"It Is Easier To Tear Down Than To Build Up"

Why is this?

I've always had this feeling, even off the internet, that a lot of people are more attracted towards deconstruction and finding faults in a piece of work(whether it be a movie, a game, a book, a comic, etc.) than finding out what's good or valuable about the work. Now that may be a good mindset to have in a job like construction or engineering, but I feel that it's a defeating trait when you're trying to create a piece of entertainment or a piece of art. There's nothing about film criticism that says "you must find negative traits in this movie, and elaborate on why it derails the entire film". You just have to analyse the film and see how it meets whatever criteria you have in mind. The entire point of the arts is to inspire the audience and either show them how the world works, or how it could work(or at the bare minimum, to entertain). Nitpicking exposes the flaws in these stories or works, but the kind of demonizing "criticism" that I see usually boils to "X and X are flaws, ergo, the entire movie/game/whatever is a piece of shit."

Sooo... I take it someone insulted you recently?

No. I don't know how you could infer that from my post.

I'm not the type to pull a "I have this friend" crap on people, haha.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Why is this?

I've always had this feeling, even off the internet, that a lot of people are more attracted towards deconstruction and finding faults in a piece of work(whether it be a movie, a game, a book, a comic, etc.) than finding out what's good or valuable about the work. Now that may be a good mindset to have in a job like construction or engineering, but I feel that it's a defeating trait when you're trying to create a piece of entertainment or a piece of art. There's nothing about film criticism that says "you must find negative traits in this movie, and elaborate on why it derails the entire film". You just have to analyse the film and see how it meets whatever criteria you have in mind. The entire point of the arts is to inspire the audience and either show them how the world works, or how it could work(or at the bare minimum, to entertain). Nitpicking exposes the flaws in these stories or works, but the kind of demonizing "criticism" that I see usually boils to "X and X are flaws, ergo, the entire movie/game/whatever is a piece of shit."

As a writer, and a prospective MFA student, I've done a lot of critiquing, and the philosophy behind that is that there's no such thing as a piece of art that can't be improved upon in some way. In almost all cases it can be improved in a lot of ways. But that's different from professional criticism, where the aim isn't to point out flaws and offer solutions, but rather to inform the critic's audience whether a movie, book, comic, etc. is worth their time.

There aren't many movies that have good parts but are brought down by some tiny flaw. Look at the Dark Knight, almost everyone hated the Batman voice, but it still got rave reviews from many of the same critics who lambasted Bale's silly tough-guy voice. In most cases, the "X and X" you mention aren't a few shortcomings but a number of failings pervasive to the entire work.

To return to my experience, I've never seen an Undergrad short story that I thought was great before it suddenly went to shit because of a single tense shift or point of view slip. What I do see are good stories that have some minor stylistic shortcomings or characters that aren't bearing their load, and bad stories that make the same mistakes over and over again, and would still be bad stories even if the writer corrected their grammar and spelling and kept their tenses and POVs straight, because they've failed at the fundamentals of narrative craft.

Could you kindly point to concrete examples of the issue that concerns you? Your OP is full of generalities.

This sounds like the same line I get when I express displeasure with most mainstream movies...

I had a Poetic Technique class in the summer. Before the class a lot of the other students would complain, say things like "well, you can't actually say that one poem is better than another poem", which, if true, would defeat the entire purpose of writing poetry because every poem would be the same, no matter how you practiced, no matter how much time and energy you pour into crafting your images, no matter how closely the black dog follows you as you walk down Coleridge's lonesome road. No, it's all the same. I mean, right?

I like how everyone in this thread is doing exactly what he's alleged that people seem to instinctively do. haermm

Originally posted by Omega Vision
"well, you can't actually say that one poem is better than another poem", which, if true, would defeat the entire purpose of writing poetry because every poem would be the same

It wouldn't mean that at all.

You can't actually say that a lizard is better than an elephant but there are a lot of differences between them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It wouldn't mean that at all.

You can't actually say that a lizard is better than an elephant but there are a lot of differences between them.

If you were a lizard breeder or an elephant breeder you would certainly tell someone that some lizards are better than others, or some elephants are better than others.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you like bad movies/books/comics, and get frustrated when critics tear them apart.

