Growing up, I never listened to critics when deciding what movie to attend. I knew there was people whose job it was to tell the public whether they felt a movie was worth paying for or not. However, I just listened to my friends and what they had heard or thought about the picture. This allowed me to get multiple opinions about the movie and from sources that were my age and thought similar to myself. To this day it still seems like to best way to learn about something like a movie. When it comes to movies I find that critics are all looking for things that I do not care as much about. For many critics the artistic elements may be the biggest factor for judging a movie. Personally I can enjoy all kinds of movies and while I enjoy a truly great movie experience I also enjoy the typical action or murder mystery. I still find that I only agree with the critics about half of the time. Therefore, when I look for a movie to see today I go to the Internet to decide if a film is worth spending my money on. I go to sites and blogs dedicated to giving customer reviews and I judge what the general rating of the film is before making my decision. The Internet has changed the way many people look for reviews or product opinions. It allows people to be able to get a wide sense of the quality of something instead of just one person’s opinion. The Internet decreases the need for paid professionals to serve as critics.
The Internet has allowed people to be able to share their opinions all over the world. Not everyone feels that this is for the best in terms of quality of information. Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, thinks that the Internet is belittling truth and diminishing quality. The first few chapters of Keen’s book explain how he feels the Internet is allowing so many amateurs to post reviews and opinions that the professional’s opinions get lost in the mess. However, Keen commits certain fallacies that weaken or undermine his arguments against the points in this paper. Keen begins by talking about the negative side of blogging and the Internet using neutral terms, however he soon converts his word choice to negative words such as calling the bloggers and programmers “monkeys” (Keen 15). In this he is committing the Shifting Terms Fallacy. Keen is using degrading words such as monkeys to bring down the readers opinion of the people he is attacking. It is not actually dealing with the issues, but instead he is simply breaking down any ethos they may have had. Keen also states that, “What the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment” (Keen 16). This is an example of the fallacy that Keen commits many times in his arguments. He is committing the Begging the Question Fallacy because he is arguing that reviews and posts made by amateurs are shallow and uninformed compared to the professional’s views. He is basing this proof on something that is very subjective. This is also a good example of Keen committing the Stereotyping Fallacy because he is declaring that all amateur’s opinions are weaker and less-intelligible that true critics without basing it off any large sample of the population. Keen is declaring the inferiority of amateurs’ opinions and knowledge without anything to back up his argument.
As the Internet has transformed different movie or food sites have popped up that deal with the difference between critical reviews and user reviews. The most notable one is the website Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes has two ways of grading a movie, shown by two separate one hundred percent rating scales. One is an average rating of all professional critics while the other is an average of anyone who wants to write in a rating on the site. The site shows that people care about amateurs’ views just as much, if not more than the critics’ opinions. The majority of big movies on the site have more amateur reviews, resulting is a more fair and average score, than critics. The large amount of users that take the time to write a review and score the film proves how much people not only enjoy reviewing the movies but also how many people use the user reviews. For many movies the scores from the critics and the amateurs are similar. The result is that people do not need both groups of reviewers when they are getting the same results. Plus, since commonly the amateurs outnumber the critics, if there is a slight difference the viewer score is more accurate.
An article called “Rotten Tomatoes: A Good Pick for Movie Reviews” by Gary M. Stern discusses the website and the difference in reviewers. Stern writes for Information Today, Inc., which is a publisher of magazines and books geared towards libraries. The article states that some movies may get a very different score between the different groups. The article quotes an editor of the Rotten Tomato site stating, “‘A lot of critics analyze movies from an artistic perspective’” and “’If there’s a movie you really want to see, go see it – regardless of what the critics say’” (Stern). The editor of the website believes that many critics are not looking at how entertaining or good the movie is and instead are focusing more on the artistic quality the film portrays. The editor sees that when the critics and viewers are very different that the public tends to find the amateurs’ reviews more real and helpful. Rotten Tomatoes provides both types of reviewers but when there are disagreements about the quality and enjoyment of a movie the public sides with the amateurs’ reviews. This is a great example of how the Internet and amateur critics are removing the need for professionals.
The reason these amateurs can take over the job of reviewing movies and restaurants from critics is because of the passion they possess. Critics clearly enjoy whatever they are reviewing or they would not do the job. However, amateurs are not getting paid or even much recognition for what they are posting. These amateurs are taking time after their jobs and families to review and spread their ideas about something they enjoy. This devotion and enjoyment will create better, more real reviews and responses than a paid professional would. In 2006 TIME magazine gave their Person of the Year award to You. In “You – Yes, You – Are TIME’S Person of the Year”, by Lev Grossman, Grossman insists that the drive and dedication that everyday people have to create, make and review online is the reason everyone on the Internet is their Person of the Year. The award did not go to a professional; in fact it went to exactly the opposite, to the amateurs. TIME felt that these amateurs were growing so much in importance that they needed to be recognized because with the Internet, these people are driven by something so much to be able to spread their love and problems with something like a movie. Since there are people like that and a platform to spread their message there is no need for people, who often don’t have the same devotion, to be paid to do the same thing.
I am one of those devoted people that enjoy writing and debating about my favorite film or even just a recent movie. Another thing that makes the amateur writers a better system than the professional critics is the connectedness of all the people online. I can comment on a review someone has posted because I disagree with their opinion and they can respond, defending their reasoning. This is not a possibility with Roger Ebert or any professional writer. They are not truly out of contact but they are not as accessible for discussions as a blogger. This allows many people to post and debate and gives a better indication of the true quality of a film. The more people that input their opinion, the more accurate and helpful it will be. The same can be said for sites like Amazon, which allows every member to post their own review of any product, including movies. Amazon has a five star rating system and each reviewer can give a rating and their reasoning. This allows readers to get a more through of the product they are about to buy. When reading a critic’s review there is always the risk that they may have alternative reasons for giving it a good or bad review. However, sites like Amazon overcome this problem since each person can review. This way anyone who may have a less than honorable motives will be covered up by all the users who can give a more accurate description. It results in a more truthful and therefore trustworthy method than a singular critic. Amazon has used the Internet to create a better shopping environment because amateurs are able to provide insight and more accurate reviews that can only come from countless people.
The Internet is decreasing the need for paid professionals who will only provide a single view, for the sum of opinions of an Internet full of amateurs. It opens the door to a more through understanding of how good or enjoyable something is instead of trusting one person who may not even be looking for the same qualities. Amateurs give opinions that are closer to what the average person is looking for and by averaging many of these reviews a more truthful rating can be found. The Internet allows a person to review a movie, debate it with many people and produce a better understanding of what type of experience the movie or product provided. All the way from grade school to now, the availability of countless reviews and opinions will always trump a single viewpoint, professional or not.
Works Cited
Amazon.com, Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Grossman, Lev. “You – Yes, You – Are TIME’s Person of the Year” TIME Magazine U.S. n.p. 25 Dec. 2006. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Keen, Andrew. The Cult of the Amateur New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.
RottenTomatoes.com, Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Stern, Gary. “Rotten Tomatoes: A Good Pick For Movie Reviews.” Link Up Digital. n.p. 15 Nov. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment