I feel that the greater hate of critics of media comes from the intense personal identification people have with the media they consume, such that if/when they read that criticism of the work, they take it not on its own merit but as a personal insult against the work they’ve decided to attach their identity to
Perfectly put. In a world where is increasingly hard to be truly attached to a community and feel part of something greater than yourself, people rely on attaching themselves onto products, celebrities and brands as a substitute.
I also think that it's just that people never think of it. Most people go into movies already fans and stuff... so for them, the audience review is what matters. People often forget that their group is not the only group involved and that there are other people....
The hate comes from a failure on the critics' part to build up trust that they both know and acknowledge their criticism is subjective, an opinion, and a story about their feelings. Some critics will outright claim their opinions are objective, many more will pay lip service to the idea that their criticism is subjective but continue to speak and act as if it's objective. Furthermore, many critics are downright petty, bitter individuals who are eager to use their criticism to smack talk the individuals who enjoy a work of art.
Shaq fans are FEASTING right now. I love the consistent drip of golden nuggets. I'm glad this channel allows you to feel free to post as it suits you. I sure get a lot of value out of these regardless of production time and effort that goes into them, your thoughtfulness is what I value most. Thanks!
My favorite part in Ratatouille is when Ego says is called thin for someone who likes food, and he becomes upset saying "I don't *like* food. I love it. If I don't love it, I don't swallow". Ego isn't being a harsh critic out of a place of hate for the artist, he's being one from a place of love for the art form.
I believe I've read John Irving write about how a good critic should figure out what an author was trying to accomplish with their work and then judge how well they executed it. So, in that sense, the best critic would be an interpreter first and then sweep through with the pedantry. A broken emulsion may not be a judgement of the vision, but it is a judgement of the craft, which all things we consider art require in varying degree at the most vital stage of production.
I agree I think the lens of attempting to understand creative intent is critically absent in a lot of critique pieces both professional and amateur. It’s more about saying whether I love or hate something and trying to stretch it into a 20+ minute video or 1,000 word article without ever trying to approach something from the mindset of the creator themselves.
This is something I've noticed quite a bit with any work of art or product. People will call themselves critics and just be as negative as possible without thinking about why a product/artwork/song was made. Ngl, part of me thinks it's because people just wanna sound smart.
I love the concise, clear messaging of this channel and your entire concept of “generous” content creation through thoughtful scripting/video. Thank you for your good work! It has me re-evaluating purpose and generosity of my own work actions.
I would say the primary reason critics have attained villain status is present in the most common response to their criticism; "why don't you do it yourself then?" People generally don't like critics if the critic cannot themselves create art that is as good or better. I don't subscribe to this feeling. I feel the best critics are often people who have zero creative output themselves. The criticism is their creative output. They are often a lot better at criticising things than the people who create those things. Because they spend their time consuming instead of creating. It's a skill they hone that is generally independent from being a creator of art. Though, there are also people who are both, and they tend to offer the best insight of all. Good video btw. Ive no idea who you are or why you videos came up on my feed but I relate to the way you think, you seem a cut above most commentary youtubers in terms of how smart you are.
I highly recommend John Green's book of essays The Anthropocene Reviewed! The premise is "reviewing facets of the human-centered planet on a five-star scale" to point out the absurdity of doing so.
extranet shaquille fans are eating good this week! the topic of criticism is a really interesting one, especially in the video game sphere, where there's constant discussions on the "right and wrong" opinions, personal attachment leading to people reading critiques as "being a hater" like you mentioned, and the idea of trying to evaluate games "objectively." despite the fact that scores aren't a great way to critique things, i think they're still often used because of their popularity - people will flock to a review and give it more attention & clicks because they want to know the easily digestible number at the end
I mean, in regards to the video gaming sphere, in my opinion, gamers are some of the dumbest soup-brained motherfuckers when it comes to criticism about video games and analysis. The best they can do is describe their experience and maybe the gameplay but the actual nuts and bolts of how video games work might as well be quantum physics to a Flat Earther. I can't tell you how many double digit IQ gamer UA-camrs I've seen who unironically blame the overworked and crunched game developers (instead of say the managers or CEO) for why a video game gets delayed or has a bug or the combat system feels janky. Of course, there's a difference between a review of a video game's plot/story and it's gameplay mechanics but you wouldn't believe how freaking low the bar is when it comes to quality video game criticism and analysis. The only video game review, analysis, and criticism UA-camrs that I think are actually worth their words in gold would be Maximilian Dood (an FGC UA-cam legend), Pat Gill, Stephanie Jim Sterling, Jacob Geller, and Leadhead. Sometimes some Girlfriend Reviews and Videogamedunkey for a quick laugh.
It seems like youtube is sending me more self aware content creators. I’m feeling like I’m finding a pocket and its nice. Very much appreciate these nuanced takes.
the most baffling thing i see in the bashing of critics is the idea that a critic is biased and therefore unreliable. like... what are these people even going on about? you're supposed to try to develop a sense of a critic's taste to be able to contextualize and situate their opinion. roger ebert famously hated horror films, so that informs his reviews of genre horror films, and you're supposed to interpret his review through the lens of his preferences. the decontextualized, "view from nowhere" critic doesn't exist; aggregated review sites that flatten all the reviews into one number actively try to undermine your ability to read a person's review and infer something useful *about* the review in addition to the content the review covers. when people review products on amazon and they come off sounding like they couldn't figure out how to operate the can opener or how to use the knife sharpener, i incorporate that into my reading of the broad swathes of opinions about these products. and then i go to a kitchen supply store and i buy it there, because amazon is bad for society. anyway, i appreciate this point and i think you made it well.
It's just a guy who doesn't want to be called a "hater." That's why he says he isn't a critic. Nowadays, anyone who openly dislikes something is labeled a "jealous hater who lives in his mom's basement & has never accomplished anything." Instead of just being seen as, "A guy who enjoys making fun of shitty things."
Love this take! In the vein of preferring binary reviews, I'm a big fan of RedLetterMedia and how their movie reviews essentially conclude with "would you recommend this movie?" I actually heard a radio segment the other day posing the question "are online reviews worth anything anymore?" framed around some of the examples you mentioned as well as the prevalence of review bombing.
My personal motto for reviewing things has always been a scale of 7, with every number away from 4 being a standard deviation: 1- nothing redeeming 2- so bad it’s good(laugh at it bad) 3- if you like this type of thing you’ll enjoy it 4- middle of the road, more enjoyable than not 5- worth experiencing even if you don’t like the type of thing normally 6- best of the year 7- best of the decade/masterpiece
Honestly, those 7 categories sound just about perfect to me just as responses to someone if they ask about a movie that you saw and they haven't yet. Well said!