As a writer, and a prospective MFA student, I've done a lot of critiquing, and the philosophy behind that is that there's no such thing as a piece of art that can't be improved upon in some way. In almost all cases it can be improved in a lot of ways. But that's different from professional criticism, where the aim isn't to point out flaws and offer solutions, but rather to inform the critic's audience whether a movie, book, comic, etc. is worth their time.

There aren't many movies that have good parts but are brought down by some tiny flaw. Look at the Dark Knight, almost everyone hated the Batman voice, but it still got rave reviews from many of the same critics who lambasted Bale's silly tough-guy voice. In most cases, the "X and X" you mention aren't a few shortcomings but a number of failings pervasive to the entire work.

To return to my experience, I've never seen an Undergrad short story that I thought was great before it suddenly went to shit because of a single tense shift or point of view slip. What I do see are good stories that have some minor stylistic shortcomings or characters that aren't bearing their load, and bad stories that make the same mistakes over and over again, and would still be bad stories even if the writer corrected their grammar and spelling and kept their tenses and POVs straight, because they've failed at the fundamentals of narrative craft.

Could you kindly point to concrete examples of the issue that concerns you? Your OP is full of generalities.

Isn't it the other way around? Professional criticism isn't truly meant for a popular audience. General movie critics like Roger Ebert and Mark Kermode are the ones who try to appeal to people's tastes.

I have no problem with criticism. Even if I was, who cares? In fact, I almost agree with most of what you said. What I'm curious about is the unrelenting negativity associated with some peoples reviews and comments.

Every year(and I do mean EVERY year. I can't think of a single year this hasn't happened), a movie comes out and is praised by critics and/or fans. But like clockwork, occasionally around awards season when the praise is especially noteworthy, a bunch of people come out of the woodwork and start poking holes in the movie. They complain and lambaste various shortcomings that a few weeks(or months) before, hardly anyone cared about. Backlash sets in, and if the movie is old enough, the bad reputation takes over and whatever praise it initially got completely evaporates.

Case examples? How about just from the last twenty-two years? A few examples off the top of my head: Dances With Wolves, Forrest Gump, The English Patient, Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, The Blair Witch Project, Fight Club, American Beauty, Gladiator, The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Lost In Translation, Revenge Of The Sith, Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Juno, Cloverfield, TDK, The Hurt Locker, Paranormal Activity, Avatar, Precious, Inception, The Cabin In The Woods, The Avengers, Ted, TDKR.

May as well start with the one you brought up, TDK.

Why DO people care more about Bale's voice than his acting? I notice, none of these people offer solutions for improvement. How EXACTLY is Bale supposed to sound? Should he use his real voice? That's stupid for somebody trying to hide their identity. Is he supposed to be mimicking Kevin Conroy? Reeeal original, that.
🙄

And you can apply this to any medium.

Lizards are better than elephants, anyway.

^When I asked for specific examples, I meant more than just a list of movies you believe suffered from this effect, I was asking for real examples of reviews that showcase the unwarranted negativity.

And what do you mean by saying that Ebert isn't a professional critic? I have a hard time figuring out what a professional critic is if Roger Ebert isn't one. He might not have doctorate degrees from Ivy League schools (plural) in Film Studies, Literature, and Semiotics, but he is a professional, and like all professionals he doesn't just write criticism for fun or to make money, the purpose of professional criticism is to test the water so that consumers have some idea of their selections, and while this can (and, in my personal experience, often does) result in well-poisoning, it's also an integral part of the entertainment industry, and let's face it, it feels good to hear someone agree with you sometimes if you think something sucks or you think it's amazing.

As to the Baleman voice, there were many ways he could have improved, none of them very difficult (like not growling as much). He did take notes, and his voice was less comical in The Dark Knight Rises. Kevin Conroy said it best when he said that Bale could have and should have done better--Christian Bale is a great actor, but the Dark Knight Batman voice was something a SyFy original no-name might have affected while portraying a motorcycle riding werewolf police officer.

Originally posted by Mindset
Lizards are better than elephants, anyway.

