split between The Last Jedi as the critically loved, audience loathed movie and Ready Player One as the film in the converse situation. Naturally, you have the privilege of being criticsplained to so that you may arrive at an understanding of why TLJ is actually great, as well as being criticsplained to that that you may understand why Ready Player One a movie where

Spoiler

the protagonist has his life saved multiple times by two women, one of whom is both black and lesbian

is bigoted, misogynist, transphobic garbage.

I have never seen this sort of petulant, foot-stamping, "you will like what we tell you to like" behaviour ever before in critics of any sort of entertainment medium at any point in my life. Ebert was quite famously down on action, yet he gave Aliens a 3.5/4 because he saw what Cameron had achieved, and more importantly realized that his job was to review things for the benefit of the would-be patron.

Have we reached the bottom of the pit here, or are things going to get worse?

 

[Dunki]

It is getting worse until something like gamergate happens there as well.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

My theory is that entertainment critics have to honor identity politics (as does anyone whose job has a public profile), whereas joe-average doesnt care about that stuff.

 

[TheShadowLord]

that could be the reason why batman vs superman has higher favorable reviews from fans than from critics.

 

[mrkgoo]

I'm not sure what your point is.

That there's a big gap between critic opinion and audience opinion?

I think you could cherry-pick that argument just as easily as you could cherry-pick the opposite where critics and audience agree.

It's just opinions.

For the record I quite liked Last Jedi too.

 

[Dunki]

I'm not sure what your point is.

That there's a big gap between critic opinion and audience opinion?

I think you could cherry-pick that argument just as easily as you could cherry-pick the opposite where critics and audience agree.

It's just opinions.

For the record I quite liked Last Jedi too.

His point is that identity politics in a movie and diversity are more important than the actual movie. You could clearly see this with Ghostbusters, Wonder Woman (which was a good movie but not the masterpiece these critics made it out to be. and other movies with more "progressive" topics and tones. Last Yedi was the latest one. Hell you even had critics label people who did not like black panther racist.

 

[mrkgoo]

His point is that identity politics in a movie and diversity are more important than the actual movie. You could clearly see this with Ghostbusters, Wonder Woman (which was a good movie but not the masterpiece these critics made it out to be. and other movies with more "progressive" topics and tones. Last Yedi was the latest one. Hell you even had critics label people who did not like black panther racist.

Hmmm. Possibly. yeah I could see that. It seems like the mood of the times, doesn't it?

Personally, I don't really take into account what critics specifically say, more relying on my own interesting a film, although I'll admit, if something is getting a lot of critical buzz, it will pop on my radar.

 

[Airola]

Just as there are critics who like the movies because of their "progressive worldview" there are people who hate them because of the same thing, and hate them even more if they see critics loving them because of it.

Isn't saying people loathed The Last Jedi quite an overstatement though? Sure people are loud about it on the internet but that doesn't yet mean much of anything.

 

[Ridcully]

Critics of a any medium are always out of step with the audience for a given product. This is more a function of how much media they have to consume and how it colours their tastes - you'd also be pretty sick of samey action movies or big, empty open worlds if you had to spend every day going through them. The shallow politics a lot of them bring into their coverage are brought in for either clicks, or because they want to get these opinions out and will never have a real avenue for it.

There is a bit of schadenfreude to be had with Austin et al failing to get a game sold, though.

 

[Kadayi]

My theory is that entertainment critics have to honor identity politics (as does anyone whose job has a public profile), whereas joe-average doesn't care about that stuff.

Pretty much. Any and all of these people are connected by things like Twitter as part of their day to day profession and so you've ended up in a situation where even the most unrealistic hysterical hypersensitive assertions are not openly questioned or challenged for fear of an open backlash. Time and time again we've seen the situation play out where someone says something against the grain and then before you know it, they're turned into a pariah and ex-communicated by former peers, lest association taint their own well. When people have got skin in the game, it's natural they'll play along regardless of whatever twisted roads it travels down, because to do otherwise is to endanger their livelihoods. It's pretty tragic really. Conversely, the vast majority of humanity gets by perfectly well without Twitter and thus is less inclined to support a lot of this stuff.

 

[Lupingosei]

Entertainment critics are students who did not find another job. They are stuck in a badly paid job for an entertainment website. They don't even want to talk about the media they are reviewing but to educate people. That is also why the most movie or game reviews are not about the movie or the game anymore, but about the feelings of the reviewer and how you should feel about it. Ghostbuster 2016 was pretty much the first taste of how far reviewers would go, just to stick it to the nerds and this is now the norm, not the exception anymore.