Seeing people start a review of a movie on letterboxd with their own custom rating of like 72/100 always drives me insane. The five stars are right there. It is the app telling you that you don’t gotta do all that
I think the issue with critics is that it’s not the fact that you’re criticizing something that’s the issue it’s the basis of where their criticism comes from that annoys people. Amateur critics that think just complaining about everything is good criticism and I think that’s the larger issue. Having good explanations for where your criticism comes from, what the expectation was, why it wasn’t met, and how it could be remedied are largely absent or if they are done, they’re usually done in a almost lazy manner. Then you have the issue of preemptive bias. For example with the Mario movie, if I know that I actively dislike or don’t care for the Mario property, then what’s the point of me reviewing it if I know going into it I won’t like it and will most likely go in with the expectation to pick it apart. Obviously some bias is always going to be present and I’d say at least marginally required for criticism to be purposeful but then the question is how much is too much bias and if there are critics that don’t try to at least somewhere attempt to be objective then how useful is that criticism.
I think literally everyone has had the experience of going into a movie they thought they were going to hate and coming out being pleasantly surprised at how good it was and how much you ended up enjoying it, though. I don't think most critics are so set in their ways that if they go to a film for a franchise they don't give a shit about and end up thinking it was surprisingly good they'd still write a bad review just out of spite for it being a Mario movie or whatever. Also, a lot of the people watching movies aren't going in as fans of the franchise or with the expectation they'll like it. Think about all the parents who have never played a video game in their life going to watch the Mario movie bc their kids really want to see it, or the one person in the friend group who gets outvoted by everyone else, or the person who's just bored and scrolling through Netflix looking for something they haven't watched already. Doesn't it make sense that they should be able to see reviews from people who were in the same boat as them when they watched the movie?
I keep watching these videos and I keep just feeling relieved someone has reasonable measured takes on topics, that I often wholly agree with. This is no exception. I wholly agree there is a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of critique and it's purpose. Cool vid thanks.
Most people go into movies already fans and stuff... so for them, the audience review is what matters. People often forget that their group is not the only group involved and that there are other people.... Basically, the hate towards critic opinions are due to the fact that people don't understand that not all media and opinions are for THEM...
On the bit from The Menu, I don't think she's supposed to just be a critic and "critic bad" in that movie. She's particularly made out as the evening progresses to be hypercritical and the make or break of many restaurants thriving or closing based on her reviews. Whether its an entirely valid caricature is a fair thing to debate, but in this case I think the movie was actually in-line with what you are are talking about in this video; did the initial, barely split emulsion, make her enjoy her food less? The bowl of split emulsion she was served after was clearly, distinctly split, but the initial serving was barely and probably wouldn't impact the dish too much. It's still a fair thing to comment on but I think the whole point of her character is that it's not really about enjoying the food for her, really, it's her ego.
My read on the film was that the critic was meant to represent film critics criticizing things that aren't really significant and how they can kill careers of directors with bad reviews (although that makes no sense because if they noticed something enough to comment , then it's something that affected their experience!). The other characters in the movie (actors, investors, etc) are other parts of the movie industry and the writers of the movie are just really mad people want things that take more effort and thought than a cheeseburger
Derrick G, a tiktok music critic/influencer/cultral commenter, has a substack that I think you (and folks who vibe with this concept) would like. He suggests that music criticism shold replace 'x/10' with something akin to Michealn Stars. A star would be given to paticularly great/important/influential works. It changes the focus from obsessive leaderboard rankings (which often skew negaitve) to positive appraisment of outstanding acheivments - an overall better vibe. It would also hopefully stop people comparing Sufjan Stevens to Lil Pump.
When I saw that scene in the menu, my immediate thought was that the “broken emulsion” resembled something like an Indian Chhonk (a technique in which a flavor infused fat, typically ghee, sits atop the rest of the dish for the sake of heterogeneity. Sometimes this can be accomplished by intentionally “breaking” a gravy and having the fat float above the rest) My interpretation wasn’t that she was being punished for criticizing their art, but for being a bad critic. Someone who didn’t actually know what she was talking about, but made a living pretending she did nonetheless
I have been thinking about my hatred for scores recently due to the Beli app - using a 0-10 scale with one decimal point is false precision for one-bite watchers and completely ruins any joy I would get from an otherwise cool social food sharing app because I just can’t get over it.
Also I’ve been doing what you talk about at the end with Letterboxd since I made an account (a few months ago). Movies either get a like (worth a rewatch) or no like. My own words will remind me of the nuances when I’m looking for a good film to enjoy again
I'd rather take recommendations from a food critic who has tasted hundreds of pizzas than from my uncle tony who barely wipes his ass and has eaten at the same three pizza places all his life
Ive found with critics, especially for video games, it's great to try and find a few specific individual reviewers that are honest with their subjectivity and biases, and whose general tastes match your own. Because when they say that the hot new 'must buy game' is just meh and not worth checking out, you might just save yourself 60 bucks
I mean, in regards to the video gaming sphere, in my opinion, gamers are some of the dumbest soup-brained motherfuckers when it comes to criticism about video games and analysis. The best they can do is describe their experience and maybe the gameplay but the actual nuts and bolts of how video games work might as well be quantum physics to a Flat Earther. I can't tell you how many double digit IQ gamer UA-camrs I've seen who unironically blame the overworked and crunched game developers (instead of say the managers or CEO) for why a video game gets delayed or has a bug or the combat system feels janky. Of course, there's a difference between a review of a video game's plot/story and it's gameplay mechanics but you wouldn't believe how freaking low the bar is when it comes to quality video game criticism and analysis. The only video game review, analysis, and criticism UA-camrs that I think are actually worth their words in gold would be Maximilian Dood (an FGC UA-cam legend), Pat Gill, Stephanie Jim Sterling, Jacob Geller, and Leadhead. Sometimes some Girlfriend Reviews and Videogamedunkey for a quick laugh.
Took me five videos and a subscribe before I realized you have another channel where you do god knows what. I don't care about food I just enjoy your takes and your voice. Keep doing what you're doing because it's really good!
The main problem with rotten tomatoes is that they boil down the data to the point that it is not useful. A rating of a 51% is counted as 100% and a rating of 49% is counted as a 0%. This causes slightly good movies like the mario movie to have extremely high ratings when the true user average could perhaps be a 70% (it has a 7 on IMDB which uses a normal scoring average). The freshness meter effectively just shows when a movie is tolerable and inoffensive to most. I agree the split of critics and normal users is useful and interesting data, but this overall flaw with their scoring system makes me not use their site. To make things worse, it seems most people do not know that they mess with the numbers like this.
The most mind blowing part of this video is when he pointed out that media is the plural form of medium. I had to pause the video and just think about that for a minute.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN! Wow, a deep tell of the core of Shaq. I've used the burrito video over and over as a bar of quality for our company's videos. A bar that of course we'd never hit. I'd recommend blogosphere pioneer Kathy Sierra as an excellent read on the subject.
Hey would you consider doing a video in this style about how to give videos or presentations or whatever media a strong narrative? I just finished my undergrad thesis for my cs degree and I'm honestly really proud of what I've done but one thing my mentor said was my defense presentation lacked a narrative and I honestly agree. Some things I put in the presentation that helped but maybe weren't quite as successful as I wanted was a list of outcomes I wanted people to walk away from the presentation with. I also told my audience how we'd achieve these by explaining how my outline accomplishes those things. I think these were both good exercises but maybe I should have used them as an editing tool for the presentation and not included it in the slides itself. What do you think? My mentor had also said making strong narratives is a hard thing to learn to do and its a skill I'll develop over my whole life. I think my question boils down to is there is a list of 3 or 5 or 10 tasks or principles that can help nail down the majority of what makes a strong narrative in different content? Apologies that this comment is so horrendously long! Loved this video and also cool that your a fan of that dunkey and the escapist
The issue of the critic in the menu is not a complaint about criticism, but about the insanely high stakes assigned to criticism, how the industry of food, including critics pushes for ruthless, bordering on impossible consistency and the damage that occurs both in reaching and failing to reach these standards
One thing I have noticed is that critics in general tend to like and reward originality more than fans do. Formulaic but fun movies tend to be loved by fans but might feel bland to a critic who has watched 10 very similar movies in the past year.
Valid conclusion, and one I think I mostly agree with. On this side of the pond, a popular video game journalism organisation, Eurogamer, dropped numerical ratings years ago in favour of a badge system, where each review either got slapped with "Essential", "Recommended", no badge, or "Avoid". It was a flawed system, mostly because the vast majority of games neither hit the peaks of a must play, nor the troughs of an unrecommended. Good games were recommended, flawed, but still enjoyable games languished with no quick summary badge. And really, thats all ratings should be, publically anyway. A quick, concise measure of the broader conclusion of something. Eurogamer within the last month moved to a 5 star rating which is flawed also, but this time I believe it's mostly because of the reason you gave. People view the number as a metric to compare other games to, not as previously stated, a concise indicator of recommendation levels. Personally I think a badge system works perfectly well for high profile critics. I cant remember the name of the UA-camr who uses this system, but someone concludes their reviews with "Buy", "wait for a sale", and "avoid" tag, because essentially, if youre consuming the review in good faith, that's the only rating that actually matters. The review is where the meat lies.
i really wanted to like the menu and i thought it was ok but yeah there was definitely some amount of stuff in the film i just didn't like/agree with. particularly the cheeseburger thing at the end where she makes fun of "deconstructed avant-BS" and implies that there's no love in cooking like that - when I would argue that's not true either. i think you really have to love cheeseburgers to anguish over new ways to serve the essence of a cheeseburger in a way that totally reconstructs the form, just as an example
@@danielmukhlis5709 whether or not that was the intention, i think her saying that in a scene where she's rewarded as being wise and smart means the film agrees with that through its language. Especially because every dish before it is implied to be devoid of true meaning but the one dish cooked with love is the one that is intentionally un-stuffy, uncreative, and just a replication of the fast casual stuff (though, of course, a very good one). Especially in the metatextual lens as a film about art and creativity, it sort of takes on the "let people enjoy things!" View of calling anything that is different from the norm "too intellectual to be enjoyable," like when those marvel fans on TikTok try to make fun of people for enjoying "3 hour black and white Hungarian films with no plot" or whatever, a behavior which i always heavily dislike
They're not saying "let people enjoy any possible act under the sun", they're saying "let people enjoy the innocuous media they enjoy". there's no way you don't know they mean this, you're just being a shithead for no reason
I feel like the menu emulsion thing is intentional. 2 main reasons, 1. She's built up to be very nit-picky, and emulsion is a douchey enough cooking term to feel nit picky to a normy 2. Spoiler;;; The chef in the end is made out to be kind of fucking insane, which stand to reason he doesn't take valid criticism well at all or at least anymore
One of my realisations during the mario movie debacle is that most people getting made at the reviews were not the audience for the reviews. They find our critics don't like a movie from a number on rotten tomatoes because they do not read reviews, and so it feels pretty insane to expect the film critics' critics' whose work you do not read, should line up with your views on media.
I like Mr. Sunday/Weekly Planet because at the end of the review they basically say best movie ever or not. Understanding that it’s just entertainment and you might get some joy out of it even if not a masterpiece
You say you don't like scores, and I agree with number systems. However, I am a believer of a letter grade system with a key/reference for what each grade means.
whenever i rate anything i use the A-F scale because of the aforementioned fact of whether 5 or 7 is the average for a number scale and it is also very easy to tell what each letter means. A is Excellent B is very good C is Average D is not good F is Terrible
My only point of disagreement is with the notion that a 100-point scale can never be useful. It's true that 100-points might be too much granularity, (I don't see the value in debating what constitues an 85 versus an 84), but 10-points allows for too little of it. What happens when you come across something that's better than the 8s you've reviewed but isn't as good as the 9s? Some critics will say, "This is a high 8," but seeing as "high" is not a number, it's an inelegant solution *at best*. Complex opinons can't be represented numerically, but even something as simple as an assessment of overall quality needs more space. There's not 10 levels of quality in the world.
I think the point was that ranking doesn't have to be implicit in critique. The fewer granules, the better. Audiences wouldn't get miffed about one "Not Good" being worse than another "Not Good." Critique is better when it's just qualitative. A good example is Siskel and Ebert.
@@netshaq2 There's no objective standard, but if there wasn't some level of consensus on what makes art enjoyable or interesting or powerful, why would anyone ever talk about art? Why would anyone care what a critic has to say? If you already think that critics can be useful, that listening to them is a (somewhat) reliable way to figure out what's worth your time and what's not, then what we should be talking about is the best way for them to do that. And to me, a 100-point system is what lets me have a more complete understanding of how a critic approaches art and how to discern between "good" and "great" works of art, according to their perspective.
@@Bashfluff The real secret is that criticism is supplementary material about a thing you're definitely already interested in. The purpose of criticism, whether you realize it or not, is the same as the material they criticize--entertainment.
@@Snowjob109 Criticism CAN be entertainment, but I don't think it MUST be. When I looked at the Popular New Releases page on Steam and looked at the listing for "Snufkin Molody of Moominvalley," I didn't even know what it was. I only knew that going by the Overwhelmingly Positive review score, that people liked it. When I read the Steam reviews, it was to get a sense of what the game was. Once I saw that it was a nostalgia-driven "cozy game", that's when I became interested in it.
I forget which video but video game dunkey (who obviously reviews video games) describes his x/5 system as 2.5 out of 5 meaning. "It's a game worth looking at and playing". Instead of "it's a game with ignoring." His serious reviews are definitely worth watching. Even of you haven't played the game. They critique the game in good ways. Highly recommend
i think critics should be free to self-define what a score means to them instead of catering to every bro who thinks that scoring is meaningless or their scoring is arbitrary and gets mad. internal consistency is more important than an unprepared reader/viewer "getting it". isnt this about expressing an opinion? what if the critics opinion is that their way of describing/culminating their opinion is best suited to a numbered or starred score? i dont think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water here if we're initially here to challenge audience's relationships with critics 🤔
The problem is that scores give the impression of assumed objectivity. People using scores(honestly most critics, score or no score) tend to give the impression that they do not understand or acknowledge that their criticism is opinion. """Objective""" criticism goes straight through the work of art and targets the individuals that enjoy the art and that's why people get so annoyed with criticism in general. It's often a veiled attack, intentional or otherwise. If, as a critic, you've built up no trust that you are cognizant of the fact that your criticism is subjective AND that you are unwilling to admit it, then expect an angry response. I agree that a scoring system can have its place if it's consistent enough to be a tool for understandable, reproducible results and if the critic acknowledges that it's subjective.
