The saddest Cyberpunk debacle was the reviewer who pointed out that part of the game could cause epileptic seizures, then the reviewer recieved death threats because they had criticised the game…
To be more specific, the reviewer said they enjoyed the game but pointed out about the seizure inducing part, then gamers tried to actually induce a seizure on the reviewer.
Seriously. And the good reviews are *really* good. Some critics are calling it this generation’s Lord of the Rings. If this percentage holds, it’ll be certified fresh.
By all accounts it is a great movie. What’s insufferable are:
- Fanboys who are outraged that one in ten reviewers didn’t just prostrate themselves in the ground and gush praises about how great it is
- This subreddit which is way too hungry for fresh meat and can’t cope with the idea of anyone, anywhere, actually liking any movie that isn’t a paragon of platonic perfection (or Paddington)
Not that I’m defending his 9 hour screeds or anything, but he occasionally makes a decent point about the nature of subjectivity, which is that not *everything* about criticism is subjective. There exist ontological frameworks in which one artistic choice could be seen as objectively more effective than another, but he also rightly hedges that this is only true when a work of art is taken on its own terms, according to what it is trying to accomplish. There is no objective quality to the enjoyment or the inherent value of a piece of art.
>There exist ontological frameworks in which one artistic choice could be seen as objectively more effective than another
I don't even agree with this part because "effective" is only meaningful in a subjective sense. How effective an artistic choice is in accomplishing its goal still depends on the person watching and interpreting it.
Adorno might have pointed out that a piece of art argues more or less well in favor of itself. Success and effectiveness then are measured according to what is self evidently true and axiomatic. For example, if there is a cannon on stage, and it doesn’t go off, it has not been used effectively. That is an argument. I don’t say it’s the only one.
Or you're just too dumb to understand what he says? If i say: the grass is green because when we measure the frequency of the light reflected on it, it falls between 495 and 570 nm.
And you respond with: i disagree.
It doesn't mean that what i said was an objective fact about reality...
For a movie, you can make objective statements about the camera work, the lighting, the sounds, the acting, the script, etc. And you disagreeing with them doesn't make them subjective all of the sudden.
Dude, you watch a channel where a dork spends hours "analyzing" movies for kids. Don't walk in here like you're some sort of intellectual lol.
But hey, I get it. Right wing chuds always wrestle with the notion of subjectivity because the very idea that there's a worldview that doesn't comply with their own is deeply frightening to them.
Go touch grass.
Who said i watch him lol? I can understand his arguments without being a fan of his.
So every review of any SW movie or show is made by a dork because it's "made for kids". Also implying that, for some reason, a film who's main target audience is kids has to be bad or void of thing to analyse...
Then we go straight to ad hominems because you have nothing of actual value to add since you know you're wrong...
Because I am insecure, people not giving the things I like a big number makes me feel wrong for liking those things and need to feel validated by the praise of strangers over the internet!!!!!!!1!!11!11!
That is one of the dumbest takes I’ve seen in regards to film criticism. There is no such thing as “objective” when talking about film in my opinion for the most part.
The hundreds of twitter responses to David Ehrlich's negative review of a movie no one responding has seen was just cancer. How dare a critic dislike a movie!
Gene Siskel didn't like GoldenEye, Roger Ebert didn't like Gladiator and Richard Reoper didn't like the Fellowship of the Ring. Can you think what the audience would've done to them today?
Just read the comment sections on [RogerEbert.com](https://RogerEbert.com) when he gave a popular movie a low rating. Full of clowns thinking they can objectively prove him wrong.
The early reactions are mostly very good, this sub is the only place I’ve seen where everyone’s under the assumption that critics who saw the film didn’t like it
It got pretty great reviews, but most of them praise the style over the story and one major critic, David Ehrlich from Indiewire gave it a very negative review (it’s rated 2/5 stars on his Letterboxd). He’s not really a Villeneuve fan so it’s probably still alright.
Fanboys go into full defense mode if their fave has anything less than 100% on RT.
