Misconceptions of the Critics

The first article I made, independent of reviews was received… okay. I feel part of that might have been a resentment of critics in general. Especially in recent years, it seems the job of a critic has gone from informing the public about products like movies and books as well as helping writers and movie makers, to picking out perceived bad examples of movies and books, and perpetually thrashing them in a public outlet with no desire to evaluate or look at merits. It seems these days critics get paid to just be jerks, and to do so in public. I admit that actually I’m a fan of the guy who probably started the trend, the Nostalgia Critic. In my mind Doug is more concentrated on having fun, but there’s no denying that several of his clones just want to throw mud at productions they never gave a chance.

Several critics out there seem to exist for one reason and one reason only: to bash other peoples’ hard work, without mercy. Perhaps to distance myself a little from them, indulge me as I do a little correcting of them.

Before I begin, I feel the need to preface this by saying that critics that make these mistakes I’m about to list, technically AREN’T wrong. If a person doesn’t like a book or movie, then he doesn’t. His opinion is his opinion and he has a right to it and at least for him, it is correct. The person who says that Steven King books are boring, is right, in that they are boring for him. However where he is incorrect is in saying that the stories are bad because they don’t appeal to him personally. To correct a production he should be weighing the production’s pros and cons and evaluating it for legitimate flaws. And no, for a movie, “I don’t like CGI” is not a flaw, it’s an opinion. A flaw is “this CGI monster shows no interaction with the ground and therefore does not appear to be present”.

So just for a spot of revenge, let’s go over some things to help you pick out critics who’s productions aren’t worth while themselves. As they love top ten lists, here are the top ten “Stupid Misconceptions of Critics”.

(Note, it is easier to recall flaws and strengths in movies than books, so many of these examples will be from movies.)

(Also note. Yes, everything on this list can be considered opinion. You don’t have to agree.)

Misconception number 10- Top ten lists are not somehow arbitrary.

Yes you see… oh I see what you did there! Well technically yes, rankings are generally arbitrary and completely based on personal opinion. Even my own top four list was arbitrary, as while they may have been principals that are pretty well accepted, the order of their importance or difficulty is completely a matter of opinion. Stories with bad characterization can become interesting on a person to person basis, for instance, so wouldn’t that be a reason to put that flaw lower on the list? After all, such is a flaw that CAN be overlooked, therefore, Mr. Authonomy reviewer, is it then really that annoying or critical to correct?

Misconception number 9- This story is terrible because it’s not what I’m used to.

Eh em… THAT’S CALLED ORIGINALITY! No, if someone comes up with a new idea, that’s not a bad thing.

Let’s take the often attacked Twilight series for instance. Usually I dare not defend this series as I hate it myself, but in reality, I don’t think it deserves even half the flack it gets from vampire fan boys and fan girls. The main allegation I hear is not about the bad or mixed moral messages the productions tend to show (which I agree, were rampant in the first movie –the only one I saw-), but instead that Ms. Meyer should be lynched basically because she made a few changes to popular vampire lore. Foremost of these changes was taking away their vulnerability to the sun and instead making them hide from it because it makes them stick out via making them sparkle. Okay, so this isn’t a very intimidating thing, but let’s really think about what Stephanie changed shall we? Post Twilight, pop culture painted vampires as having a laundry list of weaknesses that constituted things  that could impede, injure or straight up kill them that included: moderate amounts of garlic, decapitation, stabbing through the heart, moderate amounts of silver, sun light, fire, crucifixes, moderate amounts of water blessed by a priest, the Bible, bright light, inability to wake during the day, intimidation by anything cute, being nigh mentally handicapped, having fragile bodies, etc, etc, etc… after all that, do they really sound intimidating anymore? What were the Meyer vampires like? Super strong, super fast, possessing telekinetic powers (I think) and nigh invulnerable with no phobias or defined weaknesses. That actually sounds MORE intimidating. If they didn’t sparkle, I wouldn’t see the problem really. I hate to say it, but if Dracula were to fight a Meyer vampire, he would be laughably outmatched. And as far as not being afraid of the sun eliminating conflict, as many allege, the conflict in Meyer’s stories was that the creatures had insatiable blood lusts. Sounds like a conflict to me if you don’t WANT to hurt humans. Them not having a vulnerability to sun light just shows them not having a weakness people are used to them having, but really, that’s not a problem. If they didn’t have an apparent reason to still hide from the sun but did so anyway, that would be a story flaw, but they did have a reason. A reason that I also thought was dumb, but that’s just opinion. In reality the idea made sense and fit the story just fine, as well as fit its intended audience (which thankfully, I am not a part of).

Misconception number 8- Originality is a virtue in it of itself.