"You shouldn't complain" I think that's a comment that should be used towards older media. Like Twilight or Sword Art Online and stuff..... At this point in time, why hate on it??? If you don't like it, you don't like it. Let the people that enjoy it enjoy it... It's not the same as a proper critique nor is it the same as complaining about a new work..... Same with the Sequel Trilogy. I hate it too.... but we should stop wasting energy on hating on that stuff... it was YEARS ago... we gotta move on...
I agree, a good critic score generally means to me that it's probably a traditionally well-constructed film, no more no less. I do think being a critical thinker is a good thing, but many people take it to conspiracy levels at that point it's not critical thinking, it is inventing stuff.
I think VideoGameDunky put it best and enlightened me somewhat. It's not about the critic being good/bad or aligning with your opinions at all. More it's about having an understanding of the critics perspective and using that to inform judgement. If I like every movie critic x says is bad and he pans a new release. I can still gain value from understanding our differences in taste. If critic x dislikes said new film - perhaps I will like it....
I agree with everything here but could someone explain to me what's wrong with mediums? I've been using it for years, i had no idea some people hate the term
I disagree about your point on the whole "well, if you can only like it if other people like it, that's a problem." That's a normal part of growing up and wanting to fit in, even into adulthood. Plus, it really sucks to want to talk about something where people either don't want to engage or they only want to talk about how terrible it is. Part of the fun of enjoying something is the social interaction that goes along with it
I get what you are saying here, and I do think that critics are def unfairly demonized in general. But also, I personally disagree with some of the sentiment expressed here and wanted to explain why. Here you essentially said that the "critic rating" and the "audience rating" are both important because the critic score will give you a general idea of what the critics think of a movie, while the audience score will give a general idea of what the pre-existing fans will think. I think this is just a very misleading way of describing what the "audience rating" represents that gives too much worth to the "critic rating". Maybe in the first few days of a movie's release will the "audience rating" only represent fans, but after a bit of time passes this rating will instead describe what the general public thinks of a movie, not the pre-existing fans (assuming no review-bombing which is a separate issue). This may seem like an unimportant problem that doesn't have much to do with your overall point, but I think it leads into my main problem with aggregate critic ratings. They represent the view of a tiny niche group of people, but often people will hold them up as the end-all be all of what makes a movie good. In my opinion, this is stupid and I fully believe that aggregate critic ratings are kinda stupid. The value of a critic is that they can write down the best and worst parts in movies in ways that can both help better the art form as well as inform the reader of whether they will enjoy the movie. How much a critic enjoyed a movie is completely irrelevent to this, so an aggregate of numbers which represent that is near worthless. I do think that there is a bit of worth in knowing in general how much critics enjoyed a movie, but when people hold it up to be just as important as the audience score which represents almost everyone outside of critics I 100% feel that twinge of annoyance. Now I do think it is fair to say that this is not the fault of critics themselves however. I instead 100% put the blame on Hollywood and sites like rotten tomatoes for putting so much emphasis on critic scores. TL;DR Aggregate critic scores are stupid, but critics are great! :)
@@netshaq2 100% the second half of the TL;DR "critics are great" is summarizing your video, but I think there is a big difference between how I am saying "aggregate critic scores are stupid" and how you are saying aggregate critic scores should be used in different ways. My argument is mostly about how any general expression of how much they enjoyed the movie is basically worthless and just as useful as a random person picked off the streets general expression of how much they enjoyed the movie. So your proposed solution to just say use a "rotten or good tomato" very much falls into what I would call a worthless aggregate critic score. But also I do agree with most of the sentiment that critics are unfairly demonized, so that part of what I said is def a bit of a summary.
I personally value out of 10 scores. I like to think of them as buckets instead of a quantitative value. I understand that audiences often won't view it that way all the time but think it's a valuable scale if a critic is willing to accept that not everyone interprets that way. One thing that is a little confusing at first to me is translating between an out of 10 scale and a 5 star scale (with half star increments). For example intuitively it would make sense for a 4 star rating to equal an 8/10, but in my mind it translates to a 7/10.
Shaq, when you make April Fools videos and pretend to be a weirdo food reviewer criticizing the fry cup from a fast food restaurant, that character is how people view pedantic, out of touch critics.
Fantano has by far the worst reactions because he gets tons of tweens with no music taste defending albums that every other critic and music nerd also panned. Guardian calls it "the worst thing to come out since the first audio recording", reddit calls it "vomit on a spinning platter", RYM gives it a 0.7 (0.5 is the lowest possible rating), Fantano gets ratio'd for panning it.
Just to add something small - I've never found a game reviewer that actually knows anything about optimisation, development or just games as a business. It's always just endless "game run bad, developers lazy hurrrr". They always suggest the dumbest tripe like more realistic water physics instead of better graphics thinking it will save us from the graphics race, as if water physics aren't ten times more demanding. "We need to stop trying to do realism" - guy who only watches cartoons
Here's one of my favorite critics getting equally frustrated: ua-cam.com/video/L5vLcGPpRxE/v-deo.html
Didn’t expect to see Yahtzee here, but hey, he’s the best to ever do it, so fair enough.
Fuck I knew I liked Shaq
It absolutely makes sense that Shaq likes Yahtzee. The amount of references and content in the writing
Nope, you're are nitpicking and biased, I win, bye bye
Wow, this 2nd channel makes so much more sense after seeing you showcase Extra Punctuation
You are nitpicking and biased. I win. Bye bye.
ive been saying this for decades and nobody's been listenin
I feel that the greater hate of critics of media comes from the intense personal identification people have with the media they consume, such that if/when they read that criticism of the work, they take it not on its own merit but as a personal insult against the work they’ve decided to attach their identity to
Perfectly put.
In a world where is increasingly hard to be truly attached to a community and feel part of something greater than yourself, people rely on attaching themselves onto products, celebrities and brands as a substitute.
@@inigo137 Also perfectly put.
I also think that it's just that people never think of it.
Most people go into movies already fans and stuff... so for them, the audience review is what matters.
People often forget that their group is not the only group involved and that there are other people....
The hate comes from a failure on the critics' part to build up trust that they both know and acknowledge their criticism is subjective, an opinion, and a story about their feelings. Some critics will outright claim their opinions are objective, many more will pay lip service to the idea that their criticism is subjective but continue to speak and act as if it's objective. Furthermore, many critics are downright petty, bitter individuals who are eager to use their criticism to smack talk the individuals who enjoy a work of art.
podcast clips disguised as short and very insightful videos? I'll take it
I love it
The king of short form has gotten us again
@@Nedumgottil Short King
“Just let people enjoy things” is the worst . Like overanalysing is my way of enjoying things? Let me nitpick in peace
Shaq fans are FEASTING right now. I love the consistent drip of golden nuggets. I'm glad this channel allows you to feel free to post as it suits you. I sure get a lot of value out of these regardless of production time and effort that goes into them, your thoughtfulness is what I value most. Thanks!