You may be on to something besides crack cocaine this time, Mindset. mhmm

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Why DO people care more about Bale's voice than his acting?

because it was a terrible choice?

also: u mad bro?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I had a Poetic Technique class in the summer. Before the class a lot of the other students would complain, say things like "well, you can't actually say that one poem is better than another poem", which, if true, would defeat the entire purpose of writing poetry because every poem would be the same, no matter how you practiced, no matter how much time and energy you pour into crafting your images, no matter how closely the black dog follows you as you walk down Coleridge's lonesome road. No, it's all the same. I mean, right?

http://xkcd.com/915/

😛

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He might not have doctorate degrees from Ivy League schools (plural) in Film Studies, Literature, and Semiotics,

point of fact: Ebert almost earned a PhD in English lit, has a Masters and has received a fellowship to study in South Africa.

additionally, he currently works as a guest lecturer at no less prestigious of an establishment as the University of Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert

EDIT: not to mention published author in fiction, critique, essays, history... etc, you know? pretty accomplished guy; certainly no "every-man"

Originally posted by Oliver North
point of fact: Ebert almost earned a PhD in English lit, has a Masters and has received a fellowship to study in South Africa.

additionally, he currently works as a guest lecturer at no less prestigious of an establishment as the University of Chicago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert

haha, it was too much for his second career as a journalist to afford...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
[B]^When I asked for specific examples, I meant more than just a list of movies you believe suffered from this effect, I was asking for real examples of reviews that showcase the unwarranted negativity.

And what do you mean by saying that Ebert isn't a professional critic? I have a hard time figuring out what a professional critic is if Roger Ebert isn't one. He might not have doctorate degrees from Ivy League schools (plural) in Film Studies, Literature, and Semiotics, but he is a professional, and like all professionals he doesn't just write criticism for fun or to make money, the purpose of professional criticism is to test the water so that consumers have some idea of their selections, and while this can (and, in my personal experience, often does) result in well-poisoning, it's also an integral part of the entertainment industry, and let's face it, it feels good to hear someone agree with you sometimes if you think something sucks or you think it's amazing.

As to the Baleman voice, there were many ways he could have improved, none of them very difficult (like not growling as much). He did take notes, and his voice was less comical in The Dark Knight Rises. Kevin Conroy said it best when he said that Bale could have and should have done better--Christian Bale is a great actor, but the Dark Knight Batman voice was something a SyFy original no-name might have affected while portraying a motorcycle riding werewolf police officer.

Do I really have to post examples? They're very easy to find.

Roger Ebert writes for a popular audience. I'm not saying that a popular writer isn't worthy of accolades, but that's what he is. A professional critic is someone who writes for academic journals. He's like Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson, an expert in a field who also happens to to be famous for writing to the layman.

That's how Bale chose to interpret the character. For whatever reason, it's seen as comical to a lot of people. I don't understand it myself, because his Bat-voice doesn't bother me one bit. Same for Tom Hardy, really. And you didn't explain how he "should" have sounded.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Do I really have to post examples? They're very easy to find.

Roger Ebert writes for a popular audience. I'm not saying that a popular writer isn't worthy of accolades, but that's what he is. A professional critic is someone who writes for academic journals. He's like Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson, an expert in a field who also happens to to be famous for writing to the layman.

That's how Bale chose to interpret the character. For whatever reason, it's seen as comical to a lot of people. I don't understand it myself, because his Bat-voice doesn't bother me one bit. Same for Tom Hardy, really. And you didn't explain how he "should" have sounded.

I actually liked the Bane voice. The Batman voice was awful, it sounded like a man with a weak voice trying to sound like a man with a strong voice, rather than a strong voiced man, as good Bat-actors and voice actors have done it. When I think of a good Batvoice, I think of Kevin Conroy or Michael Ironside--both deep in their own way, both clearly enunciating, and both projecting power without having to resort to shouting or growling. To make a comparison, it's the difference between a Death Metal vocalist like Chris Barnes (old Chris Barnes, he's burnt out now) and a Screamo vocalist who holds the mic to his lips so he doesn't have to project power that he doesn't have.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
And you didn't explain how he "should" have sounded.