Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Gal Gadot is utterly wooden in this role.

I mean, when she’s trying to talk down Supes in Justice League? Just utterly flat.

The WW movie utilizes her well. Both writers/directors of Justice League didn't know how to properly write any character in that movie. NOBODY came out of that piece of gak with good writing.

Fair enough in your view - Thats exactly what I feel about TLJ whilst I consider Justice League a great fun film in the style of a marvel blockbuster. Just shows how varied opinions can be about the same film.

Another reason to ignore Critics.

Only if you take critics opinons as gospel.

Horror is another genre famous for unkind reviews. So again, I’ll rely on more specialist websites for those reviews.

What to look for is the common thread. Take Suicide Squad. That film is a mess, and Jared Leto sucks. The baddies are more CGI pap, and Carla Delvegine is awful. What was with the weird dancing?

So just ignore them, already!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only if you take critics opinons as gospel.

Horror is another genre famous for unkind reviews. So again, I’ll rely on more specialist websites for those reviews.

What to look for is the common thread. Take Suicide Squad. That film is a mess, and Jared Leto sucks. The baddies are more CGI pap, and Carla Delvegine is awful. What was with the weird dancing?

As its art No-one's opinion is worth more than anothers - we are going to view them differenty so why bother having some self obsessed, self proclaimed experts proclaime what is art and what is not art. F them.

Loved first half of SS and although it fell away it was better than all previous DC films since the TB Batman and the old Superman films, For me Jared Leto was a great Joker, insane rather than super precog terrorist. Carla was great to start wth but then got relegated to merely undulating - not in itself a bad thing but a waste.

So your review would be no use to me and vice versa. Same with Critics.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So just ignore them, already!

I do - until people being their nonsense into discsusuons about the films saying "but but the Critics said and they must be right" Seriously F the Critics.

So this thread is really about you, then.

Actual reviews are often useful. Thumbs, stars, outta 10's and other scoring systems are decidedly less so and most of the problems we have with the critic culture comes from an over reliance on numeric shorthand.

 LunarSol wrote:
Actual reviews are often useful. Thumbs, stars, outta 10's and other scoring systems are decidedly less so and most of the problems we have with the critic culture comes from an over reliance on numeric shorthand.

I think that's what the origin of the "thumbs up/down" originated from it's such a vague and simplistic system that it encouraged the reader/viewer to read/watch the full review because a simple thumb up or down is not enough information.

My dogg you are engaging in film criticism in this very thread!

Criticism is a person engaging with a subject and offering their point of view on it. that's it.

if you're talking about review systems like thumbs and stars being completely subjective, i agree! but that does not make the act of critiquing something useless.

Also reading the opinion of someone who disagrees with you can still be a pretty worthwhile thing, to my mind. even if you spend the whole time shaking your fist and shouting "fools! fools, all of them!".

 gorgon wrote:
So this thread is really about you, then.

Yeah, this transitioned from "opinions about film critcism" as a discussion topic into "personal blog material" that should have been locked and shunted off to facebook or whatever.

A good deconstruction and critique is critical for a better understanding of the craft and artform you are engaging with.

Your average rube in the street can only give you the basest idea of somethings value. Like or do not like. Such is meaningless as I can come to that base assumption myself. It takes someone with a bit of knowledge to enhance and expand your vision and knowledge of a work beyond the merest emotional reaction and into a realm where you can use self-knowledge and knowledge of the medium to create a well rounded opinion beyond a shrug and a grunt.

I know these kind of views are deemed elitist now-a-days, but good criticism raises up and expands ones appreciation for the craft and art you are trying to engage with.

 Easy E wrote:
A good deconstruction and critique is critical for a better understanding of the craft and artform you are engaging with.

Your average rube in the street can only give you the basest idea of somethings value. Like or do not like. Such is meaningless as I can come to that base assumption myself. It takes someone with a bit of knowledge to enhance and expand your vision and knowledge of a work beyond the merest emotional reaction and into a realm where you can use self-knowledge and knowledge of the medium to create a well rounded opinion beyond a shrug and a grunt.