However, because of this at least the game press has lost all its influence on the medium. The preach towards an audience which is not even buying the product and gamers have moved on to streamers for their impressions. That is why they can neither push nor kill the commercial success of a game anymore. Its starts happening in TV and movies as well, Star Trek Discovery vs the Orville was just the first taste of it. Soon viewers will probably also move away from outlets like Rotten Tomatoes and other review channels, probably also towards youtubers.

 

[TTOOLL]

I think that if you are a critic you have to go beyond "just one more opinion". Anyone can have an opinion but not anyone can be a critic.

If it's your profession and you are writing to other people you need to learn to recognize good things even if they don't suit your views. Of course this is no easy task and that's why many people fail at it.


Edit: it also "helps" that the level of journalism in general nowadays is pure crap.
50 people complain on Twitter and it's enough for the "journalist" to write some bullshit story about it.

 

[MC Safety]

There are plenty of reviewers who approach criticism without an agenda. It's easy to find them.

Beyond that, I don't read criticism to have my opinions validated. I read for information, for entertainment, and for an argument either in favor of, or against, a piece of art's quality.

 

[Cato]

Isn't saying people loathed The Last Jedi quite an overstatement though? Sure people are loud about it on the internet but that doesn't yet mean much of anything.

People disliked TLJ because it was shit. A large reason it was shit was due to the SJW message.
But still, the movie was shit and that is why people dislike it.

 

[Dunki]

Just as there are critics who like the movies because of their "progressive worldview" there are people who hate them because of the same thing, and hate them even more if they see critics loving them because of it.

Isn't saying people loathed The Last Jedi quite an overstatement though? Sure people are loud about it on the internet but that doesn't yet mean much of anything.

The problem is also that these critics accuse everyone who disagrees of being a sexist and racist. You could see this really good with the Black Panther movie but also with Star Wars and Ghostbusters.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

I don't pay much attention to "professional" critics and reviews anymore. If i'm interested in something i will read some positive and negative opinions by regular folks and apply my own filter to what information i find useful.

 

[TheMikado]

The problem is also that these critics accuse everyone who disagrees of being a sexist and racist. You could see this really good with the Black Panther movie but also with Star Wars and Ghostbusters.

I don't recall any issues with Black Panther beyond people trying to claim its a "bad" movie which would probably get a strange reaction. It really isn't bad by any measure. It also isn't amazingly great, but it also isn't "just another Superhero movie" either.

Ghostbusters was just plain awful, but I take that as prioritizing feminine issues. Especially when casting and creating the black actress. Personally I was so disgusted by the trailers I almost didn't watch the movie at all. I finally did and was so appalled I almost didn't finish the movie at all and probably wouldn't if it weren't for the controversy surrounding it and feeling like I needed to give it a chance. The fact is the trailers didn't earn it the chance, the first hour of it didn't earn it that chance, and really the only thing driving me was the name recognition of it being in the Ghostbuster franchise. After finishing it I vowed never to watch it, and this is from the guy who has watched every film, tv show, and played every ghostbuster related game.

Man Ghostbusters was just appalling.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Agree 1000%. The issue here isnt that critics are no longer the definitive source of movie taste - even in their heyday Siskel and Ebert were never always "correct", and nobody used their rating as a serious argument. It also is not that critics no longer have the same opinions as fans - there have always been underrated and underappreciated movies. It is the why and the how things are different today. It is the motivation behind their current judgement, the end goal of their judgement.

 

[JDB]

Is this forum really just people pearl clutching about identity politics now?
Give it a break.

 

[Airola]

People disliked TLJ because it was shit. A large reason it was shit was due to the SJW message.
But still, the movie was shit and that is why people dislike it.

No, people who think it's shit disliked it.
It's literally an overreaction if anyone says people loathed the movie. Some did. Maybe many did. But it wasn't that big of a bomb.

When you say large reason it was shit was because of the "sjw message" you prove my point in that some critics love it because of its message and some people hate it because of its message. If people should be allowed to dislike a movie because of its message, surely people should also be allowed to like it because of the same reasons.

I personally thought the movie was ok. Nothing great, nothing awful. Just like most Star Wars movies (yes, even the original trilogy).

The problem is also that these critics accuse everyone who disagrees of being a sexist and racist. You could see this really good with the Black Panther movie but also with Star Wars and Ghostbusters.