My favorite part in Ratatouille is when Ego says is called thin for someone who likes food, and he becomes upset saying "I don't *like* food. I love it. If I don't love it, I don't swallow". Ego isn't being a harsh critic out of a place of hate for the artist, he's being one from a place of love for the art form.
I believe I've read John Irving write about how a good critic should figure out what an author was trying to accomplish with their work and then judge how well they executed it. So, in that sense, the best critic would be an interpreter first and then sweep through with the pedantry. A broken emulsion may not be a judgement of the vision, but it is a judgement of the craft, which all things we consider art require in varying degree at the most vital stage of production.
I agree I think the lens of attempting to understand creative intent is critically absent in a lot of critique pieces both professional and amateur. It’s more about saying whether I love or hate something and trying to stretch it into a 20+ minute video or 1,000 word article without ever trying to approach something from the mindset of the creator themselves.
This is something I've noticed quite a bit with any work of art or product. People will call themselves critics and just be as negative as possible without thinking about why a product/artwork/song was made. Ngl, part of me thinks it's because people just wanna sound smart.
I love the concise, clear messaging of this channel and your entire concept of “generous” content creation through thoughtful scripting/video. Thank you for your good work! It has me re-evaluating purpose and generosity of my own work actions.
really tugging at my heartstrings with the "media vs mediums" pet peeve 😍
If you are gonna do these videos you gotta bring back your co-host: crisp, refreshing frosted glass of water
He’s on tour in Europe for these episodes sry
I would say the primary reason critics have attained villain status is present in the most common response to their criticism; "why don't you do it yourself then?"
People generally don't like critics if the critic cannot themselves create art that is as good or better.
I don't subscribe to this feeling. I feel the best critics are often people who have zero creative output themselves. The criticism is their creative output. They are often a lot better at criticising things than the people who create those things. Because they spend their time consuming instead of creating. It's a skill they hone that is generally independent from being a creator of art. Though, there are also people who are both, and they tend to offer the best insight of all.
Good video btw. Ive no idea who you are or why you videos came up on my feed but I relate to the way you think, you seem a cut above most commentary youtubers in terms of how smart you are.
I highly recommend John Green's book of essays The Anthropocene Reviewed! The premise is "reviewing facets of the human-centered planet on a five-star scale" to point out the absurdity of doing so.
extranet shaquille fans are eating good this week! the topic of criticism is a really interesting one, especially in the video game sphere, where there's constant discussions on the "right and wrong" opinions, personal attachment leading to people reading critiques as "being a hater" like you mentioned, and the idea of trying to evaluate games "objectively."
despite the fact that scores aren't a great way to critique things, i think they're still often used because of their popularity - people will flock to a review and give it more attention & clicks because they want to know the easily digestible number at the end
I mean, in regards to the video gaming sphere, in my opinion, gamers are some of the dumbest soup-brained motherfuckers when it comes to criticism about video games and analysis. The best they can do is describe their experience and maybe the gameplay but the actual nuts and bolts of how video games work might as well be quantum physics to a Flat Earther. I can't tell you how many double digit IQ gamer UA-camrs I've seen who unironically blame the overworked and crunched game developers (instead of say the managers or CEO) for why a video game gets delayed or has a bug or the combat system feels janky.
Of course, there's a difference between a review of a video game's plot/story and it's gameplay mechanics but you wouldn't believe how freaking low the bar is when it comes to quality video game criticism and analysis. The only video game review, analysis, and criticism UA-camrs that I think are actually worth their words in gold would be Maximilian Dood (an FGC UA-cam legend), Pat Gill, Stephanie Jim Sterling, Jacob Geller, and Leadhead. Sometimes some Girlfriend Reviews and Videogamedunkey for a quick laugh.
It seems like youtube is sending me more self aware content creators. I’m feeling like I’m finding a pocket and its nice. Very much appreciate these nuanced takes.
the most baffling thing i see in the bashing of critics is the idea that a critic is biased and therefore unreliable. like... what are these people even going on about? you're supposed to try to develop a sense of a critic's taste to be able to contextualize and situate their opinion. roger ebert famously hated horror films, so that informs his reviews of genre horror films, and you're supposed to interpret his review through the lens of his preferences.
the decontextualized, "view from nowhere" critic doesn't exist; aggregated review sites that flatten all the reviews into one number actively try to undermine your ability to read a person's review and infer something useful *about* the review in addition to the content the review covers.
when people review products on amazon and they come off sounding like they couldn't figure out how to operate the can opener or how to use the knife sharpener, i incorporate that into my reading of the broad swathes of opinions about these products. and then i go to a kitchen supply store and i buy it there, because amazon is bad for society.
anyway, i appreciate this point and i think you made it well.
Lil' Dunkey impression in there
It's just a guy who doesn't want to be called a "hater." That's why he says he isn't a critic. Nowadays, anyone who openly dislikes something is labeled a "jealous hater who lives in his mom's basement & has never accomplished anything." Instead of just being seen as, "A guy who enjoys making fun of shitty things."
Love this take! In the vein of preferring binary reviews, I'm a big fan of RedLetterMedia and how their movie reviews essentially conclude with "would you recommend this movie?" I actually heard a radio segment the other day posing the question "are online reviews worth anything anymore?" framed around some of the examples you mentioned as well as the prevalence of review bombing.
My personal motto for reviewing things has always been a scale of 7, with every number away from 4 being a standard deviation: 1- nothing redeeming 2- so bad it’s good(laugh at it bad) 3- if you like this type of thing you’ll enjoy it 4- middle of the road, more enjoyable than not 5- worth experiencing even if you don’t like the type of thing normally 6- best of the year 7- best of the decade/masterpiece
Honestly, those 7 categories sound just about perfect to me just as responses to someone if they ask about a movie that you saw and they haven't yet. Well said!
very well spoken, i super agree
Seeing people start a review of a movie on letterboxd with their own custom rating of like 72/100 always drives me insane. The five stars are right there. It is the app telling you that you don’t gotta do all that
I think the issue with critics is that it’s not the fact that you’re criticizing something that’s the issue it’s the basis of where their criticism comes from that annoys people.
Amateur critics that think just complaining about everything is good criticism and I think that’s the larger issue. Having good explanations for where your criticism comes from, what the expectation was, why it wasn’t met, and how it could be remedied are largely absent or if they are done, they’re usually done in a almost lazy manner.
Then you have the issue of preemptive bias. For example with the Mario movie, if I know that I actively dislike or don’t care for the Mario property, then what’s the point of me reviewing it if I know going into it I won’t like it and will most likely go in with the expectation to pick it apart.
Obviously some bias is always going to be present and I’d say at least marginally required for criticism to be purposeful but then the question is how much is too much bias and if there are critics that don’t try to at least somewhere attempt to be objective then how useful is that criticism.
I think literally everyone has had the experience of going into a movie they thought they were going to hate and coming out being pleasantly surprised at how good it was and how much you ended up enjoying it, though. I don't think most critics are so set in their ways that if they go to a film for a franchise they don't give a shit about and end up thinking it was surprisingly good they'd still write a bad review just out of spite for it being a Mario movie or whatever.
Also, a lot of the people watching movies aren't going in as fans of the franchise or with the expectation they'll like it. Think about all the parents who have never played a video game in their life going to watch the Mario movie bc their kids really want to see it, or the one person in the friend group who gets outvoted by everyone else, or the person who's just bored and scrolling through Netflix looking for something they haven't watched already. Doesn't it make sense that they should be able to see reviews from people who were in the same boat as them when they watched the movie?
I keep watching these videos and I keep just feeling relieved someone has reasonable measured takes on topics, that I often wholly agree with.
This is no exception. I wholly agree there is a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of critique and it's purpose.
Cool vid thanks.
Most people go into movies already fans and stuff... so for them, the audience review is what matters.
People often forget that their group is not the only group involved and that there are other people....
Basically, the hate towards critic opinions are due to the fact that people don't understand that not all media and opinions are for THEM...
On the bit from The Menu, I don't think she's supposed to just be a critic and "critic bad" in that movie. She's particularly made out as the evening progresses to be hypercritical and the make or break of many restaurants thriving or closing based on her reviews. Whether its an entirely valid caricature is a fair thing to debate, but in this case I think the movie was actually in-line with what you are are talking about in this video; did the initial, barely split emulsion, make her enjoy her food less? The bowl of split emulsion she was served after was clearly, distinctly split, but the initial serving was barely and probably wouldn't impact the dish too much. It's still a fair thing to comment on but I think the whole point of her character is that it's not really about enjoying the food for her, really, it's her ego.
she was nitpicking and biased
My read on the film was that the critic was meant to represent film critics criticizing things that aren't really significant and how they can kill careers of directors with bad reviews (although that makes no sense because if they noticed something enough to comment , then it's something that affected their experience!). The other characters in the movie (actors, investors, etc) are other parts of the movie industry and the writers of the movie are just really mad people want things that take more effort and thought than a cheeseburger
@@pingew I haven't thought about it from a that perspective but it makes a lot of sense.
I get you on the "mediums" thing. It is one of those things that gets me every time I hear it.
Derrick G, a tiktok music critic/influencer/cultral commenter, has a substack that I think you (and folks who vibe with this concept) would like. He suggests that music criticism shold replace 'x/10' with something akin to Michealn Stars. A star would be given to paticularly great/important/influential works. It changes the focus from obsessive leaderboard rankings (which often skew negaitve) to positive appraisment of outstanding acheivments - an overall better vibe. It would also hopefully stop people comparing Sufjan Stevens to Lil Pump.
Thank you so much for being a person on the internet in general. Your videos inspire me to be more creative myself. Big ups my dude
It's easy to hate critics when you tie your own personal worth on whether other people like the same stuff as you.
When I saw that scene in the menu, my immediate thought was that the “broken emulsion” resembled something like an Indian Chhonk (a technique in which a flavor infused fat, typically ghee, sits atop the rest of the dish for the sake of heterogeneity. Sometimes this can be accomplished by intentionally “breaking” a gravy and having the fat float above the rest)
My interpretation wasn’t that she was being punished for criticizing their art, but for being a bad critic. Someone who didn’t actually know what she was talking about, but made a living pretending she did nonetheless
I have been thinking about my hatred for scores recently due to the Beli app - using a 0-10 scale with one decimal point is false precision for one-bite watchers and completely ruins any joy I would get from an otherwise cool social food sharing app because I just can’t get over it.
gat DAMN i am loving all these ShaqThoughts
This channel is quickly becoming my favorite Shaquille content and making me wish I had subscribed to Patreon years ago
Also I’ve been doing what you talk about at the end with Letterboxd since I made an account (a few months ago). Movies either get a like (worth a rewatch) or no like. My own words will remind me of the nuances when I’m looking for a good film to enjoy again
I'd rather take recommendations from a food critic who has tasted hundreds of pizzas than from my uncle tony who barely wipes his ass and has eaten at the same three pizza places all his life
Ive found with critics, especially for video games, it's great to try and find a few specific individual reviewers that are honest with their subjectivity and biases, and whose general tastes match your own. Because when they say that the hot new 'must buy game' is just meh and not worth checking out, you might just save yourself 60 bucks
I mean, in regards to the video gaming sphere, in my opinion, gamers are some of the dumbest soup-brained motherfuckers when it comes to criticism about video games and analysis. The best they can do is describe their experience and maybe the gameplay but the actual nuts and bolts of how video games work might as well be quantum physics to a Flat Earther. I can't tell you how many double digit IQ gamer UA-camrs I've seen who unironically blame the overworked and crunched game developers (instead of say the managers or CEO) for why a video game gets delayed or has a bug or the combat system feels janky.
Of course, there's a difference between a review of a video game's plot/story and it's gameplay mechanics but you wouldn't believe how freaking low the bar is when it comes to quality video game criticism and analysis. The only video game review, analysis, and criticism UA-camrs that I think are actually worth their words in gold would be Maximilian Dood (an FGC UA-cam legend), Pat Gill, Stephanie Jim Sterling, Jacob Geller, and Leadhead. Sometimes some Girlfriend Reviews and Videogamedunkey for a quick laugh.
HE JUST DOESN'T MISSSSSSS
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Took me five videos and a subscribe before I realized you have another channel where you do god knows what. I don't care about food I just enjoy your takes and your voice. Keep doing what you're doing because it's really good!
The main problem with rotten tomatoes is that they boil down the data to the point that it is not useful. A rating of a 51% is counted as 100% and a rating of 49% is counted as a 0%. This causes slightly good movies like the mario movie to have extremely high ratings when the true user average could perhaps be a 70% (it has a 7 on IMDB which uses a normal scoring average). The freshness meter effectively just shows when a movie is tolerable and inoffensive to most. I agree the split of critics and normal users is useful and interesting data, but this overall flaw with their scoring system makes me not use their site. To make things worse, it seems most people do not know that they mess with the numbers like this.
I remember the line about 50% vs 70% passing grades from stream, it's neat to see the throughline of ideas!
Is this the new extranet uniform or are you batching these up? If so, what's does your writing/recording schedule look like?
Was cracking up at 3:45 that your on purpose internet nerd voice is almost identical to Dunkey’s, and used to convey the same thing
The most mind blowing part of this video is when he pointed out that media is the plural form of medium. I had to pause the video and just think about that for a minute.
That commenter is wrong. You actually look like the Atlas Earth “I JUST BOUGHT MORE LAND IN THE METAVERSE” guy
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN! Wow, a deep tell of the core of Shaq. I've used the burrito video over and over as a bar of quality for our company's videos. A bar that of course we'd never hit. I'd recommend blogosphere pioneer Kathy Sierra as an excellent read on the subject.
"let people enjoy things" god forbid people critically engage with media
Hey would you consider doing a video in this style about how to give videos or presentations or whatever media a strong narrative?
I just finished my undergrad thesis for my cs degree and I'm honestly really proud of what I've done but one thing my mentor said was my defense presentation lacked a narrative and I honestly agree.
