Are negative reviews biased?
Reply to Topic
An objective review is just a synopsis.
Basically.
This objective/subjective thing really seems to trip people up.
Apparently, also what the function of a critic is, who it should be stated would be absolutely worthless without their subjectivity.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
And, no, just because I might be saying subjectivity is mostly the whole point of a review, this is not a claim that criticism is purely subjective (although it obviously sometimes can be), or that all critics are created equal (because they are not)
Even though a critics opinion is based upon their subjective experience with the film, they can and usually then will reference all sorts of objective things like reasoning and logic and knowledge about the films technical aspects as they try to explain or argue their point. They might also invoke all sorts of things they have learned about the history of film or that specific director or the subject the movie is about. And then they might even dare to make an educated guess as to what the makers of the film were hoping to say or what they wanted us to feel, and then use some of the above more objective techniques to bolster their case that the film accomplishes this.
So while the experience of watching the movie and then rendering a verdict on its quality are all mostly subjective, there are all sorts of objective measures they can use to reinforce their opinions, instead of simply drooling 'I like it cuz I like it'
It's almost like it's an actual skillset or something.
Even though a critics opinion is based upon their subjective experience with the film, they can and usually then will reference all sorts of objective things like reasoning and logic and knowledge about the films technical aspects as they try to explain or argue their point. They might also invoke all sorts of things they have learned about the history of film or that specific director or the subject the movie is about. And then they might even dare to make an educated guess as to what the makers of the film were hoping to say or what they wanted us to feel, and then use some of the above more objective techniques to bolster their case that the film accomplishes this.
So while the experience of watching the movie and then rendering a verdict on its quality are all mostly subjective, there are all sorts of objective measures they can use to reinforce their opinions, instead of simply drooling 'I like it cuz I like it'
It's almost like it's an actual skillset or something.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
And, no, just because I might be saying subjectivity is mostly the whole point of a review, this is not a claim that criticism is purely subjective (although it obviously sometimes can be), or that all critics are created equal (because they are not)
It's almost like it's an actual skillset or something.
It's almost like it's an actual skillset or something.
I'm very grateful for people who are skilled at criticism, but I also appreciate all the "amateurs" who take the time to lay out their response to a film.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
No doubt about that.
We should have a care to segregate epistemology and ontology. Ontologically, whatever happened is what "happened to happen." We might argue as to whether the ontological situation of the universe (i.e., what happened) is subjective, but this tumbles us headlong into an abyss of incoherence, because contradictions become actual. If I believe the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, then it was in 1066. If another believes that it occurred one million years prior, then it did.
Epistemically, our difficulties do not involve "overwriting reality" by remaking it, rather epistemics speak to our poor illumination of it. There is either small tea pot orbiting Mars or there is not. Tea pots are very small and Mars is quite far away, so we cannot say with 100% certainty that there is not such an object. History is incomplete. Witnesses are partial. Records are destroyed. Transcribers err. Reigning orthodoxies bully heterodox views. That stated, we are still left with world about which we might be right or wrong (or of which we may have a "better" or "worse" understanding). Objectivity still exists on this view, it is just that our understanding is not perfectly objective.
In aesthetics, our discussions often seem almost hopeless. And yet here we are.
We should have a care to segregate epistemology and ontology. Ontologically, whatever happened is what "happened to happen." We might argue as to whether the ontological situation of the universe (i.e., what happened) is subjective, but this tumbles us headlong into an abyss of incoherence, because contradictions become actual. If I believe the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, then it was in 1066. If another believes that it occurred one million years prior, then it did.
Epistemically, our difficulties do not involve "overwriting reality" by remaking it, rather epistemics speak to our poor illumination of it. There is either small tea pot orbiting Mars or there is not. Tea pots are very small and Mars is quite far away, so we cannot say with 100% certainty that there is not such an object. History is incomplete. Witnesses are partial. Records are destroyed. Transcribers err. Reigning orthodoxies bully heterodox views. That stated, we are still left with world about which we might be right or wrong (or of which we may have a "better" or "worse" understanding). Objectivity still exists on this view, it is just that our understanding is not perfectly objective.
In aesthetics, our discussions often seem almost hopeless. And yet here we are.
X
User Lists
Epistomology.....Ontology......Is there a new movie being released about Martin Heidegger?
"Epistomology" is new one on me, however, my epistemic vantage point is impoverished.
X
User Lists
In television...yes mostly because of the sample size. In film it varies I feel like positive reviews are more biased than negative ones in that people work aggregate sites to elevate special interest films. A film like Hacksaw Ridge will get 84% while Till will get 96%. Now was bias in the negative reviews or was it in the positive. 1 out 7 people not liking Hacksaw Ridge I can understand, 1 out 20 people not liking Till seems incredibly dishonest.
I went to see Megalopolis because of it's mixed reviews and it was going to be on IMAX and I had the open slots on AMC Stubs. Snow White has the same mixed scores but I'm going to skip it because I don't have an open spot to see it. I have 2 open slots for 5 films (Bod Trevino Likes it, Locked, Black Bag, The Penguin Lessons, and Princess Monomoke). I picked Death of a Unicorn because even though it didn't get glowing reviews I know with horror the percentages are often off.
What it comes down to is credibility is something too good to be true it likely is. The job of any film fan is to be discerning and understand what the tool of critics reviews are...a tool
I went to see Megalopolis because of it's mixed reviews and it was going to be on IMAX and I had the open slots on AMC Stubs. Snow White has the same mixed scores but I'm going to skip it because I don't have an open spot to see it. I have 2 open slots for 5 films (Bod Trevino Likes it, Locked, Black Bag, The Penguin Lessons, and Princess Monomoke). I picked Death of a Unicorn because even though it didn't get glowing reviews I know with horror the percentages are often off.
What it comes down to is credibility is something too good to be true it likely is. The job of any film fan is to be discerning and understand what the tool of critics reviews are...a tool
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
At least I spelled Heidegger correctly. Once at least.
Check out my podcast: 
>A film like Hacksaw Ridge will get 84% while Till will get 96%.
These percentage systems are a bit of a joke. Rather than just giving us an average of the actual scores people give the movies, they give us an average of how many had a positive review? A movie could get 7's and 8's and get listed as "95%" by these metrics...which is intentionally designed to make people think "It got 95 out of a 100!" From the very design, it's a review system intended to deceive.
And that's not even getting into how they convert reviews into numbers...
These percentage systems are a bit of a joke. Rather than just giving us an average of the actual scores people give the movies, they give us an average of how many had a positive review? A movie could get 7's and 8's and get listed as "95%" by these metrics...which is intentionally designed to make people think "It got 95 out of a 100!" From the very design, it's a review system intended to deceive.
And that's not even getting into how they convert reviews into numbers...
Hey, it's Mr "I Walk Alone" once again showing up to air his grievances against.... biopics?
Surely thats what he has a problem with, right? Biopics are the worst.
Like has been stated just above, the problem with RT scores are pretty clear. At this point this is basically gospel for anyone who has even peeked under the hood of how their numbers work. So it should never come as any surprise when any mid ass crowd pleaser scores really high. The tomatometer is designed to reward these kinds of films.
But the fact that an issue is being raised between a movie with 96 percent (Till) and one with 84 percent (Hacksaw) is an absurd place to try and mount an argument. Seriously, 12 percent on rt is a negligible difference. Both of these movies are probably extremely average in possibly very similar ways and that's why BOTH of them rank so highly.
But sure, let's poorly cherry pick some more reviews from a completely worthless website to make our point against... biopics
Surely thats what he has a problem with, right? Biopics are the worst.
Like has been stated just above, the problem with RT scores are pretty clear. At this point this is basically gospel for anyone who has even peeked under the hood of how their numbers work. So it should never come as any surprise when any mid ass crowd pleaser scores really high. The tomatometer is designed to reward these kinds of films.
But the fact that an issue is being raised between a movie with 96 percent (Till) and one with 84 percent (Hacksaw) is an absurd place to try and mount an argument. Seriously, 12 percent on rt is a negligible difference. Both of these movies are probably extremely average in possibly very similar ways and that's why BOTH of them rank so highly.