Not every critic did that. In fact I would even say most critics don't think you are sexist and racist if you don't like those movies. Don't you think someone might like the message but still wouldn't want to judge others who don't like the movie? Do you think if someone likes the message they would immediately think those who don't like the movies are racist and sexist?

Ghostbusters was just plain awful, but I take that as prioritizing feminine issues. Especially when casting and creating the black actress. Personally I was so disgusted by the trailers I almost didn't watch the movie at all. I finally did and was so appalled I almost didn't finish the movie at all and probably wouldn't if it weren't for the controversy surrounding it and feeling like I needed to give it a chance. The fact is the trailers didn't earn it the chance, the first hour of it didn't earn it that chance, and really the only thing driving me was the name recognition of it being in the Ghostbuster franchise. After finishing it I vowed never to watch it, and this is from the guy who has watched every film, tv show, and played every ghostbuster related game.

Man Ghostbusters was just appalling.

The trailers did the same thing for me, but luckily the trailers showed the worst parts in the worst possible way and the final movie wasn't that bad for me. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad either. Much better what the trailers made me expect of it. Enjoyed it enough to not get bored with it but I don't have any need to see it again and I think the movie will be forgotten in future. I was surprised how McCarthy (not sure of her name) and the black woman weren't as obnoxious as they were shown in the trailers. I was so ready to hate those characters but was glad to see they weren't that awful.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

Is this forum really just people pearl clutching about identity politics now?
Give it a break.

Cmon guys, just roll over. Stop thinking about things critically and just accept you are on the wrong side of history already.

 

[Lupingosei]

Cmon guys, just roll over. Stop thinking about things critically and just accept you are on the wrong side of history already.

Because gamers did not, they are so obsessed with topics like toxic fanboy culture and try to shove it into so many things as possible. Look at Ready Player One, how they try turning this into this gamers are awful narrative. They are still not over it, that gamers did not roll over that they are still there reminding them of everything they ever wrote because they made archives and confront them with their own words, like when Trump went after video games and they wanted to show, they are not like him.

 

[Vicetrailia]

It's straight white men against the world!

 

[strange headache]

I have never seen this sort of petulant, foot-stamping, "you will like what we tell you to like" behaviour ever before in critics of any sort of entertainment medium at any point in my life.[...] Have we reached the bottom of the pit here, or are things going to get worse?

Much of what you say also pertains to a topic I recently crated in the gaming section. I don't know if things are getting worse, all I can say is that they are changing. Judging be the general reaction to these kinds of reviews, I'd say that people are getting tired of it. You just have to read any comment section insofar as they are even allowed nowadays, like this one for example: Gamespot - Far Cry 5 Has Us Confused.

Another problem is that the entry barrier to this kind of work has become so low, it has over-saturated the market. The offer largely exceeds the demand for this kind of criticism and there is a high risk that your work is simply drowned in a sea of similar articles. Lots of video game journalists work as freelancers, so they become more interested in establishing their own persona while trying to profile themselves, than showing any genuine interest in the subject or game they cover.

If you seek to make a name for yourself, the easiest way is to pander to the audience you wish to reach. The problem with that approach is that the subject at hand takes a back seat to the self-serving ambitions of the author. Leigh Alexander is a perfect example of that. In the beginning, she established herself through rather good writing and thought-provoking pieces from a refreshingly new angle, but then her own ego got the best of her culminating in her now infamous 'gamers are dead' article, showing how much she held her own audience in contempt.

To begin with the news which I wanted to talk about, Where the Water Tastes like Wine (henceforth WTWTLW) [...] The cabal hyped it endlessly in their usual outlets, and now we have the news that it sold under 4,200 copies.

It's just another example of how far the San Francisco style of gaming journalism has fallen from grace. When political narratives, self-promotion and cronyism become more important than the core business, which is to present and review games, don't expect gamers to put up with that stuff. It's gotten to the point where the usual suspects like Kotaku, Polygon and Waypoint have become the laughing stock of the gaming community and they only have themselves to blame for that. As with the developer of Where the Water Tastes like Wine they pandered to a crowd that likes to be outraged and talk about games a lot, but doesn't actually buy or play them.

To me it's amazing how the developer still fails to even realize why his game failed in the first place. Instead of satisfying the gaming audience, he pandered to the wrong crowd, the journalists who alienated themselves from the gaming community at large. The resulting disconnect is amazing:

Nordhagen has not made any money on the game, and has in fact lost a hefty sum on it, having paid contractors and collaborators on the game a total of $140,000. "At the end of the day it’s astounding that a game that got this much attention from the press, that won awards, that had an all-star cast of writers and performers, that had a bizarre celebrity guest appearance(!) failed this hard," Nordhagen says in the blog post. "It scares me.".

All the awards in the world can't help your game to become successful if the gameplay itself isn't very satisfying in the first place. Instead of engaging with the gaming community, the developer simply placed his bets on the wrong horse. Putting Sting into your game and presenting the grandest of narratives doesn't mean sh*t, if your game isn't satisfying to play. The developer goes on to shill the Washington Post review, which merely confirms the problems with this game:

The great joy here is less about gaming and more about the human experience. There’s no one to shoot or punch, no planet to fly to and from, no puzzle solving needed to unlock a door. The only puzzles here are the puzzles of the minds you encounter. [...] Most of the time, I just walked.

The whole article is so pretentious, it makes your head spin. For the most part the article praises the story as some kind of paradigm shift video game storytelling, but nowhere does it really inform you about the game itself or how it actually plays. For the most part said article is arguing against the straw-man that 'story isn't welcome in a game' which is just silly. For goodness' sake, the author's biography at the end of the review is almost longer than the review itself. It's ridiculous!

I mean, the Washington Post article even fails to mention the horrible keyboard and mouse controls, which the developer simply failed to take into account while developing his game for the PC market in the first place:

Forgetting that the PC uses a mouse and keyboard. [...] As a result, the controls were tuned and polished for gamepad, and the mouse and keyboard, while functional, were relegated to second place. However, we shipped on computers, not consoles.

Amazing stuff, but hey, at least the writing staff was diverse and unheard of:

I am also very happy that we managed to represent a huge amount of America’s diversity in the writing staff for the game, and I’m proud that we gave a number of new or unheard voices a place to tell their stories.

More evidence why identity politics is sh*t and why diversity for diversity's sake is simply a bad idea. You know, sometimes, just sometimes, writers remain unheard of because they simply suck and not because they belong to a minority. While giving a chance to new and unknown talent is laudable, you still have to take into account that merit is important. But despite all the compelling evidence as to why his game failed, the developer then goes on to conclude the following:

Basically, I’m not sure that games like this one can continue to be made in the current market.

Which is just an incredibly backhanded way to put the onus on the gaming community for not appreciating his pretentious indie game enough. In fact, the gaming community greatly supports good indie games: Binding of Isaac, Hyper Light Drifter, Owlboy, Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight, Braid, Cave Story, Papers Please, The Stanley Parable, Kerbal, Inside, Stardew Valley, Dwarf Fortress, FTL, Prison Architect... man the list is endless. You just have to engage with the gaming community, instead of shoveling pretentious crap in order to please video game journalists in their little social media bubbles.

 

[Lupingosei]

It's straight white men against the world!

Please, there are more than enough gamers of different nations, ethnics, genders, and sexualities who will never agree with things what big part of entertainment media wants. Look at Japan or China for example.

It's probably a minority movement with a lot of noise because of the media, but still not a big majority, if you look at sales.

 

[Dunki]

It's straight white men against the world!

Yeah that must be the reason for it. Not an agenda pushing bullshit "journalism"

Also you have forgotten to put CIS into it. Your Social Justice gender studies prof would be really upset at you. Some might you even call Nazi for forgetting such an important word of oppression

 

[e0n]

Have some common sense and stop treating certain reviews as gospel.

 

[Zog]

It's straight white men against the world!

..or so you would like.

 

[-Minsc-]

There's a lot of truth to what the OP says. As I use the thoughts of those responding I the conclusion that it really doesn't matter in the long run. All I really need is a "Check it out." or "Don't watch.". There's only so much a review can tell before spoiling the piece of entertainment. Typically there's something minor which sticks out from impressions, trailers, etc. which will hook me or drive me away. Missing a movie out of the sea because I didn't give it a fair chance is no big deal.

 

[camelCase]

It's the critics job to inform public opinion not reflect it, although it seems like many reviewers have thinly veiled alterior motives for publishing the "opinions" that they do

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Is this forum really just people pearl clutching about identity politics now?
Give it a break.

lol, right?

I mean, this topic is difficult to parse, because of the wide blanket cast upon all criticism in entertainment. Called movies and video games to the carpet, but why not also television? Music? Sports? Performance arts?

Probably because movies and television is as far as the OP's personal scope. Nevertheless, there have been critics of all of these things, and there always will be critics of these things as they generally do work in a cohort.

Where Water Tastes Like Wine undersold while literally hundreds of games released in March sold less than 100 copies. Nobody would be talking about this game had the "director" not published an introspection on the future of (indie) gaming and marketability (the prognosis is not good).


