The philosophy of review-writing

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I've just been in a huge fight over at animenewsnetwork.com where I contended that reviews should be written with the target audience in mind, and that no matter what the reviewer thinks about it personally, someone who's not going to like the movie/book/etc. should come away from the review-reading experience scared off from the movie/book/etc., but someone who IS going to like it should come away from the review encouraged to partake.

Thoughts?

[Spriggan]

I agree, if you can't write to your target audience then you're not a good reviewer (though the target audience can be quite broad I guess, which is another discussion).  One of my biggest complaints about anime review sites, and why I never visit them, is because they don't ever actually review the anime they just talk about things in the most general sense.  There's no objectivity or subjectivity in them at all.  The reason I read reviews is because I want to get the general idea on what the product is, how it compares to other like objects, what stands out about it (either good or bad) and what are the reviewer's preferences so I can compare those to mine.

Someone's who's video game's reviews I love are Gabe's over at PA, you know what he likes (if you read the site) and he'll just flat out tell you what he like or doesn't like based off his tastes and you can get a good grasp for what a game might be like.

I always wanted to have lots of anime reviews on TWG, hence my e-mail, but we never were able to get review materials and I for one ain't going to spend my money on such an expensive addition to TWG (especially when I don't think 90% of anime is worth watching).

[Parker]

I think Ookla's description is one way of going about it, but I think the most important thing for a reviewer to do is to be consistent.  There are reviewers who I know I usually agree with, and ones who I usually disagree with.  I listen to both, but with that idea in mind.  There are some movies I'd go see because one reviewer didn't like them.  If reviewers are inconsistent--trying to second guess their audience--then this falls apart.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I've heard that suggestion as well, but that system only starts working once you read someone's reviews consistently. I suppose that people who care about reviews tend to follow certain reviewers, but...well, Publisher's Weekly reviews, for example, are given with no byline, so you can't tell who wrote it. And then there's reviews on Amazon.com...who pays attention to the names of the people who write the reviews there?

I am NOT saying that reviewers should pander to the people who are going to be interested in whichever particular movie they're reviewing--I'm saying that they should be clear on how they liked the movie/book and what flaws they thought it had, but that they should identify what demographic the movie/book is intended for and how well that movie/book's pros would outweigh its cons for that demographic.

[darkjetti81]

I'm no English major, but I like it when reviews are bold, abrasive, and make the audience think.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the author having a thesis that appeals to pathos, but he/she should have a definate opinion that strikes an emotional cord with the audience (wheather it be positive or negative).

So many journalists today tend to hide behind this "politically-correct" prison that bores the hell out of us intellectuals.  I want to be offended and angry, sad, or motivated by a review.  

Anyway, that's my opinion.  But what the hell do I know about such things? :)

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

reviews need to take the audience into account because you have to know what they want to know, otherwise they'll read someone elses review.

Theres a difference between that and pandering though.

Its something Im trying to rectify in some of my reviews, especially ones Im really positive about (since I think its easy to assume everyone is going to like something I like). I try to look at it from the perspective of people who have a differing view too, " ie. if you like this other type of game you wont like this as much. That way you serve 2 masters.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

The question is really one of intent. Most review readers, I believe, aren't reading necessarily for entertainment value. They're reading to be informed. Thus I expect vastly different things out of a movie review than I would, say, a sonnet.

The review needs to tell me if I would like it or not. I don't give a flying rat's bald backside whether YOU like it or not. That's completely irrelevant. I want to know if *I'll* like it. A review that essentially says "I didn't like it" does less than nothing for me. It actively wastes my time. A review that says "I didn't like this game because it's an RTS and I'm an FPS kinda guy" is little better. It's an RTS. What's good about the RTS features? How does it compare to others.

Reviews are *not* opinion pieces. They are *not* entertainment pieces. They can be those secondarily, but if they fail to evaluate the product on it's own grounds, then they are worthless as reviews.

In short, yes, I can't believe anyone would actually think you don't need to have the target audience in mind.

The people who made Dumb and Dumber weren't looking at hooking the same audience as Memoirs of a Geisha. Saying that Dumb and Dumber wasn't as well made a film as Memoirs of a Geisha is stupid and ignorant on its face. People want to know if Dumb and Dumber is funny and entertaining vis a vis its own genre: films like Caddy Shack or anything starring Adam Sandler (ok, not *anything*).

Of what purpose is a review that doesn't address those issues?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Well said, E.

It seems to me that a lot of reviewers who don't evaluate movies as entertainment with an audience in mind are mostly trying to prove how smart they are and how much they know about film. But in that case, aren't they just being like the literary critics who have centuries of glorious critical history backing them up?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I guess that's the thing. There's nothing wrong with an opinion piece. There's nothing wrong with taking a "literary criticism" approach to discussing a film or a product. It's just not a review if you do those things. If you're going to call it a review, then review it.

[Firemeboy]

I don't know if I buy that...  I don't want to know if Roger Ebert thinks I'll like a movie, I want to know if Roger Ebert himself liked the movie.  