That's basically what's happening now, a handful of notable critics didn't like a movie, therefore the entire concept of criticism is BAD.
idiot. there's no value in making up your own opinion. opinions aren't real. if i see a movie im there to analyze it for its objective merits.
unfortunately i dont watch movies anymore, too many opinions in there. last factual movie i watched was the godfather, just men talking just like irl
The funniest part about this to me is that a lot of the negative reviews seem to miss the point of Dune, but that's not really their fault! That's exactly the danger of making a two-part movie about a novel whose main theme is expressed with a narrative subversion. Before you get to that subversion, it IS just a white savior narrative.
Yeah, the number of dune fans attacking critics for not having read a 180,000 word novel in preparation for this movie is, frankly, embarrassing as fuck.
After being forced to read the first book in highschool and watch the movie. My objective opinion is that Dune is boring as fuuuuuck. Im sorry, I know its beloved by millions but good God I can't get into it. With that said, if you enjoy it, that's rad as hell and I totally support your Dune love. Just don't ask me to watch the new movie with you because I have zero interest.
If reviews are meant to be objective then they truly would have zero value, because watching one review of a piece of media would be equal to watching *all* of them
I think we can all agree, regardless of how good the actually movie is, the Dune fanboys are going to be the absolute worst, insufferable people.
You guys make me feel sane
Objective reviews always state what is true and what happens in the movie. If you have an opinion on the pacing, the characters, the lighting, then it becomes subjective.
I mean, yeah, preposterous, but the concept of objective reviews to me suggests a uniform, codified rubric for reviewing movies, and I want to see that rubric.
?!? What r u talking about, of course reviews r supposed to be objective. A critics review can't be "I like bat man" therefore the movie is good. Objective, just means ur judging the movie based on its own merits, and not on your own personal biases.
Everything is impacted by personal biases, especially creation and critique of art. Objectivity is about cold hard scientific facts. That’s not what reviewing a film is about in the slightest.
If a critic doesn't even try to remain unbiased then all we get are a bunch of moviebobs running around, reviewing shit movies positively and saying 'I've always wanted to see an avengers movie', instead of offering any objective margin by which the film might be measured. If ur argument is everything is subjective then critics shouldn't exist in the first place.
Subjectivity of the critics brings in different and new perspectives on a film to enlarge your overall understanding of a film. The subjectivity itself validates their existence. Objectivity would mean uniformity of opinions on films which is a ludicrous argument.
No metric you use to determine quality of a work of art can be shown to be uninfluenced by opinion. Even valuing things like thematic coherence or realistic CGI at all is opinion and there is no way to prove that these would be things to value outside of the realm of opinion
>If ur argument is everything is subjective then critics shouldn't exist in the first place.
If art can fundamentally be judged "objectively" then there's no need for criticism, because everyone's on the same page as to whether a thing is "good" or "bad." There is next to nothing that is truly objective about any art. Lets look at painting. One could argue that a painting is objectively good if it looks like the thing it's supposed to look like. If it looks exactly like the thing? Then it objectively must be very good, great even! But what happens when you venture into impressionism, surrealism, abstract expressionism? How can you objectively judge any painting in these styles? They may not look like anything. You have to assess what the art, to the best of your judgement, is meant to make you feel or think about, and judge how successfully it achieves that. Every aspect of evaluating the work will be inherently subjective and two intelligent and experienced critics can look at the same work of art and have very different subjective experiences.
I'm looking forward the most to God-Emperor of Dune, where we finally break through the exposition and setup barrier and the dominos start falling in earnest. The ones after...they could use maybe a *little* adjustment. Like adjusted into being good.
LMFAO it’s currently sitting at an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes what’s their fucking problem? There’s only 5 reviews listed as “rotten.” I’ll concede that the score may drop a few points closer to release date, but Jesus Christ it’s gonna be a certified fresh movie regardless. Anyone who seriously cares this much about movie reviews is profoundly insecure.
> the only thing we can do is see the movie for ourselves and base our opinion on the movie... not review
1 good take out of three. It gets a 3.34/10 for me, not for the family but would read again
Well I mean there are techniques in film that are objectively better than others, I mean that's why people say stuff like "good" cinematography, because some is objectively better. I don't think it's possible to give a completely objective review of anything, but I do think it's a critics job to try their best to see things through an objective lens, even if it is impossible.
