Let’s see them make literally anything half as good as the worst episode of Stranger Things
This is the kind of sentiment that I frequently hear come out during the Olympics. “I bet that judge can’t do even a quarter of what they’re giving a poor score to.” As though somehow being able to create or perform is a necessary component of being able to critique.
I am not creative enough to write a good story, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize components of a good story when I see them. Critiquing and creating are completely different disciplines. Understanding the basics of either is important for succeeding at the other, but expertise in either is not necessary for expertise in the other.
There’s a way to critique something that actually explores the nuance of it, and then there’s just saying that something is “bad” or has “declined in quality”. It doesn’t give anything. You don’t have to be a musician to have an opinion on music, but you’d better at least be able to articulate a meaningful position if you expect people to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of your opinions.
This isn’t a thoughtful analysis that demonstrates an understanding of the nuances or story structure or that intelligently explores the strengths and weaknesses of each season. It’s someone who has nothing meaningful to say spouting their opinion with as much fluff as possible, and passing judgement on something they wouldn’t be capable of meaningfully contributing to if given a century.
The only really substantial criticism presented here is the idea that the show is more into its own lore than the author is interested in. That’s less a statement about the show than the author’s tastes, but it’s at least substantive. It’s something other than just pointing and saying bad. “Costlier but inferior” followed by a brief plot recap is not a meaningful artistic critique. Arguably, though, even their actual meaningful criticism that it’s too into its own story is a pretty weak one. Every show isn’t meant to be easily accessible to people who aren’t caught up, and every show doesn’t need plot-light episodes.
There’s a lot to be said about Stranger Things as an example of an influential show that’s very much wrapped up in its own story, but this spends a whole lot of time managing not to find any of it.
yes and that is perfectly valid… what isn’t IMO is taking something that may have earned some critique but portraying it like it would be better to get cancer and die in a slow agonizing death than watching a show with flaws.
A good media critic needs to be able to actually explore the nuances of a piece of fiction and bring some genuine insight to the table. Nobody wants a Jay Sherman.
What a joyless shell of a human being this reviewer seems to be.
Let’s see them make literally anything half as good as the worst episode of Stranger Things
This is the kind of sentiment that I frequently hear come out during the Olympics. “I bet that judge can’t do even a quarter of what they’re giving a poor score to.” As though somehow being able to create or perform is a necessary component of being able to critique.
I am not creative enough to write a good story, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize components of a good story when I see them. Critiquing and creating are completely different disciplines. Understanding the basics of either is important for succeeding at the other, but expertise in either is not necessary for expertise in the other.
There’s a way to critique something that actually explores the nuance of it, and then there’s just saying that something is “bad” or has “declined in quality”. It doesn’t give anything. You don’t have to be a musician to have an opinion on music, but you’d better at least be able to articulate a meaningful position if you expect people to read paragraphs upon paragraphs of your opinions.
This isn’t a thoughtful analysis that demonstrates an understanding of the nuances or story structure or that intelligently explores the strengths and weaknesses of each season. It’s someone who has nothing meaningful to say spouting their opinion with as much fluff as possible, and passing judgement on something they wouldn’t be capable of meaningfully contributing to if given a century.
The only really substantial criticism presented here is the idea that the show is more into its own lore than the author is interested in. That’s less a statement about the show than the author’s tastes, but it’s at least substantive. It’s something other than just pointing and saying bad. “Costlier but inferior” followed by a brief plot recap is not a meaningful artistic critique. Arguably, though, even their actual meaningful criticism that it’s too into its own story is a pretty weak one. Every show isn’t meant to be easily accessible to people who aren’t caught up, and every show doesn’t need plot-light episodes.
There’s a lot to be said about Stranger Things as an example of an influential show that’s very much wrapped up in its own story, but this spends a whole lot of time managing not to find any of it.
deleted by creator
TL;DR I’m not a professional chef but I know what tastes good.
yes and that is perfectly valid… what isn’t IMO is taking something that may have earned some critique but portraying it like it would be better to get cancer and die in a slow agonizing death than watching a show with flaws.
It is just a sad attempt to seem edgy
I think all reviewers end here… seems to follow the same cliche as all psychologist becoming crazy in the end
A good media critic needs to be able to actually explore the nuances of a piece of fiction and bring some genuine insight to the table. Nobody wants a Jay Sherman.
exactly right!.. I mean, it is their job to find flaws, but they need to keep perspective.
if I wanted to know if something is the holy grail or dog shit as the only 2 alternatives, I’d get my reviews from facebook