No, it’s not. I saw Splice, it was original, but it was not good. Critics hailed it saying it was genius because of its originality. The originality was in that the terrifying creature that was set to supplant all mankind, had sex with both a man and a woman, whilst still looking like a creature. Can anyone tell me WHY both humans had sex with the creature? Can anyone tell me WHY the creature was not destroyed after it almost stung one of the scientists to death when it was an infant? Can anyone tell me WHY a female scientist said the creature was not a predator while watching it devour a rabbit right in front of her after chasing it down and killing it? None of these things were explained and they were all key points in the production. It helps that I hated the production itself, but it still had flaws that should not have been ignored by critics because it did some things they weren’t used to seeing. Besides, Splice being good because it was original, and Twilight being bad because it was original… isn’t someone going to notice these things are just opinions at some point? Personally I didn’t like seeing human on creature sex thank you, but someone else I’m sure did, as that’s the original concept that the critics hailed as so wonderful and smart and all made sure to keep as a surprise for movie goers. (Sorry to spoil the “surprise” that everyone wanted to hide, but in my personal opinion, it never should have been a “surprise” in the first place.) Point is, it’s a matter of opinion whether that raised the bar, or lowered it. Check the rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 74% of the critics like it, while 63% of the public didn’t. It’s possible that that is a result of certain things being considered universally revolting, but it’s also possible that an ultimately flawed story cannot be saved by a few original ideas.  

Misconception number 7- Wanting to do the right thing is not a motive and neither is wanting to be evil or a jerk.

To Mr. Snooty movie critic who feels a compulsion to attack every family movie I ever liked, yes, wanting to do the right thing is a motive, a very important one that a number of people have. Wanting to be a general jerk or even be evil is also a motive. Anyone who thinks wanting to be a jerk can’t be a human motive has lived a wonderfully sheltered life that I would love to trade places with. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if moral guidelines could not serve to motivate human responses, why do you think we came up with them in the first place? Essentially a myth has grown that human beings cannot be motivated by general ideas of morality or a lack thereof. Thankfully and unfortunately, they can.

Misconception number 6- Such and such is not my ideal, therefore it is bad.

This is a terrible misconception, and I believe, the worst offense. Touting a personal opinion as trump and a rule, without acknowledging it is just opinion. See what I did there? I’m sure someone was rolling his eyes at me until he realized the point of what I just said. I was demonstrating the concept of placing your opinion as a rule. That this is the worst offence is just an opinion that comes from personal dislike. That opinion is not based in any kind of fact and can’t be.  

Understand, I am not of the opinion that all critiques are opinion. (Notably that leaves room to say that some people are.) If you forgot a period on your sentence, that was a mistake in reality not in my opinion. If you did not create personalities for your characters, that is a problem, not a problem in my opinion (though I will admit it is borderline opinion as what constitutes a personality is different to each person). When someone defines a fictitious creature in a way folks aren’t use to, you saying it’s a bad redefinition, is an opinion, not a mistake on the writer’s behalf.  It is not wrong or a mistake to do something someone personally doesn’t like. It is a mistake to break basic rules of storytelling such as using proper enough grammar and incorporating logical direction and motives for your characters. (Unless you mean to do that I suppose.)

Case in point. Personally, I hate sexualization of monsters such as vampires and werewolves. I like feral creatures of the night to be powerful and intimidating, rather than attractive and piteous. The best combination for a vampire in my mind, is a creature with a feral body and a human mind, creating an interesting conflict between nature and reason. However most people I talk to see that as making vampires into werewolves, and argue that vampires should be reserved and intelligent creatures driven to mad cravings whom don’t overpower their prey, but outsmart and entice it. Neither opinion is right or wrong and I would never seek to say that a production is bad because it indulges the more popular view of vampires rather than my favored view. (A foremost reason for not caring, beyond realizing opinion is relative, and I’m gonna break hearts saying this, vampires don’t exist!)

Misconception number 5- Critics can’t be wrong.

Oh yes they can. If they were always right, The Passion of the Christ would not be one of the highest grossing films in history.

Hell, I’m wrong sometimes. Sometimes…

Misconception number 4- As a critic, I’m above criticism myself.

No, a critic is not above criticism. If someone films himself bashing a movie for bad special effects, and his own production, bashing the movie, has terrible incoherent jokes and special effects that make your eyes hurt… yea, he screwed up! And what’s more, the more you attack other people, the more you generally open yourself up to attack, so deal with it.

Misconception number 3- Critics can’t go too far

Actually yes they can. The hounding of Stephanie Meyer’s books and movies has gone beyond any form of reason and the same can be said of the treatment of the Star Wars prequels.  When you start insulting the writers themselves as individuals, you as a critic have gone too far. As a critic you are not judging whether someone has any talent at all, you are evaluating what they have produced and whether it is good. You are evaluating the product, not the person.  

Misconception number 2- All criticism is constructive.

I don’t think Geroge Lucas can actually get anything useful out of even half the names he’s been called. “I don’t like CGI, and have no standards for when it’s good or bad” is not constructive criticism, it’s a useless gripe. “Vampires sparkling is emasculating” is little more than an opinion, even if I do share it.

And the number one misconception critics make- Critics are crusaders that are slowly changing the face of media.

Yes, it happens once in a blue moon that a critic will point out a major flaw in a production and its ratings will suddenly turn sour in spite of previous public adoration. However generally critics are just offering opinions and the public will think what it wants regardless.

Do not take any of these ideas as me saying all criticism of all stories should be ignored outright. Rather take it as, not all criticism is valid, and not everything a critic says is holy. When you receive critiques, or when you give them, evaluate what is being said. Is what is being said actually helpful or informative, or is it just a personal opinion?