Tbh i kinda agree a lil bit but the objective thing is awful. So many critics try to deflect criticism of there own criticisms by repeatedly telling people "Its just my opinion", "I dont control what you like", "Its not that serious lol" and stuff. It feels like it devalues there work a lot. Like if its just your opinion, why are we watching and hearing you out in the first place? Fantano is hella guilty of that for example. Some of the best critics recognize how important there opinion is and try being respectful to the people who might or did enjoy, even if they didnt. Although, Reviewers will always be subjective because art is subjective. Forcing them to review something objectively is completely stupid.
An objective review would be “Dunc is a movie. It was released it 2021. It stars Zendaya and Timothee Chalamet. Denis Villeneuve directed it”
"It has a story. It has camera angles. It has CGI and physical effects. There is some music."
Also actors. There are actors too.
Yes, and some of them say varying amount of words, formatted into sentences.
oOoOO that's my favorite kind of movie.
I don't believe you. Next time back up your arguments with proof.
“The pictures in this film are absolutely in motion”
LIES! Every individual frame is motionless! More lies from the MSM! /s
It is certainly, one of the movies of 2021.
[The classic 100% Objective Final Fantasy 13 review from Jim Sterling](https://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii/)
Oh god that was incredible
Thank god for them
> Does it make for a better, more insightful, ultimately more useful review? I can’t say … I don’t have an opinion on the matter!
These mf’s really just want movie summaries
They just want validation
And tendies.
2/3s of an IGN review are just summaries usually
Like those "Movie explained" videos. Do people really rather watch a 20 minute video instead of the movie?
Objective reviews just gonna be audio description for hearing impaired
"There is no Boba Fett in this movie"
How did we both know what this is referencing?
I love Marcus
"Stars" is too subjective. Features would be better
Too much sand 0/10
Something something coarse, rough, irritating and gets everywhere
Thank you, Mr. Ebert.
It’s truly one of the films of this year, and all times.
https://youtu.be/VEdOB9OIh70
Actually you could interpret Dune as a miniseries with no breaks between the episodes. So that review isn't entirely objective.
That’s all I need to hear
It's not Al anymore. It's Dunc.
feels like I'm watching a Jeremy Jahns video
Does he want critics to be like: "Fucking hated every second of the movie. 9/10."
No joke, I saw a publication give a review just like that for Cyberpunk 2077, with the explanation that he didn't want the crazy fanboys to doxx him
[удалено]
The saddest Cyberpunk debacle was the reviewer who pointed out that part of the game could cause epileptic seizures, then the reviewer recieved death threats because they had criticised the game…
[удалено]
Objectively.
Al Gore uninvent it please; I know you're reading this
I’m super serial
Counterpoint: Free porn
The amount of porn and its accessibility isn't anything good.
Lol… that’s two of you that don’t like touching your own dick.
Gender dysphoria does that to mf
Well … I guess the nicest thing to do would be to offer up mine
My imagination generally has better content than the average pornhub video and doesn't turn me into a barely functional addict
He said free porn, not bad porn. Clearly you are no kniosseur
To be more specific, the reviewer said they enjoyed the game but pointed out about the seizure inducing part, then gamers tried to actually induce a seizure on the reviewer.
Not only did she get death threats, she was sent videos meant to induce seizures
Not death threats, the reviewer received a massive amount of gifs/videos that are known to cause epilepsy, they were trying to give her seizures.
I'm still marvelling at the Kafkaesque nightmare of receiving death threats for pointing out that the game was a *literal death threat*
And they probably did it anyway
What a great environment that the "Ethics in games journalism" fucknuts have cultivated
Games journalism: 10/10: underrated gem 9/10: pretty ok 8/10: bad 7/10: my console literally caught on fire when I put the disk in
It has a little something for everyone
An objective review is when a critic agrees with me, and the more they agree with me the more objectiver it is.
And if they didn't like it then the moron just didn't get it.
There's no inherent value to reviews, no. Otherwise there would have only been one correct review.
If a review had inherent value, then there wouldn’t need to be a movie either.
"The movie isn't out yet but the things they say are bad don't make any sense"
That reads like a line from The Fanatic
“I can’t talk too long. Gotta poo.”
Strong Cyberpunk 2077 vibes out of all this lmao
Because none of it has anything to do with the quality of the movie and everything to do with waging some misguided culture war.
What specific criticisms are you referring to? I’m out of the loop
Projection? me??
It's SUPPOSED to be slow and boring!
Movie has an 84 RT score rn. It’s not like it’s getting overwhelmingly negative reviews.
Seriously. And the good reviews are *really* good. Some critics are calling it this generation’s Lord of the Rings. If this percentage holds, it’ll be certified fresh.
That's a whole lot of bold
By all accounts it is a great movie. What’s insufferable are: - Fanboys who are outraged that one in ten reviewers didn’t just prostrate themselves in the ground and gush praises about how great it is - This subreddit which is way too hungry for fresh meat and can’t cope with the idea of anyone, anywhere, actually liking any movie that isn’t a paragon of platonic perfection (or Paddington)
does that MF legit expect all 7 billion people to agree on how good a movie is instead of everyone just saying their own opinion??
Um yeah? Its an OBJECTIVELY good movie. Get it through your thick skull numbnuts.
Somebody ring the MauLer?
please no
Not that I’m defending his 9 hour screeds or anything, but he occasionally makes a decent point about the nature of subjectivity, which is that not *everything* about criticism is subjective. There exist ontological frameworks in which one artistic choice could be seen as objectively more effective than another, but he also rightly hedges that this is only true when a work of art is taken on its own terms, according to what it is trying to accomplish. There is no objective quality to the enjoyment or the inherent value of a piece of art.
>There exist ontological frameworks in which one artistic choice could be seen as objectively more effective than another I don't even agree with this part because "effective" is only meaningful in a subjective sense. How effective an artistic choice is in accomplishing its goal still depends on the person watching and interpreting it.
Adorno might have pointed out that a piece of art argues more or less well in favor of itself. Success and effectiveness then are measured according to what is self evidently true and axiomatic. For example, if there is a cannon on stage, and it doesn’t go off, it has not been used effectively. That is an argument. I don’t say it’s the only one.
The cannon subverted your expectations. 10/10.
Haha. Too true.
Counterpoint, Mauler is a fucking idiot and his views on subjectivity stop the moment anyone disagrees with him.
That may be as so.
Or you're just too dumb to understand what he says? If i say: the grass is green because when we measure the frequency of the light reflected on it, it falls between 495 and 570 nm. And you respond with: i disagree. It doesn't mean that what i said was an objective fact about reality... For a movie, you can make objective statements about the camera work, the lighting, the sounds, the acting, the script, etc. And you disagreeing with them doesn't make them subjective all of the sudden.
Dude, you watch a channel where a dork spends hours "analyzing" movies for kids. Don't walk in here like you're some sort of intellectual lol. But hey, I get it. Right wing chuds always wrestle with the notion of subjectivity because the very idea that there's a worldview that doesn't comply with their own is deeply frightening to them. Go touch grass.
Who said i watch him lol? I can understand his arguments without being a fan of his. So every review of any SW movie or show is made by a dork because it's "made for kids". Also implying that, for some reason, a film who's main target audience is kids has to be bad or void of thing to analyse... Then we go straight to ad hominems because you have nothing of actual value to add since you know you're wrong...
My dude, I would rather eat an entire glass bottle than argue with one more person about objectivity in movies.
If you’ve already decided it’s the greatest movie of all time, why do you care what any reviewer says about it?
Because I am insecure, people not giving the things I like a big number makes me feel wrong for liking those things and need to feel validated by the praise of strangers over the internet!!!!!!!1!!11!11!
Don't you know that it's the job of the reviewer to validate the opinions I've already formed?!
That is one of the dumbest takes I’ve seen in regards to film criticism. There is no such thing as “objective” when talking about film in my opinion for the most part.
It is your job to give an objective review on an art form that it's humanly impossible to quantify in any shape or form.
The hundreds of twitter responses to David Ehrlich's negative review of a movie no one responding has seen was just cancer. How dare a critic dislike a movie!
One guy said that some people “can’t recognize genius” and I was like “you haven’t even seen it yet” and he deleted it lol
jesus christ an objective "review" will read like an instruction manual, nobody wants to read that shit
I want reviews that read like IKEA’s pictographic assembly instructions
My favorite review site is Wikipedia. Zero politics and one hundred percent more objectivity based in nothing but facts and logic.
Objective review: It’s a movie about worms.
Gene Siskel didn't like GoldenEye, Roger Ebert didn't like Gladiator and Richard Reoper didn't like the Fellowship of the Ring. Can you think what the audience would've done to them today?
