Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Also who is this Big Pharma? O_o Is this some kind of "Big Brother" idea but in connection with medical stuffs in a dubiously strange way?

It is a reference to the idea that the pharmaceutical industry is organized and corrupt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theory

[Neonivek]

Anyone ever think that the old Critic adage of "I shouldn't have to know, the movie should tell me" is wrong?

Or rather that movies, games, books, and what have you... CANNOT be written for fans of that particular work, they MUST be inclusive and be presented in a way that everyone can understand.

I kind of tilt my head sideways whenever I see a work that is clearly marketed towards people who know the material, and not anyone else, and yet they are reviewed negatively because of it. Not that they are given a poor review because they couldn't understand so of course it would be a negative review... but rather that "How dare the movie not cater towards my personal needs".

Which is often what I see for games sometimes as well. People complaining that games do not directly cater to them, in spite not being made for them... as a flaw.

-Note: This isn't about negative reviews for a negative time. This is about this belief that all things must cater to the whole regardless of its intended audience.

[Gunner-Chan]

I don't think it's quite that. Most reviews are intended as a resource for the general public instead of a hardcore fan of a given property or work so if something makes it more impenetrable to someone from outside that group, it does actually make sense to dock it in points a bit. I know some people will go stupid with it and just say it's no good because they couldn't personally understand it but making a point that a game or a movie isn't exactly digestible for the general public is usually something worth saying.

[Neonivek]

I don't think it's quite that. Most reviews are intended as a resource for the general public instead of a hardcore fan of a given property or work so if something makes it more impenetrable to someone from outside that group, it does actually make sense to dock it in points a bit. I know some people will go stupid with it and just say it's no good because they couldn't personally understand it but making a point that a game or a movie isn't exactly digestible for the general public is usually something worth saying.

Once again that isn't the issue. I am not so much weirded out on the concept that someone from outside that group wouldn't find that favorable OR that they wouldn't find it favorable for anyone outside that group either.

But there are critics out there who outright say that movies, games, what have you MUST appeal to the general public.

I am not mixing those two groups up. Though I understand giving people the benefit of the doubt first.

---

Though to be fair... Yahtzee, take it as you will, has actually said the complete opposite one time. That a game simply wasn't for him and it wasn't up to the game to accommodate him.

Though his statement is more uncommon than the contrary.

[Reelya]

But just as a movie has a target audience, so does a review. So it's entirely reasonable for the reviewer to review things from the perspective and interests of his/her target audience, and if a movie requires a large amount of previous knowledge of a franchise in order to make any sense, then that's relevant to the review.

If you're going to rate a movie out of 5 stars, then the rating should be the average utility of an average person will get from watching that specific movie. If you have to caveat the movie with "sure, it's a great film, but if and only you saw X, Y, Z and W movies first", then it's objectively not such a great movie, on average when you plonk it in front of a randomly-selected member of the public. The star-rating needs to assume that this "average viewer" is who the star rating is for.

[Neonivek]

But just as a movie has a target audience, so does a review. So it's entirely reasonable for the reviewer to review things from the perspective and interests of his/her target audience, and if a movie requires a large amount of previous knowledge of a franchise in order to make any sense, then that's relevant to the review.

Ok and my response to this is

Once again that isn't the issue. I am not so much weirded out on the concept that someone from outside that group wouldn't find that favorable OR that they wouldn't find it favorable for anyone outside that group either.

and

Not that they are given a poor review because they couldn't understand so of course it would be a negative review... but rather that "How dare the movie not cater towards my personal needs".

-Note: This isn't about negative reviews for a negative time. This is about this belief that all things must cater to the whole regardless of its intended audience.

This is a lot more economical personally. Instead of just going through this entire circle re-explaining my ideas. I should just quote... myself.

"Of course this information is important to the general audience"

"Well I am not talking about a reviewer giving a negative review because it doesn't appeal to the general audience. But rather give a negative review because of a firm belief that it MUST appeal to the general audience."

There is a subtle yet distinct difference between those two ideas.

---

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!! now THAT is a WTF in it of itself

then the rating should be the average utility of an average person will get from watching that specific movie.

Now that IS an odd idea as well.

The idea that all reviews SHOULD be geared towards the average person. That a person's personal perspective, enjoyment, or philosophies are unimportant in a review.

Which of course one would move the bar by emphasizing "Professional reviews" which while indeed many professional reviews are geared towards the average person... We shouldn't confuse tradition with necessity. Otherwise, for example, reviews of Shakespeare would just focus on how difficult the concepts are to grasp from time to time and its excessive focus on flowery language (Not that reviews have to be apologetic either)

[Reelya]

But those are the people reading the review. If it's a review on that Christian site that reviews movies, then the writer knows who it is for and writes accordingly. If it's in nytimes, then again, the writer knows the range of people that are going to be reading that. The review must be as relevant as possible to the widest possible group of readers of that publication. That's what people pay for.
 

That a person's personal perspective, enjoyment, or philosophies are unimportant in a review.

Yes they are fucking unimportant. If your readership is 500,000 people in New York, and you know the rough age and socioeconomic demographics, then you write with as broad a "person" in mind as you can, when you're reviewing the movie. You're reviewing the movie so that everyone who reads your review can decide if it's a movie they should go and see.

[Neonivek]

The review must be as relevant as possible to the widest possible group of readers of that publication. That's what people pay for.

Or a review often is a way to show a piece of work in a different light.

Or a review can explain details and aspects of a work that the viewer might not have seen.

Or a review could be arguing against common perceptions.

People do not always pay for something to basically agree with their sensibilities... In fact that has become one of the larger issues with the critic and viewer divide. Which is that critics are criticized for not parroting how other people view something... while at the same time the average person lacks a sort of person who could serve as their surrogate.

Yes they are fucking unimportant. If your readership is 500,000 people in New York, and you know the rough age and socioeconomic demographics, then you write with as broad a "person" in mind as you can, when you're reviewing the movie. You're reviewing the movie so that everyone who reads your review can decide if it's a movie they should go and see. If it's some movie that only a tiny minority of dedicated trekkies are going to enjoy, then don't review it at all in the general paper, because that's not who general newspapers reviews are for.

That is their prerogative but you are mixing their goals as everyone else's goal...

Either that or your not... and you have a general belief that the goal of all reviews is to be as general as possible and to cater to your specific audience all the time.

Which I have a fundamental reason for disliking (well more strongly... I hate your view point... quite strongly...)

[Reelya]

A movie review isn't meant to be an essay. They can be, but they're not writing for the general public then.

Well yeah, to the last point. Traditional newspaper-style movie reviews are in fact to give everyone an idea of what sort of movie this thing is. Therefore the movies appeal to literally everyone is their job to explain. If it's in a specialist publication, e.g. movie reviews on Kotaku or something, then they have a different mission, because they know that their audience are already geeks and will have a different baseline of knowledge and interests.

[Neonivek]

A movie review isn't meant to be an essay. They can be, but they're not writing for the general public then.

Many reviews are essays... Those aren't uncommon.

In fact I might even go as far as to say... if they are longer then a blurb, number, or paragraph... Chances are it is an essay...

A movie review isn't meant to be an essay. They can be, but they're not writing for the general public then.

Well yeah, to the last point. Traditional newspaper-style movie reviews are in fact to give everyone an idea of what sort of movie this thing is. Therefore the movies appeal to literally everyone is their job to explain. If it's in a specialist publication, e.g. movie reviews on Kotaku or something, then they have a different mission, because they know that their audience are already geeks and will have a different baseline of knowledge and interests.

To quote myself

"Well I am not talking about a reviewer giving a negative review because it doesn't appeal to the general audience. But rather give a negative review because of a firm belief that it MUST appeal to the general audience."

---

There is a large dissonance between what you are trying to say Reelya as a response to what I am saying...

And what I am saying.

Which is confusing me because I am talking about Swimming pools... and your talking about coffee... Where the only similarity is that they both deal with liquids.

So I am not sure if you are adding information or arguing or something.

[Flying Dice]

Imo: "Big pharma" as a whole is no worse than any other business, and better than some. At least it works pretty welll as a drug developmentm platform.

Uh. It's one of the most resounding examples of why some things shouldn't be left to the free market. It's why drug design philosophy is aimed at constant ongoing treatment rather than cures. As with all capitalist enterprises, the primary goal is to make profit, and all other goals are of far lesser import. Obviously the best way to make money is to sell drugs, ergo the ideal patient is one who needs drugs, as many as possible, throughout the entire span of their life. If a patient is cured of their condition permanently, they stop buying drugs.

It is one of the most evil expressions of unadulterated psychopathic greed there is, right up there with the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex. They all make money by intentionally creating or prolonging human suffering, and they're all run by people who need to be the first ones lined up against walls if a revolution ever actually comes.

And that's just the core ethical issue, never mind things like massive overcharging for necessary drugs.

[IcyTea31]

I got a friend to play Spec Ops: The Line, specifically the chapter "The Gate". They managed to keep a pokerface throughout.

Spoiler: Why this is a WTF (spoilers) (click to show/hide)

In the chapter, the player character uses a mortar loaded with white phosphorus (a chemical weapon) to assault a fortified base, and ends up killing a few dozen civilians in an extremely horrific way with it. I have a screenshot, but it's probably too graphic to post here. You can probably find it by putting a few keywords into Google.

[pisskop]

The honks come from outer space.

Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a real movie

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

The honks come from outer space.

Killer Klowns from Outer Space is a real movie

True.

THey cocoon people in cotton candy, then suck out the juices with a straw when the digestives enzymes liquefy the bodies.

[Descan]

Drug production and capitalism can go hand in hand, it's just right now the reward structure is a bit perverse. It rewards ongoing production and easy patents.

I'm really hoping that idea of UN or national-government rewards for treatments for specific diseases goes through, coupled with patent reform where you cant' just modify a drug a little bit and have free money for another 20 years... Have companies compete to get those innovation rewards instead of who can bilk the most money out of sick people :V