Quote:
Originally Posted by relentlessflame
If the major disagreements in this thread were really just about people explaining why they "don't like" how things went, things would never be so heated. The problem isn't because people don't like it. It's because, in trying to justify why they don't like it, some people choose to make rash unsubstantiated claims about the supposed "objective faults" in the work. In the end it almost always really comes back to "well, I didn't like it (and I think I have good reasons)". But not liking it is a preference and not a fact; it's the unique combination of the viewer and the object being viewed.
There are some objective things we can say about the way the plot was written, but a lot of it really does come down to subjective preference -- things we wanted to see, the way things were presented, and the consequences of the choices the author and adaptation made, and how that impacted our reaction. As I've said so many times over the years, it's all about the way the opinion is stated.
|
Why not take it one step further and say "you can't give an objective review on an
entertainment". Which is true in a sense, and this gives a new viewpoint: nothing is truly objective and thus no matter how pompously worded a review is, it's still a subjective review. Thus, treat it as such. There's no need to accuse the critic for not being objective. There's no need to say "I don't understand why that critic thinks this way" etc and point out the 'flaws' in their criticism. There's no need to criticize the critics. It goes both ways. Sure, give warnings when attitude becomes too inflammatory, but that's it.