In reality, critics and fans think alike. Look at the bottom end instead of the top: Sherlock Gnomes, Pacific Rim Uprising, A Wrinkle in Time, are in sync between fans and critics.

On the top end, Isle of Dogs and Love, Simon, fans and critics agree.


Same with games: Celeste, Into the Breach, DBFZ, SotC, are all highly rated by critics and fans.

 

[Dunki]

lol, right?

I mean, this topic is difficult to parse, because of the wide blanket cast upon all criticism in entertainment. Called movies and video games to the carpet, but why not also television? Music? Sports? Performance arts?

Probably because movies and television is as far as the OP's personal scope. Nevertheless, there have been critics of all of these things, and there always will be critics of these things as they generally do work in a cohort.

Where Water Tastes Like Wine undersold while literally hundreds of games released in March sold less than 100 copies. Nobody would be talking about this game had the "director" not published an introspection on the future of (indie) gaming and marketability (the prognosis is not good).


In reality, critics and fans think alike. Look at the bottom end instead of the top: Sherlock Gnomes, Pacific Rim Uprising, A Wrinkle in Time, are in sync between fans and critics.

On the top end, Isle of Dogs and Love, Simon, fans and critics agree.


Same with games: Celeste, Into the Breach, DBFZ, SotC, are all highly rated by critics and fans.

No they do not. And reason for this is their political agenda. Newest and best example in terms of video games was Kingdom come and also Far cry 5. In terms of movies I already mentioned quite a few movies.

Is it every movie? No it is not it ist just every movie that either is "problematic" or overly "progressive" These kind of movies and also games get criticized mostly with their political view around it. The same thing did happen in video games a while ago and Video games journalism has become a joke in itself.

With movies it is on the way but while gamers could had a huge alternative with twitch and YouTube movie critics mostly still have the edge because there are not yet enough alternatives. But this is also changing.

 

[ilfait]

Critics of a any medium are always out of step with the audience for a given product. This is more a function of how much media they have to consume and how it colours their tastes - you'd also be pretty sick of samey action movies or big, empty open worlds if you had to spend every day going through them. The shallow politics a lot of them bring into their coverage are brought in for either clicks, or because they want to get these opinions out and will never have a real avenue for it.

There is a bit of schadenfreude to be had with Austin et al failing to get a game sold, though.

You're partially right, but politics has now been layered on top of the pre-existing effect that you describe.

I have no issue with the taste of critics being affected by the amount of media they consume; I welcome that. But it's their willingness to hold the value of art as propaganda over the intrinsic value of art that is despicable, and why the news about their game finding no audience despite nepotistic coverage and the news about Vavra's game makes me feel somewhat optimistic about the future, despite the wretchedness of the current state of art criticism.

I say somewhat optimistic because I think the damage that they're doing to culture is still significant and needs to be addressed.

 

[Dunki]

You're partially right, but politics has now been layered on top of the pre-existing effect that you describe.

I have no issue with the taste of critics being affected by the amount of media they consume; I welcome that. But it's their willingness to hold the value of art as propaganda over the intrinsic value of art that is despicable, and why the news about their game finding no audience despite nepotistic coverage and the news about Vavra's game makes me feel somewhat optimistic about the future, despite the wretchedness of the current state of art criticism.

I say somewhat optimistic because I think the damage that they're doing to culture is still significant and needs to be addressed.

Reminds me of this

 

[mckmas8808]

My theory is that entertainment critics have to honor identity politics (as does anyone whose job has a public profile), whereas joe-average doesnt care about that stuff.

This isn't it at all. The OP is making this a way bigger deal than it is. TLJ was a good movie. Some people just can't live in a world where most critics like it, so they spaz out on Twitter and on forums. Social media has really made some people into monsters thinking that if you don't agree with them then you are the enemy. Which is just ridiculous.

Reminds me of this

And this is a perfect example. So just because somebody isn't going to keep watching a good show, means that they are destroying American culture? It's a choice everyone makes to spend time consuming a piece of entertainment. If their conscience isn't going to allow them to watch or play it then that's fine.

 

[Dunki]

This isn't it at all. The OP is making this a way bigger deal than it is. TLJ was a good movie. Some people just can't live in a world where most critics like it, so they spaz out on Twitter and on forums. Social media has really made some people into monsters thinking that if you don't agree with them then you are the enemy. Which is just ridiculous.