Very few people know me well enough to say what I would like, and what I wouldnt' like, especially critics whom I'm never met.  But if they tell me what they like, and then I find a critic who generally likes what I like, then I will go see what he recommends.

I've often hear Roeper (or Ebert and Roeper) say, "I'm sure the kids/teens/tweens will love this movie, but I didn't like it, and therefore can't recomend it.  He is not trying to guess what other people like, only convey what he likes.

But I haven't given this a lot of thought either, so I could be convinced...

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

that seems like you take a lot of effort. YOu have to read what a lot of people say. Then you have to go see the movies ANYWAY. All so you can find someone you trust.

A well written review will tell you if you'll like it without all the experimentation.

The problem with "Very few people know me well enough to say what I would like" is that we're not suggesting the reviewer should make a list of everyone who will read the review and tell them "Firemeboy, you'll like this." Instead they're telling you the SORTS of people who would like this. Often through comparison. And with reasons why they would like it. If you disagree that the reason for liking something is a good reason, then you know, right then, that you won't like it. You don't have to read a bunch of my articles to see if you like what I like first.

To be honest, your approach to finding a good review/reviewer is exactly why I've always thought the majority of reviewers (esp movie reviewers) are ignorant, self-important fools. They have no qualifications. They just saw a movie and will tell you if they liked it or not. I can get that by just going down to the theater. Why Ebert should be paid for it is mystifying for me.

[darkjetti81]

Right.  I see what you're saying, but the bottom line is that this is all theorie.

A great writer can give you his opinion and actually persuade you to go see a movie, and that's his agenda.  On the other hand you could have someone who is really a weak writer who tends to remain objective the whole review.  

They can't tell you what *you* are going to like.  They can only guess.  A review should capture the emotion of the audience in which the author wishes to convey.  Whether it be "this is a rental, don't see it in theatres," or "This was the best movie/book to come out this year!"  

When I look at Video game reviews for instance..  I get extremely frustrated when I get a completely objective review that tells me how much effort went into the game "King Kong for 360"  That game SUCKED and everybody knows it!   :)  Of course the author may have had his own agenda, but the bottom line was there was no *opinion* to critisize or compare *value* with your own emotional scale.

When you are writing an Evaluative Essay (which is what a review is)  you first need to "Classify," then have "Criteria" to ultimately Measure the subject against.  That's English 101 stuff.  
And what is Criteria?  It's your list of reasons as to what makes a movie/book great, and how this movie/book failed or succeeded against that Criteria.

So I say, we need an opinion and criteria to measure against our own.

But I like your argument  :)  

[Skar]

E and Firemeboy both have valid positions and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

A review should be able to describe a movie in such a way that the audience gets a feel for what the movie is like.  In that way they get to judge for themselves.  It's for this reason that "opinion" reviews are so vilified.  If the reviewer only gives you his opinion without quantifying it with a why or a wherefore he's given you nothing... unless you know his tastes and can judge from there.

On the other hand, straight facts about a movie, whether it is about the military or the police or teenage girls, who performed in it, who directed it etc... is less than useful to the reader.  He could get that stuff from IMDB and be none the wiser.  

So the reviewer has to attempt to give an objective description of things like plot, character development and dialogue, all very subjective things.  Often that delves into opinion.  

I hated Narnia because they made the characters do stupid and unbelievable things to move the plot forward.  That's a pet peeve of mine and I got crucified on the forums for having that pet peeve and daring to talk about it in a review.  Yet at the same time, I voiced very clearly what I didn't like about the film and what I liked about it.

Everyone agrees with me on what I liked about the film, the CGI.  But quite a few people don't agree on what makes good dialogue, believable character development, and steady plotting.  Those are totally subjective but I was careful to detail exactly what I did and didn't like.  Of course, I couched it in entertaining (to me at least) language but the facts were there.

So you have to walk the line.  Give plenty of facts, make the review as objective as you can and be clear about WHY you liked or didn't like some aspect.  But any reader also has to realize that he may not agree with what any particular reviewer considers good and bad and until he's read a couple of review by that guy, of movies he's also seen, he's not going to know for sure.

[darkjetti81]

Maybe we are over-analyzing this Skar, but what do you mean??   Objective or Subjective??   You use both in your argument.  

Perception is key to evaluative articles.  Like I mentioned before; Classification, Criteria, and Evaluation of the Criteria is absolutely necessary.
Otherwise the author is just being vague...

How are we to compare.. if not with a subjective criteria to have basis??    We need *something* to go on.

   

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

dj, I think the problem with your King Kong 360 is not that it gives facts, but it gives irrelevant facts. How much work goes into something has no (direct) bearing on whether it will be enjoyable. You can say the intricate graphics or smooth coding and those would be relevant.

And Skar, you get crucified for your opinion because it's *wrong.* Not because you gave your opinion  

I think where I'm misunderstood here is that you are confusing opinion with judgement. THere's some overlap, but they aren't the same. A judgement is an evaluation, from as objective a standpoint as possible. an opinion can be based on highly subjective criteria and still be a well-written opinion.

While 100% objectivity is impossible, as much as possible is highly desirable.