But sure, let's poorly cherry pick some more reviews from a completely worthless website to make our point against... biopics
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Kids get sad. Adults also get sad. But if you asked each of them why they're sad...who would give you a more lucid and insightful explanation? Who would be talking about the nature of grief and how to deal with emotions when they're irrational, and who would just be crying?
That's the difference between good criticism and bad criticism or, if you'd rather, between criticism and mere opinion. Sure, everyone's got opinions, and everyone experiences the same kinds of emotions. That doesn't mean they understand their emotions or opinions equally as well as anyone else.
That's the difference between good criticism and bad criticism or, if you'd rather, between criticism and mere opinion. Sure, everyone's got opinions, and everyone experiences the same kinds of emotions. That doesn't mean they understand their emotions or opinions equally as well as anyone else.
X
Favorite Movies
Hey, it's Mr "I Walk Alone" once again showing up to air his grievances against.... biopics?
Surely thats what he has a problem with, right? Biopics are the worst.
But the fact that an issue is being raised between a movie with 96 percent (Till) and one with 84 percent (Hacksaw) is an absurd place to try and mount an argument. Seriously, 12 percent on rt is a negligible difference. Both of these movies are probably extremely average in possibly very similar ways and that's why BOTH of them rank so highly.
Surely thats what he has a problem with, right? Biopics are the worst.
But the fact that an issue is being raised between a movie with 96 percent (Till) and one with 84 percent (Hacksaw) is an absurd place to try and mount an argument. Seriously, 12 percent on rt is a negligible difference. Both of these movies are probably extremely average in possibly very similar ways and that's why BOTH of them rank so highly.
If you thought Till was a biopic that tells me you never bothered to see Till. For a film to be at around 85% that would mean 1 in 7 didn't like the film for some reason. But a film that is at 95% means it's 1 in 20
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If you thought Till was a biopic that tells me you never bothered to see Till. For a film to be at around 85% that would mean 1 in 7 didn't like the film for some reason. But a film that is at 95% means it's 1 in 20
You're right, I didn't see Till and probably never will. Your point being? I'm talking about how Tomatometers aren't accurate reflections of anything, and I don't require seeing any movie ever to make that pronouncement. Not even these specific kinds of movies you seem to have such a constantly phobic reaction to (I guess it wasn't biopics after all)
And I read your math the last time. It's a negligible difference no matter how many times you repeat yourself. It means twelve more people out of a hundred potentially shrugged and said 'i guess it was okay'. It doesn't mean anything. But I guess to you it's a real issue for.... reasons
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I just skimmed the thread, the lesson learned is: RT sucks
I don't know why anyone bothers going to that site it's as ridiculous as the Ranker site. If one must look up review ratings just go to IMDB, nuff said.
I don't know why anyone bothers going to that site it's as ridiculous as the Ranker site. If one must look up review ratings just go to IMDB, nuff said.
X
Favorite Movies
You're right, I didn't see Till and probably never will. Your point being? I'm talking about how Tomatometers aren't accurate reflections of anything, and I don't require seeing any movie ever to make that pronouncement. Not even these specific kinds of movies you seem to have such a constantly phobic reaction to (I guess it wasn't biopics after all)
And I read your math the last time. It's a negligible difference no matter how many times you repeat yourself. It means twelve more people out of a hundred potentially shrugged and said 'i guess it was okay'. It doesn't mean anything. But I guess to you it's a real issue for.... reasons
And I read your math the last time. It's a negligible difference no matter how many times you repeat yourself. It means twelve more people out of a hundred potentially shrugged and said 'i guess it was okay'. It doesn't mean anything. But I guess to you it's a real issue for.... reasons
I only repeated myself once, it is awfully funny how one will be given reasons and then casually act like those reasons don't matter or that they simply do not exist. One would think that you would have to pick one of the two positions.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I only repeated myself once, it is awfully funny how one will be given reasons and then casually act like those reasons don't matter or that they simply do not exist. One would think that you would have to pick one of the two positions.
Well now you are definitely going to have to repeat yourself, because I have no idea what you're saying here.
X
Favorite Movies
X