Some things I put in the presentation that helped but maybe weren't quite as successful as I wanted was a list of outcomes I wanted people to walk away from the presentation with. I also told my audience how we'd achieve these by explaining how my outline accomplishes those things. I think these were both good exercises but maybe I should have used them as an editing tool for the presentation and not included it in the slides itself. What do you think?
My mentor had also said making strong narratives is a hard thing to learn to do and its a skill I'll develop over my whole life. I think my question boils down to is there is a list of 3 or 5 or 10 tasks or principles that can help nail down the majority of what makes a strong narrative in different content?
Apologies that this comment is so horrendously long! Loved this video and also cool that your a fan of that dunkey and the escapist
The issue of the critic in the menu is not a complaint about criticism, but about the insanely high stakes assigned to criticism, how the industry of food, including critics pushes for ruthless, bordering on impossible consistency and the damage that occurs both in reaching and failing to reach these standards
One thing I have noticed is that critics in general tend to like and reward originality more than fans do. Formulaic but fun movies tend to be loved by fans but might feel bland to a critic who has watched 10 very similar movies in the past year.
i think most people just fundamentally do not understand the concept of art
bigly true unforch
There's an entire book called "The Culture of Critique".
yes! 5 point scale is all you need
Great video!
73.25/100 very interesting topic
Valid conclusion, and one I think I mostly agree with. On this side of the pond, a popular video game journalism organisation, Eurogamer, dropped numerical ratings years ago in favour of a badge system, where each review either got slapped with "Essential", "Recommended", no badge, or "Avoid".
It was a flawed system, mostly because the vast majority of games neither hit the peaks of a must play, nor the troughs of an unrecommended. Good games were recommended, flawed, but still enjoyable games languished with no quick summary badge.
And really, thats all ratings should be, publically anyway. A quick, concise measure of the broader conclusion of something. Eurogamer within the last month moved to a 5 star rating which is flawed also, but this time I believe it's mostly because of the reason you gave. People view the number as a metric to compare other games to, not as previously stated, a concise indicator of recommendation levels.
Personally I think a badge system works perfectly well for high profile critics. I cant remember the name of the UA-camr who uses this system, but someone concludes their reviews with "Buy", "wait for a sale", and "avoid" tag, because essentially, if youre consuming the review in good faith, that's the only rating that actually matters. The review is where the meat lies.
i really wanted to like the menu and i thought it was ok but yeah there was definitely some amount of stuff in the film i just didn't like/agree with. particularly the cheeseburger thing at the end where she makes fun of "deconstructed avant-BS" and implies that there's no love in cooking like that - when I would argue that's not true either. i think you really have to love cheeseburgers to anguish over new ways to serve the essence of a cheeseburger in a way that totally reconstructs the form, just as an example
I think that scene is much less of a gripe against deconstructive gastronomy and more about confronting the head chef’s narcissism.
@@danielmukhlis5709 whether or not that was the intention, i think her saying that in a scene where she's rewarded as being wise and smart means the film agrees with that through its language. Especially because every dish before it is implied to be devoid of true meaning but the one dish cooked with love is the one that is intentionally un-stuffy, uncreative, and just a replication of the fast casual stuff (though, of course, a very good one). Especially in the metatextual lens as a film about art and creativity, it sort of takes on the "let people enjoy things!" View of calling anything that is different from the norm "too intellectual to be enjoyable," like when those marvel fans on TikTok try to make fun of people for enjoying "3 hour black and white Hungarian films with no plot" or whatever, a behavior which i always heavily dislike
I’m so glad the GG lookalike thing finally came up - I’m not the only one🤣
“Let people enjoy things” is so fucking annoying John Wayne Gacy enjoyed murder lmao
They're not saying "let people enjoy any possible act under the sun", they're saying "let people enjoy the innocuous media they enjoy". there's no way you don't know they mean this, you're just being a shithead for no reason
I feel like the menu emulsion thing is intentional. 2 main reasons,
1. She's built up to be very nit-picky, and emulsion is a douchey enough cooking term to feel nit picky to a normy
2. Spoiler;;;
The chef in the end is made out to be kind of fucking insane, which stand to reason he doesn't take valid criticism well at all or at least anymore
One of my realisations during the mario movie debacle is that most people getting made at the reviews were not the audience for the reviews. They find our critics don't like a movie from a number on rotten tomatoes because they do not read reviews, and so it feels pretty insane to expect the film critics' critics' whose work you do not read, should line up with your views on media.
I like Mr. Sunday/Weekly Planet because at the end of the review they basically say best movie ever or not. Understanding that it’s just entertainment and you might get some joy out of it even if not a masterpiece
Best channel on this website I swear
5:47 bars
SkillUp is a video game reviewer who takes this approach and it's great
He’s spitting!!
You say you don't like scores, and I agree with number systems. However, I am a believer of a letter grade system with a key/reference for what each grade means.
whenever i rate anything i use the A-F scale because of the aforementioned fact of whether 5 or 7 is the average for a number scale and it is also very easy to tell what each letter means. A is Excellent
B is very good
C is Average
D is not good
F is Terrible
God I love this video.
My only point of disagreement is with the notion that a 100-point scale can never be useful. It's true that 100-points might be too much granularity, (I don't see the value in debating what constitues an 85 versus an 84), but 10-points allows for too little of it. What happens when you come across something that's better than the 8s you've reviewed but isn't as good as the 9s? Some critics will say, "This is a high 8," but seeing as "high" is not a number, it's an inelegant solution *at best*. Complex opinons can't be represented numerically, but even something as simple as an assessment of overall quality needs more space. There's not 10 levels of quality in the world.
wdym by “better” you just activated my trap card
I think the point was that ranking doesn't have to be implicit in critique. The fewer granules, the better. Audiences wouldn't get miffed about one "Not Good" being worse than another "Not Good." Critique is better when it's just qualitative. A good example is Siskel and Ebert.
@@netshaq2 There's no objective standard, but if there wasn't some level of consensus on what makes art enjoyable or interesting or powerful, why would anyone ever talk about art? Why would anyone care what a critic has to say?
If you already think that critics can be useful, that listening to them is a (somewhat) reliable way to figure out what's worth your time and what's not, then what we should be talking about is the best way for them to do that. And to me, a 100-point system is what lets me have a more complete understanding of how a critic approaches art and how to discern between "good" and "great" works of art, according to their perspective.
@@Bashfluff The real secret is that criticism is supplementary material about a thing you're definitely already interested in. The purpose of criticism, whether you realize it or not, is the same as the material they criticize--entertainment.
@@Snowjob109 Criticism CAN be entertainment, but I don't think it MUST be. When I looked at the Popular New Releases page on Steam and looked at the listing for "Snufkin Molody of Moominvalley," I didn't even know what it was. I only knew that going by the Overwhelmingly Positive review score, that people liked it.
When I read the Steam reviews, it was to get a sense of what the game was. Once I saw that it was a nostalgia-driven "cozy game", that's when I became interested in it.