I know these kind of views are deemed elitist now-a-days, but good criticism raises up and expands ones appreciation for the craft and art you are trying to engage with.

My question is if expert opinion is useful and valuable - how does one become a professional critic and what qualifications are there for doing so?

 Easy E wrote:
A good deconstruction and critique is critical for a better understanding of the craft and artform you are engaging with.

Your average rube in the street can only give you the basest idea of somethings value. Like or do not like. Such is meaningless as I can come to that base assumption myself. It takes someone with a bit of knowledge to enhance and expand your vision and knowledge of a work beyond the merest emotional reaction and into a realm where you can use self-knowledge and knowledge of the medium to create a well rounded opinion beyond a shrug and a grunt.

I know these kind of views are deemed elitist now-a-days, but good criticism raises up and expands ones appreciation for the craft and art you are trying to engage with.

I feel like the democritization of criticism has confused some people's understanding of it. For them, it's become something that exists to validate their own opinions, or to be a source of outrage that inserts some drama into their days. Basically like anything else posted on social media anymore.

 Mr Morden wrote:
My question is if expert opinion is useful and valuable - how does one become a professional critic and what qualifications are there for doing so?

Well, becoming a professional critic is essentially a writing gig. How do you become a successful author - what are your qualifications?

I think the answer is "people are interested enough in reading what you write that they will pay you money to hear it."

 Cheesecat wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Actual reviews are often useful. Thumbs, stars, outta 10's and other scoring systems are decidedly less so and most of the problems we have with the critic culture comes from an over reliance on numeric shorthand.

I think that's what the origin of the "thumbs up/down" originated from it's such a vague and simplistic system that it encouraged the reader/viewer to read/watch the full review because a simple thumb up or down is not enough information.

The weekly Planet uses Best Movie Ever/Worst Movie Ever because there is no nuance on the internet and they don't want to get emails going "Uh.. But, Uhhh... I think it should have been a 6.9 instead of a 7.2!"

Yeah, I'd like to say numeric scoring is dumb, because well, it is until you hit a big aggregate. But what would be better? Honest question.

Criticism should not rank, it describes what is good or not good and why.

Number or any kind of ranking system is a vulgarity added to criticism for the masses.

 Ouze wrote:
Roger Ebert once wrote in one of his books that a good film review will let know if you will likely enjoy the movie even if the reviewer didn't.

That's a good description.

Also, scores are worthless. Read the words instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
A good deconstruction and critique is critical for a better understanding of the craft and artform you are engaging with.

Your average rube in the street can only give you the basest idea of somethings value. Like or do not like. Such is meaningless as I can come to that base assumption myself. It takes someone with a bit of knowledge to enhance and expand your vision and knowledge of a work beyond the merest emotional reaction and into a realm where you can use self-knowledge and knowledge of the medium to create a well rounded opinion beyond a shrug and a grunt.

I know these kind of views are deemed elitist now-a-days, but good criticism raises up and expands ones appreciation for the craft and art you are trying to engage with.

My question is if expert opinion is useful and valuable - how does one become a professional critic and what qualifications are there for doing so?

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-011-the-film-experience-fall-2013/

The MIT course is free, so knock yourself out. But basically it's starting with a knowledge of film - and film-making, to understand how the film-maker did what they did, and why they did so.AFter that, it's simply good communications skills. You're presenting an argument and giving backup for your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Evidence for that please.

It’s something I often see claimed, but never supported.

I think it's less direct bungs more the fear of getting excluded / blacklisted in the future that causes some reviewers to be overly positive in some cases

Again, is there evidence of that? Mark Kermode's reviews of the Pirates of the Caribbean films are legendarily scathing, but he still gets to view all Disney's output.

A reply to this is probably better in this thread.

