This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Agent Vinod wrote:
What's the guarantee i will know a movie was panned because of the politics of the critic?
How about you look at the other movies the critic has liked and disliked and judge whether you are likely to agree with them about other movies.
And if someone does criticize a movie because they dislike its politics: so what?
A person is allowed to judge things how they see fit.
My Blog: http://rocketboy1313.blogspot.com/
My Twitter: https://twitter.com/Rocketboy1313
My Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/rocketboy1313
My Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/13rocketboy13
My Blog: http://rocketboy1313.blogspot.com/
My Twitter: https://twitter.com/Rocketboy1313
My Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/rocketboy1313
My Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/13rocketboy13
Agent Vinod wrote:
What's the guarantee i will know a movie was panned because of the politics of the critic?
How about you look at the other movies the critic has liked and disliked and judge whether you are likely to agree with them about other movies.
And if someone does criticize a movie because they dislike its politics: so what?
A person is allowed to judge things how they see fit.
I was not calling for a government agency. I was just questioning the wisdom of the approach.
I feel like Rocketboy covered that in his fist sentence.
Needing review-level disclaimers suggests one's default way of consuming reviews is by fluttering from random reviewer to random reviewer on a per-movie basis, rather than finding and prioritizing a few who's opinions and reasons reliably coincide with yours, or reliably differ along predictable lines.
Familiarity gives you more accurate and detailed understanding than a disclaimer. Reviewers you understand well enough to reliably say "if he likes X for V reason, I will like X", or "If he likes Y for N reason, I will dislike Y" are going to give you a lot more useful information in the same amount of words than unfamiliar randos with disclaimers.
I would say there is something for a critic being able to give nuanced reasons for what they prefer or do not prefer in their media (one of the reasons I like SFDebris is because of how deep Chuck digs into ideas brought out by the stories in question). . . but that just makes them a "good" critic, not a "legitimate" one. I'd say a critic is only going to be illegitimate if they're NOT honest about their perspective or grossly misrepresent the material they're commenting on. That doesn't really have anything to do with politics IF the critic is honest about their politics and the politics of the thing criticized.
Of course, people get reeeeally defensive about politics, so to them, any negative criticism over a sociopolitical issue MUST be a gross misrepresentation no matter how articulately the critic has made their case. (Or vise versa . . . "how dare you like this thing I don't like just because it aligns with your politics!")