And this is a perfect example. So just because somebody isn't going to keep watching a good show, means that they are destroying American culture? It's a choice everyone makes to spend time consuming a piece of entertainment. If their conscience isn't going to allow them to watch or play it then that's fine.

No the problem is because of politics you do not agree with you also suggest not to watch this even though it is funny. It is putting political views over everything else in stupid sitcoms.

And if you have such a power and you can manipulate people with lies and false premises because you either do not understand the movie series and its intention or you do not agree with it, you also manipulate perceptions People do not have the time to watching everything. Some stuff they are skeptical about and this is when critics come in. They will deliver the message as it is boring and not worth watching even though they only do it because of their political agenda they want to push.

I think we need to understand that " journalist" and also critics have a huge responsibility and if we have such Sinclair situations you can basically manipulate a whole nation. So if you want to go political maybe it is also a problem that many of these critics only push and follow a certain agenda since other people would be hunted and mobbed out of their jobs for being conservatives etc.

And for the Star wars part. People not linking the movie were compared to the alt right sexists and racists and yes also from these kind of critics. The same thing on a bigger scale did happen with Ghostbusters. They made it so apparently clear that if you do not like and watch the movie you are a terrible person. And they basically tried to lynch James Rolfe because of it to create an example of what will happen to people who dare to speak out.

Ghostbusters was also the first movie which made these intentions clear and now you can see a similar picture of it in these kind of movies. This was also the first real movie who brought up a lot of backlash against critics and from then one these kind of events do happen more and more now.

 

[InterMusketeer]

TLJ was a good movie.

Why would you lie like that though?

And this is a perfect example. So just because somebody isn't going to keep watching a good show, means that they are destroying American culture? It's a choice everyone makes to spend time consuming a piece of entertainment. If their conscience isn't going to allow them to watch or play it then that's fine.

I mean, she can do whatever she wants, but I think it's very sad she's politicizing the act of watching a damn TV show.

 

[ilfait]

Reminds me of this

If a critic doesn't at least have the goal of criticising artistic work and entertainment based purely on its merits as art and entertainment, then in my opinion they're not art/entertainment critics; they're propagandists.

It's like what's reasonable to expect from a jury. Every juror's going to have subconscious biases that will influence their decisions, but our baseline expectation of what we expect in a juror is that he makes it his aim to assess the case on its merits and attempt to come to a decision that isn't completely undermined by what he thinks of the defendant's fashion sense. If the juror doesn't at least aim at this, he isn't doing his job.

But many critics aren't ashamed to admit that their aim in coverage is intentionally politically motivated. They'll often proudly announce it in their coverage and pat each other on the back for it as if they deserve praise for being terrible at their job. It's of course not reasonable to expect complete impartiality, but if they don't at least strive to assess art on its merits as art, they're abysmal failures, and their failure is at the expense of culture; it's at the expense of the art and artists that you'd naturally expect someone in the position of a professional critic to revere and want to honor.

 

[Hotel Security]

My theory is that entertainment critics have to honor identity politics (as does anyone whose job has a public profile), whereas joe-average doesnt care about that stuff.

This is great point. So many reviews are about the relevancy of something (movie, game, music, art, etc) to the day's politics and most folks don't give a crap and just care whether it's entertaining or not. I don't get why reviewers can't understand that half the country detests politics and that games are supposed to be an escape from it. I feel sorry for these folks who have to infuse everything with politics...what a horrible way to view the world.

But, these things are cyclical. Once we get a "normal" president who doesn't piss off the kids despite doing very little then folks will go back to largely ignoring politics again.

 

[crisdecuba]

Then, as I mentioned at the beginning, we have the new loved:hated, "critics": people who pay for their tickets split between The Last Jedi as the critically loved, audience loathed movie and Ready Player One as the film in the converse situation. Naturally, you have the privilege of being criticsplained to so that you may arrive at an understanding of why TLJ is actually great, as well as being criticsplained to that that you may understand why Ready Player One a movie where

Spoiler

the protagonist has his life saved multiple times by two women, one of whom is both black and lesbian

is bigoted, misogynist, transphobic garbage.

How is RPO critically loathed? It's at 75% on RT, meaning 3 out of 4 critics liked it and it's certified fresh. In fact, the "consensus" is that RPO is "a sweetly nostalgic thrill ride that neatly encapsulates Spielberg's strengths while adding another solidly engrossing adventure to his filmography." Is there something I'm missing? In general I don't think entertainment critics are that far off from general opinion.

 

[mckmas8808]

Reminds me of this

No the problem is because of politics you do not agree with you also suggest not to watch this even though it is funny. It is putting political views over everything else in stupid sitcoms.