Mr Morden wrote:

Spoiler:

Mario wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:What do Critics provide for you? I don;t get it.

I have no use or interest for or in them. Applies to Food and Film. I'll decide what I like or dont like.

A point of view. It might be similar to mine or different but if you find critics you like then their work should expand your horizon a bit instead of just agreeing with you on all points or completely disagreeing with your opinion. Film critics may point out a different approach to some movie that might change my mind upon consideration. A food critic may have some ideas about a recipe or dish that's informed from their perspective and that might provide a starting point to adapt my recipe, or they might just expose me to some things I didn't even know existed. Life can be a bit insular if one has to stew in one's own brain all the time. Critics/criticism can add some additional information and fun serendipity.

Interesting - however with the mortality issue I don.t have time to do all the things I know I enjoy never mind the things I don't.

That's where critics can also be really useful. If you have found some whose opinions you trust you can use those as a filter (instead of looking for critics who expand your horizon). That way you spend less of your precious time watching, reading, playing, or listening to stuff you don't like and get to enjoy more of the good stuff because reading a critic's opinion is faster than watching all the movies.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to say numeric scoring is dumb, because well, it is until you hit a big aggregate. But what would be better? Honest question.

I don't mind numeric systems it's visual shorthand for how a reviewer feels, that being said video game scores messed that up where anything less than an 8 is hot garbage, I don't know why it's like this I can only assume it's pressure from developers/publishers and hardcore fans to give their favourite franchises high scores. Which makes no sense 5 should be average, 7 should be good but flawed and 8+ is where you should really consider it.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EightPointEight

 Ouze wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
My question is if expert opinion is useful and valuable - how does one become a professional critic and what qualifications are there for doing so?

Well, becoming a professional critic is essentially a writing gig. How do you become a successful author - what are your qualifications?

I think the answer is "people are interested enough in reading what you write that they will pay you money to hear it."

It would also be useful to do a degree in a subject like English which teaches you how to analyze and write about a text.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
My question is if expert opinion is useful and valuable - how does one become a professional critic and what qualifications are there for doing so?

Well, becoming a professional critic is essentially a writing gig. How do you become a successful author - what are your qualifications?

I think the answer is "people are interested enough in reading what you write that they will pay you money to hear it."

It would also be useful to do a degree in a subject like English which teaches you how to analyze and write about a text.

Supplement that with some courses on the techniques of film making, covering usage of angles, lighting, sound mixing. etc. to convey different messages to the audience without needing dialogue or even people on screen.

Think about a film showing you a room. You see smoke hanging thick in the air, illuminated by shafts of dim light from the broken shutters over the windows. A ceiling fan creaks slowly around its axle in a draught. Discarded bottles lie strewn over the floor, the carpet stained from their leaked contents. A stained mattress on an unmade bed, cigarette burns like craters dotting the surface.

That tells you a lot about whoever lives in that room without seeing that person or needing any dialogue. Now, think about why the filmmaker has shown you each detail you saw and how they went about revealing those details to you. What does each individual element tell you? Was the shot a continuous long take, making you feel like you were in the room looking around yourself? Or was each element highlighted separately with cuts? Why has the filmmaker chosen their way of revealing the information? What are they trying to achieve with their method?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


My question is if expert opinion is useful and valuable - how does one become a professional critic and what qualifications are there for doing so?

The same way one becomes a professional critic of any art form, be it film, music, literature, food, fashion, painting, sculpture etc.
You learn everything you can about the techniques and history of said art form, learn how to critically analyse a subject through the lens of an academic framework and then you write and write and write.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to say numeric scoring is dumb, because well, it is until you hit a big aggregate. But what would be better? Honest question.

Haiku review. Short, yet nuanced.


King Kong Skull Island
Lines and helicopters fall
Like Leaves in Autumn


The Last Jedi asks,
Are your heroes misguided?
Chewie cooks a porg.