Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Come and join our gamer community by
registering for free here
Anything & Everything
Stories
Ramblings of a Mad Man (What's Wrong with the World?)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Undead_Lives" data-source="post: 114528" data-attributes="member: 5928"><p>Well, I haven't written anything here for a while, and I've been meaning to so......here I go again.</p><p>Before I do however, I'd like to mention that I've changed the name to "Ramblings of a Mad Man (What's Wrong with the World?)". The portion in parentheses will make it so people actually know what this topic is about <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p>Now, on with the next portion.</p><p></p><p><u>Criticizing the Critics</u></p><p></p><p>Here on our great forum, we have a rule, don't just criticize, give <u>constructive</u> criticizm. Now I'm asking, why don't these so called "professional" critics do the same?</p><p></p><p>Honestly, I've seen more of "this is crap" kind of thing than "this was bad, and here's why, and here's what could've been done to make it better". Actually, I don't think I've ever seen the latter. Now, as for reasons to this, I could guess that they have the excuse of their editor making them write over exagerations to sell whatever they are selling. But what ever happened to freedom of speech? I bet the editor would say something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want, but how you say it, that's up to me."</p><p></p><p>Another reason is possibly that the people involved in whatever was being criticized got upset at the slightest thing, even with constructive criticizm (a topic for another time). They possibly got fed up and decided to go all out, and screw the people getting upset. But honestly, does that solve anything?</p><p></p><p>Now, I'm going to provide two examples of critics being well, idiots. The first is an album critic. Now, the band he/she was criticizing, has brilliant music, great vocals, great everything, except for one thing. According to this critic, the band's lyrics weren't deep enough. They weren't "influential" enough. And that was ALL he/she complained about. The rating that the person gave? 4/5. What the hell is up with that crap? Honestly, you're rating a BAND that plays MUSIC not some friggen essay that's supposed to move people to believe in Global Warming. For bloody sake, if you feel the lyrics were that bad, then MAYBE 4.5/5 would be in order, but the lyrics are only ONE part of the entire album. And who gives a crap about whether or not the lyrics' topics were good or not? They were still well written, and hell the music was awesome.</p><p></p><p>The next example is Pirates of the Carribean 2. Now, this show was (from a local newpaper) rated in the top ten WORST list. How did that come to pass? Here's the basic reasons. One, it was too long. Boo friggidy who. Two, it was a dissapointment. No argument there, the first was definitely better. But if this had been the first movie, you would've thought it was pretty good, but not great, which it is. Now I know that you MUST rate it as a sequel, but making it one of the top ten worst? That sounds like you just put it there to sell papers. And that's a load of bull****.</p><p></p><p>In conclusion, if these critics want to show just how valuable their opinions really are, they better well damn give some constructive criticizm. Any idiot can say "that movie sucked cause it was too long", but to point out what could've made it better, that takes at least some intelligence. And hell, if we can't read something intelligent in the newspaper, where can we?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Undead_Lives, post: 114528, member: 5928"] Well, I haven't written anything here for a while, and I've been meaning to so......here I go again. Before I do however, I'd like to mention that I've changed the name to "Ramblings of a Mad Man (What's Wrong with the World?)". The portion in parentheses will make it so people actually know what this topic is about :P Now, on with the next portion. [U]Criticizing the Critics[/U] Here on our great forum, we have a rule, don't just criticize, give [U]constructive[/U] criticizm. Now I'm asking, why don't these so called "professional" critics do the same? Honestly, I've seen more of "this is crap" kind of thing than "this was bad, and here's why, and here's what could've been done to make it better". Actually, I don't think I've ever seen the latter. Now, as for reasons to this, I could guess that they have the excuse of their editor making them write over exagerations to sell whatever they are selling. But what ever happened to freedom of speech? I bet the editor would say something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want, but how you say it, that's up to me." Another reason is possibly that the people involved in whatever was being criticized got upset at the slightest thing, even with constructive criticizm (a topic for another time). They possibly got fed up and decided to go all out, and screw the people getting upset. But honestly, does that solve anything? Now, I'm going to provide two examples of critics being well, idiots. The first is an album critic. Now, the band he/she was criticizing, has brilliant music, great vocals, great everything, except for one thing. According to this critic, the band's lyrics weren't deep enough. They weren't "influential" enough. And that was ALL he/she complained about. The rating that the person gave? 4/5. What the hell is up with that crap? Honestly, you're rating a BAND that plays MUSIC not some friggen essay that's supposed to move people to believe in Global Warming. For bloody sake, if you feel the lyrics were that bad, then MAYBE 4.5/5 would be in order, but the lyrics are only ONE part of the entire album. And who gives a crap about whether or not the lyrics' topics were good or not? They were still well written, and hell the music was awesome. The next example is Pirates of the Carribean 2. Now, this show was (from a local newpaper) rated in the top ten WORST list. How did that come to pass? Here's the basic reasons. One, it was too long. Boo friggidy who. Two, it was a dissapointment. No argument there, the first was definitely better. But if this had been the first movie, you would've thought it was pretty good, but not great, which it is. Now I know that you MUST rate it as a sequel, but making it one of the top ten worst? That sounds like you just put it there to sell papers. And that's a load of bull****. In conclusion, if these critics want to show just how valuable their opinions really are, they better well damn give some constructive criticizm. Any idiot can say "that movie sucked cause it was too long", but to point out what could've made it better, that takes at least some intelligence. And hell, if we can't read something intelligent in the newspaper, where can we? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Anything & Everything
Stories
Ramblings of a Mad Man (What's Wrong with the World?)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top