And if you have such a power and you can manipulate people with lies and false premises because you either do not understand the movie series and its intention or you do not agree with it, you also manipulate perceptions People do not have the time to watching everything. Some stuff they are skeptical about and this is when critics come in. They will deliver the message as it is boring and not worth watching even though they only do it because of their political agenda they want to push.

I think we need to understand that " journalist" and also critics have a huge responsibility and if we have such Sinclair situations you can basically manipulate a whole nation. So if you want to go political maybe it is also a problem that many of these critics only push and follow a certain agenda since other people would be hunted and mobbed out of their jobs for being conservatives etc.

And for the Star wars part. People not linking the movie were compared to the alt right sexists and racists and yes also from these kind of critics. The same thing on a bigger scale did happen with Ghostbusters. They made it so apparently clear that if you do not like and watch the movie you are a terrible person. And they basically tried to lynch James Rolfe because of it to create an example of what will happen to people who dare to speak out.

Ghostbusters was also the first movie which made these intentions clear and now you can see a similar picture of it in these kind of movies. This was also the first real movie who brought up a lot of backlash against critics and from then one these kind of events do happen more and more now.

Man Dunki you have to stop caring so much about the few critics that say that kind of stuff. It's honestly not influencing the nation like you think it is. Most people hated the new Ghostbusters movie, because it wasn't good. Now there were others that hated the thought of an all women's Ghostbusters movie too. Both things were true.

Why would you lie like that though?


I mean, she can do whatever she wants, but I think it's very sad she's politicizing the act of watching a damn TV show.

LOL! Me and millions of people really did like TLJ. But with the Twitter person, we've also politicized acts of entertainment. There's only but so much time in the day to take all this great entertainment in. Why waste it on something that doesn't tickle your fancy? Even if it is good. Choices have got to be made.

 

[ilfait]

It's the critics job to inform public opinion not reflect it, although it seems like many reviewers have thinly veiled alterior motives for publishing the "opinions" that they do

I think that if a critic or an outlet decides that it would be unethical to be what an art critic must try to be--if their ethics conflict with the fact that the job of a competent critic will sometimes mean inadvertently promoting work that doesn't align with their own moral code--then that critic or outlet should stop or rebrand themselves to reflect what they are. Your site should look like this: https://www.thechristianfilmreview.com/ or this https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies, not like this: https://www.polygon.com/ or this https://www.rogerebert.com/. And it should not be included on Metacritic unless Metacritic rebrands itself too. It's not enough that the ubiquity of politically motivated reviews is now implied. It should be explicitly stated and the reviews should be clearly separated from credible reviews.

It's not going to happen, at least not in that way. But it should.

 

[strange headache]

Man Dunki you have to stop caring so much about the few critics that say that kind of stuff.

Yeah D Dunki stop thinking so much and stop being so critical of identity politics that is currently seeping into every crevasse of mainstream media and hobbyist communities alike. Don't worry about the 'few' major gaming outlets that are crapping all over the gaming community. Just... just let it happen, man!

 

[Jezan]

People disliked TLJ because it was shit. A large reason it was shit was due to the SJW message.
But still, the movie was shit and that is why people dislike it.

What SJW message?

The movie was badly written and it was more like fanfic than anything else. Also critics were payed , other wise how would it get very good scores but many people actually disliked it.

I don't know why people get mad when "politics"make it into the media we consume. Get your heads out of your asses because want it or not politics are part of our everyday life, if anything the aversion to politics is what has us in this shitty situation.

 

[crisdecuba]

As

I think that if a critic or an outlet decides that it would be unethetical to be what an art critic must try to be--if their ethics conflict with the fact that the job of a competent critic will sometimes mean inadvertently promoting work that doesn't align with their own moral code--then that critic or outlet should stop or rebrand themselves to reflect what they are. Your site should look like this: https://www.thechristianfilmreview.com/ or this https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies, not like this: https://www.polygon.com/ or this https://www.rogerebert.com/. And it should not be included on Metacritic unless Metacritic rebrands itself too. It's not enough that the ubiquity of politically motivated reviews is now implied. It should be explicitly stated and the reviews should be clearly separated from credible reviews.

It's not going to happen, at least not in that way. But it should.

Ethical values always color how we perceive art, whether subtly or overtly. How do you determine what is “credible” or not credible in your system?

 

[pramod]

I just stick with Youtube reviews like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckman, they're pretty reliable and haven't let me down yet.