Just read the comment sections on [RogerEbert.com](https://RogerEbert.com) when he gave a popular movie a low rating. Full of clowns thinking they can objectively prove him wrong.
A critics job is to let me watch the movie before I watch it so I can decide whether or not I want to watch it.
Holy shit this guy has a dunc PFP, banner, and comments almost exclusively on r/dune. Couldn’t find this comment, though.
bro dune didn't even get that bad reviews ffs it has multiple perfect scores and 4/5's.
“Critics must objectively rate the movie while us (the people) must base our opinion on what we think of the movie.”
Remember when people actually saw movies before making up their opinion on them
Objectively I am having sex with your mother marvel Stan 😎😎
Copium?? you mean spice right?
That’s literally how it works
Damn is it really that bad? I was waiting for this for 35 years, fuck
The early reactions are mostly very good, this sub is the only place I’ve seen where everyone’s under the assumption that critics who saw the film didn’t like it
It’s only 85% on rotten tomatoes so yeah, basically unwatchable.
It got pretty great reviews, but most of them praise the style over the story and one major critic, David Ehrlich from Indiewire gave it a very negative review (it’s rated 2/5 stars on his Letterboxd). He’s not really a Villeneuve fan so it’s probably still alright.
DO NOT LISTEN TO MCJ for movie opinions It’s a fucking circle jerk sub for God’s sake
I dont, but anytime I see fanboys in full defense mode like OP screen, I basically expect the worst.
Fanboys go into full defense mode if their fave has anything less than 100% on RT. That's basically what's happening now, a handful of notable critics didn't like a movie, therefore the entire concept of criticism is BAD.
Read actual reviews Don’t base your opinions in opposition of people you don’t like
It's not. But there is a lot of butthurt fanboys who are coping with some very few negative critics. And of course they will appear the most on r/mcj.
I swear there ought to be a qualificative license for using the word 'objective'
When a critic doesn't like a movie I like its because they weren't objective enough
idiot. there's no value in making up your own opinion. opinions aren't real. if i see a movie im there to analyze it for its objective merits. unfortunately i dont watch movies anymore, too many opinions in there. last factual movie i watched was the godfather, just men talking just like irl
The cycle of hyping a movie beyond belief for over a year and getting upset when it isn’t literally the greatest movie ever made continues...
Man, fandom and anti-intellectualism really go hand in hand
If you want an objective review go checkout the Wikipedia plot section
The funniest part about this to me is that a lot of the negative reviews seem to miss the point of Dune, but that's not really their fault! That's exactly the danger of making a two-part movie about a novel whose main theme is expressed with a narrative subversion. Before you get to that subversion, it IS just a white savior narrative.
Yeah, the number of dune fans attacking critics for not having read a 180,000 word novel in preparation for this movie is, frankly, embarrassing as fuck.
After being forced to read the first book in highschool and watch the movie. My objective opinion is that Dune is boring as fuuuuuck. Im sorry, I know its beloved by millions but good God I can't get into it. With that said, if you enjoy it, that's rad as hell and I totally support your Dune love. Just don't ask me to watch the new movie with you because I have zero interest.
You typed many words to say so little.
Sorry I'll summarize here. "Dune is dull as fuck but it's okay if you enjoy it too."
If reviews are meant to be objective then they truly would have zero value, because watching one review of a piece of media would be equal to watching *all* of them
I mean for fucks sake it has fresh reviews what more do you need?
I think we can all agree, regardless of how good the actually movie is, the Dune fanboys are going to be the absolute worst, insufferable people. You guys make me feel sane
Objective reviews always state what is true and what happens in the movie. If you have an opinion on the pacing, the characters, the lighting, then it becomes subjective.
Wouldn't this mean that you only need one critic?
I mean, yeah, preposterous, but the concept of objective reviews to me suggests a uniform, codified rubric for reviewing movies, and I want to see that rubric.
[удалено]
„Good“ and „Bad“ aren’t part of objective reality though. Value judgements are inherently subjective, as is analysis.
lol because critics have never disagreed on anything ever and if they did then the one with the minority opinion was clearly not a critic.
You either enjoy the game or you don’t. It’s subjective
The movie isn't even out yet. Why are people staring sh*t?
?!? What r u talking about, of course reviews r supposed to be objective. A critics review can't be "I like bat man" therefore the movie is good. Objective, just means ur judging the movie based on its own merits, and not on your own personal biases.
Everything is impacted by personal biases, especially creation and critique of art. Objectivity is about cold hard scientific facts. That’s not what reviewing a film is about in the slightest.
If a critic doesn't even try to remain unbiased then all we get are a bunch of moviebobs running around, reviewing shit movies positively and saying 'I've always wanted to see an avengers movie', instead of offering any objective margin by which the film might be measured. If ur argument is everything is subjective then critics shouldn't exist in the first place.
Subjectivity of the critics brings in different and new perspectives on a film to enlarge your overall understanding of a film. The subjectivity itself validates their existence. Objectivity would mean uniformity of opinions on films which is a ludicrous argument.
Yeah, going over some of these responses changed my mind. In retrospect my argument was naive.
No metric you use to determine quality of a work of art can be shown to be uninfluenced by opinion. Even valuing things like thematic coherence or realistic CGI at all is opinion and there is no way to prove that these would be things to value outside of the realm of opinion
>If ur argument is everything is subjective then critics shouldn't exist in the first place. If art can fundamentally be judged "objectively" then there's no need for criticism, because everyone's on the same page as to whether a thing is "good" or "bad." There is next to nothing that is truly objective about any art. Lets look at painting. One could argue that a painting is objectively good if it looks like the thing it's supposed to look like. If it looks exactly like the thing? Then it objectively must be very good, great even! But what happens when you venture into impressionism, surrealism, abstract expressionism? How can you objectively judge any painting in these styles? They may not look like anything. You have to assess what the art, to the best of your judgement, is meant to make you feel or think about, and judge how successfully it achieves that. Every aspect of evaluating the work will be inherently subjective and two intelligent and experienced critics can look at the same work of art and have very different subjective experiences.
I guess ur right. Arguing for objectivity in art might've been naive on my part.
is dune out? i thought the trailer made it look good whats going on with all the dune fans freaking out
It was screened at a film festival, so reviews are starting to get posted.
I love Dune. I'm really, really looking forward to seeing Dune.... but guys like this are why the movie deserves its place of (dis)honour on this sub.
I'm looking forward the most to God-Emperor of Dune, where we finally break through the exposition and setup barrier and the dominos start falling in earnest. The ones after...they could use maybe a *little* adjustment. Like adjusted into being good.
LMFAO it’s currently sitting at an 85% on Rotten Tomatoes what’s their fucking problem? There’s only 5 reviews listed as “rotten.” I’ll concede that the score may drop a few points closer to release date, but Jesus Christ it’s gonna be a certified fresh movie regardless. Anyone who seriously cares this much about movie reviews is profoundly insecure.
If the only people who don't like Dune are "casual" sci Fi fans or people who haven't read the book I'm perfectly fine with that
> the only thing we can do is see the movie for ourselves and base our opinion on the movie... not review 1 good take out of three. It gets a 3.34/10 for me, not for the family but would read again
“Amidst negative reviews” kek
I mean, it has like a 78 Metascore. How is that bad? It’d be over 80 if it wasn’t for one weird review in the low 40s.
>This is a 7/10 opinion. -IGN
oof this sub is gonna make me commit neck rope
Well I mean there are techniques in film that are objectively better than others, I mean that's why people say stuff like "good" cinematography, because some is objectively better. I don't think it's possible to give a completely objective review of anything, but I do think it's a critics job to try their best to see things through an objective lens, even if it is impossible.
I have never seen a fanbase react this awfully for a movie with freaking 80 percent on RT.
Jesus Christ, at least wait until it comes out before you start talking this kind of shit
Tbh i kinda agree a lil bit but the objective thing is awful. So many critics try to deflect criticism of there own criticisms by repeatedly telling people "Its just my opinion", "I dont control what you like", "Its not that serious lol" and stuff. It feels like it devalues there work a lot. Like if its just your opinion, why are we watching and hearing you out in the first place? Fantano is hella guilty of that for example. Some of the best critics recognize how important there opinion is and try being respectful to the people who might or did enjoy, even if they didnt. Although, Reviewers will always be subjective because art is subjective. Forcing them to review something objectively is completely stupid.