I forget which video but video game dunkey (who obviously reviews video games) describes his x/5 system as 2.5 out of 5 meaning. "It's a game worth looking at and playing". Instead of "it's a game with ignoring." His serious reviews are definitely worth watching. Even of you haven't played the game. They critique the game in good ways. Highly recommend
i think critics should be free to self-define what a score means to them instead of catering to every bro who thinks that scoring is meaningless or their scoring is arbitrary and gets mad. internal consistency is more important than an unprepared reader/viewer "getting it". isnt this about expressing an opinion? what if the critics opinion is that their way of describing/culminating their opinion is best suited to a numbered or starred score? i dont think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water here if we're initially here to challenge audience's relationships with critics 🤔
The problem is that scores give the impression of assumed objectivity. People using scores(honestly most critics, score or no score) tend to give the impression that they do not understand or acknowledge that their criticism is opinion. """Objective""" criticism goes straight through the work of art and targets the individuals that enjoy the art and that's why people get so annoyed with criticism in general. It's often a veiled attack, intentional or otherwise.
If, as a critic, you've built up no trust that you are cognizant of the fact that your criticism is subjective AND that you are unwilling to admit it, then expect an angry response.
I agree that a scoring system can have its place if it's consistent enough to be a tool for understandable, reproducible results and if the critic acknowledges that it's subjective.
"You shouldn't complain"
I think that's a comment that should be used towards older media.
Like Twilight or Sword Art Online and stuff.....
At this point in time, why hate on it??? If you don't like it, you don't like it. Let the people that enjoy it enjoy it...
It's not the same as a proper critique nor is it the same as complaining about a new work.....
Same with the Sequel Trilogy. I hate it too.... but we should stop wasting energy on hating on that stuff... it was YEARS ago... we gotta move on...
I agree, a good critic score generally means to me that it's probably a traditionally well-constructed film, no more no less. I do think being a critical thinker is a good thing, but many people take it to conspiracy levels at that point it's not critical thinking, it is inventing stuff.
Insight
It is my dream to be a professional film critic. Alas, I fear dreams must die.
Netshaq's respect (?) of dunkey is respectable
That's why I keep my ratings between 0 and 1 with 5 significant digits.
Lol I love the binary at the end. Guess i have to like the vid now
sure, but mike d’angelo do be cooking sometimes
"A disgusting spectacle"
- Martin Scorsese, on RottenTomatoes
well put. i rate this video 1/1 upthumb
I think VideoGameDunky put it best and enlightened me somewhat. It's not about the critic being good/bad or aligning with your opinions at all. More it's about having an understanding of the critics perspective and using that to inform judgement. If I like every movie critic x says is bad and he pans a new release. I can still gain value from understanding our differences in taste. If critic x dislikes said new film - perhaps I will like it....
I agree with everything here but could someone explain to me what's wrong with mediums? I've been using it for years, i had no idea some people hate the term
a lot of "um" words pluralize with an "a" at the end, like bacterium->bacteria
@netshaq2 ah ok
Fnaf movie Discourse
I disagree about your point on the whole "well, if you can only like it if other people like it, that's a problem." That's a normal part of growing up and wanting to fit in, even into adulthood. Plus, it really sucks to want to talk about something where people either don't want to engage or they only want to talk about how terrible it is. Part of the fun of enjoying something is the social interaction that goes along with it
What does a "culturally significant critic" mean to you and who is an example of one?
Dunkey reference? 5:00
mista GG is cool tbh I like his vibe
Didn't know you were into mayhem lmao
I present my erudite binary review: 👍
I get what you are saying here, and I do think that critics are def unfairly demonized in general. But also, I personally disagree with some of the sentiment expressed here and wanted to explain why.
Here you essentially said that the "critic rating" and the "audience rating" are both important because the critic score will give you a general idea of what the critics think of a movie, while the audience score will give a general idea of what the pre-existing fans will think. I think this is just a very misleading way of describing what the "audience rating" represents that gives too much worth to the "critic rating". Maybe in the first few days of a movie's release will the "audience rating" only represent fans, but after a bit of time passes this rating will instead describe what the general public thinks of a movie, not the pre-existing fans (assuming no review-bombing which is a separate issue).
This may seem like an unimportant problem that doesn't have much to do with your overall point, but I think it leads into my main problem with aggregate critic ratings. They represent the view of a tiny niche group of people, but often people will hold them up as the end-all be all of what makes a movie good. In my opinion, this is stupid and I fully believe that aggregate critic ratings are kinda stupid.
The value of a critic is that they can write down the best and worst parts in movies in ways that can both help better the art form as well as inform the reader of whether they will enjoy the movie. How much a critic enjoyed a movie is completely irrelevent to this, so an aggregate of numbers which represent that is near worthless. I do think that there is a bit of worth in knowing in general how much critics enjoyed a movie, but when people hold it up to be just as important as the audience score which represents almost everyone outside of critics I 100% feel that twinge of annoyance.
Now I do think it is fair to say that this is not the fault of critics themselves however. I instead 100% put the blame on Hollywood and sites like rotten tomatoes for putting so much emphasis on critic scores.
TL;DR
Aggregate critic scores are stupid, but critics are great! :)
the tl;dr of why you disagree is literally a summary of this video
@@netshaq2 100% the second half of the TL;DR "critics are great" is summarizing your video, but I think there is a big difference between how I am saying "aggregate critic scores are stupid" and how you are saying aggregate critic scores should be used in different ways.
My argument is mostly about how any general expression of how much they enjoyed the movie is basically worthless and just as useful as a random person picked off the streets general expression of how much they enjoyed the movie. So your proposed solution to just say use a "rotten or good tomato" very much falls into what I would call a worthless aggregate critic score.
But also I do agree with most of the sentiment that critics are unfairly demonized, so that part of what I said is def a bit of a summary.
I personally value out of 10 scores. I like to think of them as buckets instead of a quantitative value. I understand that audiences often won't view it that way all the time but think it's a valuable scale if a critic is willing to accept that not everyone interprets that way.
One thing that is a little confusing at first to me is translating between an out of 10 scale and a 5 star scale (with half star increments). For example intuitively it would make sense for a 4 star rating to equal an 8/10, but in my mind it translates to a 7/10.
i only care about critics when they point out objective flaws
and reviews when they give me facts.
The split emulsion goes along with the theme of "separating the haves from the have-nots"
if u say so
based opinion.
Shaq, when you make April Fools videos and pretend to be a weirdo food reviewer criticizing the fry cup from a fast food restaurant, that character is how people view pedantic, out of touch critics.
Fantano has by far the worst reactions because he gets tons of tweens with no music taste defending albums that every other critic and music nerd also panned.
Guardian calls it "the worst thing to come out since the first audio recording", reddit calls it "vomit on a spinning platter", RYM gives it a 0.7 (0.5 is the lowest possible rating), Fantano gets ratio'd for panning it.
Dunkview alert
Just to add something small - I've never found a game reviewer that actually knows anything about optimisation, development or just games as a business. It's always just endless "game run bad, developers lazy hurrrr". They always suggest the dumbest tripe like more realistic water physics instead of better graphics thinking it will save us from the graphics race, as if water physics aren't ten times more demanding. "We need to stop trying to do realism" - guy who only watches cartoons
Okay, but I'm still not subscribing to the Patreon.
4/5