The philosophy of review-writing

[Skar]

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

Right. E has nailed the hammer on the head...or whatever.  Way to say what I tried to say with a multi-paragraph diatribe in a single sentence.

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

well, you qualified it appropriately. I mean, when you aren't objective, it's very irresponsible not to say why you conclude the way you do.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I have no problem with opinions when they are not pretending to be unbiased objective assessments. Opinions have their place too.

[darkjetti81]

Right, I agree with what your saying E.  

No 100% objectivity, and I think everyone can agree on that.  I just think *some* opinion should be added for flavor.  

(Oh, and I just hated King Kong.  I've read alot of reviews on it saying how great it was, and so a buddy of mine bought it..   Boring, terrible, and ultimately not a great game.)  

[Firemeboy]

I'm not sure I understand.  And this may just boil down to a personal preference (in other words I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong).  If I want to know what the movie is about, i.e. 'just the facts ma'am', I can get that in the trailer, I can read spoilers online, I can look for a script somewhere...  But there are a ton of movies out there with a good idea, and with good actors, and good effects, that are garbage.  I don't want the facts.  I want to know if the movie moved you, or surprised you, or made you think, or made you laugh.  I want objectivity when I listen to the news (which as e said is impossible, but should be strove for).  But when I'm looking for your opinion, I want to know just that.  Your opinion.

Going back to the original statement, should the target audience be kept in mind.  I'm not sure how a critic can do that.  Does he say that white males will like it, unless they're Christian, and then they will be offended, except for the Lutherans, who will find it quite humorous, unless you're a gay, white, Lutheran, in which case you will likely cry...  

It doesn't take much for me to get to know a critic.  I don't listen to Doug Wright on a local station here in Utah because we just don't have the same opinions and ideas.  Ebert is even hit and miss for me.  

I'll say it again, I really like how Roeper does it.  He tells you a) if he liked it, and b) why he liked it.  He doesn't try to guess if you're going to like it.  

Ebert and Roeper just reviewed a movie they both liked, but found 'disturbing'.  It's about a teen who lures in, kidnaps, and I believe tortures a suspected pedophile.  They both gave it a thumbs up, but based on their review, I figure I'm going to pass on it.  In my mind they have done their job.

[Firemeboy]

A judgment 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.

 

I appreciate you making this statement, e, because it really made me think.  I couldn't help but wonder about the whole art versus science question which is often brought up in my field.  Science is very exact, and you can run an experiment, quantify the results, people can replicate the results, and you can make a 'judgment'.  But can you do that with art?

If seems to me that judgment statements would have to be quantifiable.  In other words, 'this movie had an average shot length of 6.9 seconds which falls into the 'pleasing category'.  

Roger Ebert just described Poseidon as "cursory, desultory, hurried, rapid, fleeting, token, casual, superficial, careless, halfhearted, sketchy, mechanical, automatic, routine, and offhand."  so is that based on an objective, quantifiable scale?  Does he have proof that the shots are too hurried, or is that just his opinion?  Do we really just want judgments?  What would a judgment review of a movie look like?  I'm not asking to be facetious, I'm really curious if there are critics out there who are more judgmental than opinionated.

I've been told that technically speaking, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a complete mess.  The edits are wrong, there are dead spaces, it's a horrible cross genre mess.  And yet it appeals, and has appealed, to a certain audience for several decades.

I personally don't think you can pass judgment on art, I think it more has to be an opinion.  But then that right there is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.  

[Peter Ahlstrom]

A lot of reviewers DON'T tell you if they liked it. They tell you if it is good or bad, and pretend that this is an objective assessment. I think there can be two types of valid reviews:

1. They tell you if they liked it, and why.
2. They give an assessment of whether it will appeal to its target audience, and why.

Reviewers that pretend to be objective and give the final word on a movie, who refuse to use the first-person "I" or say anything that's stated as an opinion, are doing a disservice to reviews.

[Entsuropi]

Idk. Usually I try to talk about the game, what I observed, what I thought of various things. I'll talk about what I think are it's greatest flaws and virtues, and then at the end summarise why I liked it and offer some qualification (ie, if you liked X you should like this).

It's an art, not a precise science.

[drum2dadrum]

I actually maintain a reviewing website, and i have to say it's hard to review something when you have to think of the "taget" audience.  I think you have to review w/e your reviewing on how the general populace would think of it, not a "target" audience. This is because all types of people want to read reviews, and you need to spark everyones interest. That's just my 2 cents.

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

But the general populace isn't interested in the latest RTS. The review is only of interest to RTS players, and possibly (to a much lesser extent) video gamers as a whole. That's the target audience. A non-video gamer won't read it because they don't need it. Why would you write a review for them?

[Firemeboy]

Reviewers that pretend to be objective and give the final word on a movie, who refuse to use the first-person "I" or say anything that's stated as an opinion, are doing a disservice to reviews.

 I completely agree.

Although I would say that I would rather find a person in the target audience and find out if they liked it, rather than find somebody outside saying that a particular target audience would like it.

So take, for example, the latest Doom movie.  If all the critics hated it (which I think they did), but said the fans of the game would love it, I don't know if that would mean anything to me.  I would rather hear from somebody on the inside, that from somebody on the outside trying to predict about somebody on the inside.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

But then all the reviewers would be out of a job!  

[The Jade Knight]

I generally agree with E and Ookla.

I'm less convinced of the need for "I", though certainly it would make the review come across more personal (and less authoritative).

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Even science journals nowadays use "I." Not using it is artificial.

Reviews aren't like a news story in a newspaper, where they just report the facts. Reviews involve opinions, and you can't divorce opinions from the people who have them.

[The Jade Knight]

History articles still generally avoid "I", and so do much in English.

Those happen to be my majors, so...