Here at Ask Erik we've spent a lot of time reading novels and comic books, playing video games, and watching television and movies in order to amass a deep vault of pop culture knowledge. While constantly trying to still gather new information, it only seems prudent to share some of what we learned to help solve some of the world's greatest questions.
How likely is it the Superman/Batman movie is going to be a huge social commentary? Will the film Gravity revitalize the interest in space movies, thus reinvigorating man's interest in space? Are there people who are actually paid to find the "perfect" design for a leopard print clothing item, or is it all randomized?
Once a week Erik tackles a question asked to him and tries to answer it in a method that handles the topic with the respect and attention it deserves. Failing that, he'll at least try to make it funny so you don't regret it.
To Erik: Who are your top online reviewers?
Um, of what, specifically? Movies? Video games? Books? Websites? Music?
...really? Nothing to clarify it? After all this time you're just up and abandoning me, magic Internet voice?
Man, you know what? Fine. Just, I mean, fine. I'll handle this on my own.
Can't even get some clarification, but ohhhh, it's all set to throw out a trashy picture of Misty or poke holes in my theories about Congo.
Stupid Internet voice.
I've already discussed some of my favorite critics. I've gone into detail already about Doug Walker, Yahtzee, and Spoony, but I suppose there are others I can add to that list.
I became a fan of Richard Roeper way back when he officially took over for the late Gene Siskel and started critiquing movies with Roger Ebert. He paid attention to details, but wasn't willing to simply appreciate a movie because it was "artsy" or "high-brow." He demanded films be entertaining as well as crafted with skill. He had areas he was more willing to relax his "standards" on than I was, but he expressed it in such a way that I could understand why he made that choice or saw it that way. He's still well-spoken and provides excellent reviews for the Reelz network, but I mostly watch his commentary online, so I'm including him in this list.
Linkara operates from the same website as Doug Walker, but his focus is primarily on comics. He does much of the same schtick, looking back at terrible comics and simply presenting them in a humorous fashion, but it's when he breaks down a comic (or comic-based movie) and presents sound reasoning as to why a comic or series of comics is terrible that it becomes the most interesting. Sure, it's easy to say that Amazons Attack was a terrible miniseries, but he's able to present sound examples of character history, writer's habits, and canon established facts to provide a strong argument.
Um, let's see, there's... well, I read reviews of things on Comicsalliance.com, but that's a group of reviewers. I sometimes skip ahead of the magazine to go through Gameinformer.com, but I tend to prefer the tactile paper experience for that. The Escapist has some other well-spoken reviewers besides Yahtzee, but I'll be honest I can't remember any of their names. The Penny Arcade gentlemen are able to express themselves quite well in review form or present individual reviews others write that I enjoy, but I'm really struggling to think of individual critics I really like.
What do you look for in a reviewer? What makes one good?
Oh, sure, NOW you speak up.
There's a few things an online critic has to do in order to keep my attention, and it's something I attempt to do in anything I write: connect with the reader and hold their interest. Part of it is being able to communicate clearly without overstating something, or risk losing your audience due to either boredom or giving them the sense you think you're smarter than they are.
Let's face it, you might be smarter than them, and that's why they're seeking your input on a film, but don't throw it in their faces. That's just rude.
Also, present an argument but don't assume things about the audience's tastes. In the end, a review is about what you think of something, using data to support your decision. It's a reason I felt particularly bothered by Kartina Richardson's segments on At The Movies.
For example, watching her look back at The Thin Man series of films, I felt myself become particularly irked when she would include me in her analysis. "What brings us back..." "What we love..." She's clearly a talented and intelligent woman, but the fact she would put her appreciation of something on me just felt a bit presumptuous. If she had simply said "What I love" or "Why I go back" then I would have taken it as an argument in favor and understood her reasoning to see how it might be similar to my own.
She is correct though, the Thin Man movies are a delight, in my opinion. You should try them.
The other thing that's important for a critic to have is a sense of humor, not just about the subject, but about themselves. You're watching, reading, or looking back at things that, in the long run, don't really matter. People might not remember The Godfather: Part 2 in another thousand years. Stories like The Canterbury Tales might eventually be obscure footnotes and not taught in schools. Some day Superman might just be an obscure reference on a trivia program like Jeopardy.
A critic isn't necessarily bettering mankind with what they do, they're simply providing their input to how people should spend their free time. To assume more than that is quite egotistical. Being able to understand that and appreciate the fact that you're simply highlighting brief moments in time helps keep the critic from being too pompous.
Also, don't hold your own personal knowledge of the media format over peoples' heads. An occasional reference is fine, but when you start comparing the current subject matter to something older and just assume that everybody knows what you're talking about, it carries a heavy risk of giving people that "I'm smarter than you" feeling. Present both subjects, then draw the comparisons. Also, be willing to let something stand on its own without constantly showing how something else did it better.
I think that's really about as far as I can go on the subject, I think. I hope that when I review or comment on things I'm doing so in a way that lets the reader be both entertained and understanding of how and why I reach my conclusion, even if they don't necessarily agree with it. While I doubt I'll ever have the same audience as the people I mentioned above, I mostly just want to make sure that I don't alienate what audience I do have and present sound, humorous critique of whatever happens to be popular at that moment.
Or in my case, what things have already gone by that I'm just catching up to.
...having a lot of followers would be nice, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment