The state of critics today (for movies, TV, etc)

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Just for the hell of it, I decided to DVR "Heckler", a documentary from Jamie Kennedy where he and a bunch of other comedians talk about critics, hecklers at shows and bloggers. I'm not the biggest Jamie fan in the world, but it actually made me feel sorry for the guy. Peter Grumbine in particular comes off as a villain.

And it raised a good point- nowadays, there's not a lot of constructive criticism floating around. Instead of talking about what could be improved on with an artist or a subpar work, people just try to come up with the most biting jokes and putdowns about how said artist or work is the worst thing ever in the history of humanity.

Not that I'm saying blind praise is any better, but it's the rarer of the two problems.

[AriadosMan]

Go to the TNA forum. You'll find plenty of constructive criticism there (although it floats on a sea of destructive criticism).

[EvilMasterBetty, Esq.]

Constructive Criticism =/= website hits.

The more biting, harsh, hyperbolic insults = website hits

Website hits = money/popularity.

That seems to be the issue. Is that the gist of the documentary?

[Push R Truth]

I almost made a post like this the other day.


Things are either GREATEST NIGHT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SPORT or EPIC FAIL LOLOLOL.

It's all about who can degrade or praise something the most, not about well thought out reasons both good or bad for the final outcome of a show/movie/song/whatever.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

May 19, 2010 12:09:57 GMT -5 EvilMasterBetty, Esq. said:

Constructive Criticism =/= website hits.

The more biting, harsh, hyperbolic insults = website hits

Website hits = money/popularity.

That seems to be the issue. Is that the gist of the documentary?

In some ways, yeah. There's more of an emphasis on the art of heckling in the first half, and modern-day critics in the second.

[willywonka666]

Well is it really a critics place to tell Jamie how to do his job?

Critics are usually full of it anyway, how can they enjoy anything personally if they dissect everything? I never needed a critic to tell me anything.

[Triple Kelly]

When it comes to critics, I'll trust the opinion of a friend before anyone who publishes movie, tv, music or food reviews for a living (though they can be entertaining to read).

[Renslayer]

As EMB noted, there really isn't much constructive criticism nowadays. There isn't much of a middle ground, either it's garbage or something like that, or it's the best show ever and you're a moron if you don't watch it.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2010 13:11:58 GMT -5 Triple Kelly said:

When it comes to critics, I'll trust the opinion of a friend before anyone who publishes movie, tv, music or food reviews for a living (though they can be entertaining to read).

I'll nod my head to this post here.

[Dave at the Movies]

I think people are way too harsh on critics. I like Jamie Kennedy but I'm not at all surprised he is behind a project degrading critics. The guy has never been in a movie worth a damn. Of course he isn't going to like critics.

Jimmy Fallon was practically in the same position a few years ago but now he is the host of a huge talk show. Kennedy is still off doing whatever he has always done.

[elmstreetkid]

I actually think critics provide a vital role for the arts. I mean, persistent critics maintaining a strong word-of-mouth support for the Hurt Locker, which was a real movie and not some half-assed thrill ride experience, are the reason we were spared an Avatar Best Picture win. Think about that.

I get what people are saying, because everyone's a critic on the internet, and most people just aren't good at it. It's either something is amazing or terrible to them, when the majority of works are always going to be right in the middle.

With print critics, it's even tougher because so many of them are pressured into good reviews, or are just bland guys with no context to what they write. I like Ebert, but he pioneered the school of entertainment criticism - who cares what the movie's about so long as you were entertained? I think things are more complicated than that (but at least Ebert writes pretty damn well), and that's what critics are there for - to help you figure out why you responded to a movie or book or album the way you did.

My advice? Find a few critics whose viewpoint interests you and whose tastes you trust. It doesn't have to match up with your taste. I disagree a lot with some of my favorites, mainly because I'm one of those weirdos who still takes Armond White seriously. But I might've never seen Shotgun Stories or Happy-Go-Lucky if it wasn't for him, either, and those are two of my favorite movies.

I tend to hold for more iconoclastic critics, though. Lester Bangs is a long-time favorite, Armond White, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Tucker Stone over at The Factual Opinion...I think the best critics have fiercely independent tastes.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

May 19, 2010 15:51:05 GMT -5 elmstreetkid said:

I actually think critics provide a vital role for the arts. I mean, persistent critics maintaining a strong word-of-mouth support for the Hurt Locker, which was a real movie and not some half-assed thrill ride experience, are the reason we were spared an Avatar Best Picture win. Think about that.

I get what people are saying, because everyone's a critic on the internet, and most people just aren't good at it. It's either something is amazing or terrible to them, when the majority of works are always going to be right in the middle.

With print critics, it's even tougher because so many of them are pressured into good reviews, or are just bland guys with no context to what they write. I like Ebert, but he pioneered the school of entertainment criticism - who cares what the movie's about so long as you were entertained? I think things are more complicated than that (but at least Ebert writes pretty damn well), and that's what critics are there for - to help you figure out why you responded to a movie or book or album the way you did.

My advice? Find a few critics whose viewpoint interests you and whose tastes you trust. It doesn't have to match up with your taste. I disagree a lot with some of my favorites, mainly because I'm one of those weirdos who still takes Armond White seriously. But I might've never seen Shotgun Stories or Happy-Go-Lucky if it wasn't for him, either, and those are two of my favorite movies.

I tend to hold for more iconoclastic critics, though. Lester Bangs is a long-time favorite, Armond White, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Tucker Stone over at The Factual Opinion...I think the best critics have fiercely independent tastes.

Yeah, Ebert's one of my personal favorites. He's one of the few I often disagree with but still find enjoyable to read.

[-Lithium-]

The way the critics would act in that movie was ridiculous. But I can't really feel sorry for Jamie Kennedy. He walks around nearly crying because people didn't like Son of The Mask...

[Red Impact]

The problem with critics occurs when it became more about their opinion and less about actually looking at and analyzing a movie. The fact is, anyone can have an opinion, and there's no reason we should treat a critic's with any more weight. But a person who can give actual insight on a subject beyond a thumbs up or thumbs down can give us more of an appreciation of the art of it.

But there's not many who actually will give an indepth look at something, it's mostly about being snarky.