 

[ilfait]

As

Ethical values always color how we perceive art, whether subtly or overtly. How do you determine what is “credible” or not credible in your system?

A credible review aims to critique art entirely on its artistic merit. It attempts to get at the question of why something is good or bad art as art, regardless of whether it's good or bad at promoting correct sociopolitical values as propaganda.

 

[Dunki]

Man Dunki you have to stop caring so much about the few critics that say that kind of stuff. It's honestly not influencing the nation like you think it is. Most people hated the new Ghostbusters movie, because it wasn't good. Now there were others that hated the thought of an all women's Ghostbusters movie too. Both things were true.

I am sorry but people like this make me puke inside. I consider myself liberal and all for equality but these kind of people who try to ruin everything are just pissing me off more and more. And I think they need to get even more backlash until they realize that this is no place for their agenda pushing bullshit. And what did happen to James Rolfe was fucking disgusting. They even called his wife a golddigger during this controversy. Which is pretty "ironic" since they accused Rolfe of being a sexist and a misogynistic asshole while simultaneously insulting his wife.....

But in the end I was kind of happy that these people who caused such an uproar in the end were the reason almost no one even wanted to give this thing a chance. Everything these idiots do backfires right now and I always have to laugh when it does and they still blame others for its failure.

I find more common ground these days with conservative people because the rest has become so fucking lunatic and insane that it hurts my brain.

As for Ready player one: He is a great example: Luckily someone at the guardian still had some sense left to not give any kind of review power to this asshole

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...pielberg-video-gamers-ready-player-one-gaming

I just stick with Youtube reviews like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckman, they're pretty reliable and haven't let me down yet.

Yeah these ones are pretty good. Also like haf in the bag quite a bit but they are also very long^^

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

No the problem is because of politics you do not agree with you also suggest not to watch this even though it is funny. It is putting political views over everything else in stupid sitcoms.

Going by the headline alone, she said SHE wasn't going to be watching anymore. Going by the article, she is unable to separate the art from the artist. Since the art is based off the artist and the artist has a history of being "provocative" I don't see a problem with her stance.

So if you want to go political maybe it is also a problem that many of these critics only push and follow a certain agenda since other people would be hunted and mobbed out of their jobs for being conservatives etc.

Did you watch the new episodes of the show? Half of it was dedicated to Roseanne struggling financially and making excuses (and being quite smug) for Trump after it was pointed out that her situation has at best not changed or at worst has been declining since he took office. I'm sure theres a demographic for that, not everyone wants to watch a whole season of that.

So if you want to go political maybe it is also a problem that many of these critics only push and follow a certain agenda since other people would be hunted and mobbed out of their jobs for being conservatives etc.

Where does this happen? Roseanne is very vocal about her support of Trump, and was so before her show came back. I believe she just got renewed for a second season as well.

And for the Star wars part. People not linking the movie were compared to the alt right sexists and racists and yes also from these kind of critics.

What else do you call people who moan about SJWs and too many women and black people in their precious space fantasies?

 

[Dunki]

Going by the headline alone, she said SHE wasn't going to be watching anymore. Going by the article, she is unable to separate the art from the artist. Since the art is based off the artist and the artist has a history of being "provocative" I don't see a problem with her stance.
Did you watch the new episodes of the show? Half of it was dedicated to Roseanne struggling financially and making excuses (and being quite smug) for Trump after it was pointed out that her situation has at best not changed or at worst has been declining since he took office. I'm sure theres a demographic for that, not everyone wants to watch a whole season of that.
Where does this happen? Roseanne is very vocal about her support of Trump, and was so before her show came back. I believe she just got renewed for a second season as well.
What else do you call people who moan about SJWs and too many women and black people in their precious space fantasies?

I have not watched the new Rosanne yet since I live in Germany and I doubt I can watch it here yet in a legal way. But also now that politics is not the main focus of the show and while Rosanne is a Trump supporter and openly so others in the show are not. I heard there is also some election stuff in it that portrays both sides. And this is in the end the problem these people have. Rosanne always recreated a real life like scenario (except the last season which was bullshit) and this is what these people can not comprehend. Different opinions different views different perspectives.

And for Star wars most of the people not liking the new star wars had nothing to do with it. If then it was a very small minority but as always it was fabricated that the only ones hating the movie are racists and sexists. Again similarities to Ghostbusters, Wonder Women or even Black panther. And yes I also moan about SJW because the W means warrior people who take social justice to extremes who think they are fighting some non existent Bullshit war one the right side of history.