"I'm a critic, I don't make things, I judge things!"
How did something so truthful like this end up in an episode of Modern Spongebob?
"I'm a critic, I don't make things, I judge things!"
"I'm a critic, I don't make things, I judge things!"
How did something so truthful like this end up in an episode of Modern Spongebob?
it's the most basic take on critic's ever made. what are you getting amped up for?
Honestly this is about as "contoversial" as saying "war bad" or "capitalism amirite guys?" or drawing a fat neckbeard fan and going "haha dis is U"
Nontroversial comedy is gay as hell
Not everything can be Ratatouille.
I was just about to post this
>In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
None of the frickers who try this shit really know what made Ego work. His speech isn't an admittance that criticism is useless, it's that he was letting it blind him to potential talent through his unwarranted self importance.
A lot of these "prosh critic" plots end up with the critic getting defeated after getting wowed by the protagonist directly acting on them, but Ego's defeat wasn't from learning about Remy or the speech, it was when he dropped his pen, since it completely undermined his conception of Gusteau's and his own absolution as someone who can give "the final word." The difference is that he doesn't yield to Remy's beliefs until after he's been beaten, which serves more to wrap up Remy's character arc than to commentate on the nature of criticism.
>The difference is that he doesn't yield to Remy's beliefs until after he's been beaten
Why would he yeald before being beaten, moron?
Kinda off-topic but I always found it strange that Linguini didn't bother to fake a French accent when Ego was in the room.
>Modern Spongebob
>episode is from 12 years ago
OP seems lost
Anything made after the first movie is modern.
how?
writing style
Yeah, any post-movie Spongebob episode is "modern Spongebob", just like any CGI Thomas and Friends episode is "modern Thomas and Friends".
I think everyone understand the benefits of critics. It's great for there to be people that have way too much exposure to a specific thing to be able to tell the sane, non-autistic people how it compares to the grander scheme of thing. Judgement is a valuable skill that is fully distinct from creation.
If critics have such great judgement, why is it when they do create stuff, it's always really bad? Like, literally any cartoon critic autist who tries to pitch their own cartoon comes out with absolute crap mogged by even the most bottom of the barrel tier cartoon they've ever insulted.
>cartoon critic
>autist
Which one of these do you think is the problem?
The ability to do a postmortem on why something failed is not the ability to create a success. If a coroner tells you he knows enough about life and death to operate on you, you shouldn't humor him.
And then these "critics" proceed to tell how great modern SW movies are or that "April was always black, stop whining".
Frick critics, I'll use my own head to come up with verdict
"I'm a critic, I remember it so you don't have to!"
nu-spongebobs face is so punchable. they need to stop making him smile all the time
*triggered*
"I've discovered that most critics themselves are cinematically illiterate. They don't really know much about movies they don't know the history, they don't know the technology they don't know anything so for them to try to analyse they're lost." - George Lucas
The dunning-kruger effect is a psychological phenomenon in which the less a person knows about a subject the more they feel that they're an expert. If a person is so ignorant that they're unable to conceptualise what they don't know they believe they know everything.
Sometimes when one dismisses a critic they use phrases such as "I'd like to see you do something better" or "you can't talk because you can't make something like this" and a counter argument that can be said to all that is "you don't have to be good at something to know when someone else is bad at it". You don't have to be a good basketball player to know and point out when someone else is bad at it, but the thing with that is you would at least have to know how the basketball game works to know. True, you don't need to be good at something to know when someone else is doing it wrong, but you must still have to know what you’re talking about and have credibility.
Even when one is an expert on something they may not be an expert with another thing. You might be an expert at knowing how storytelling works, but they may not be an expert or have a good understanding of the material itself they are critiquing and will be called out by the bigger and knowledgeable fans of that work. To when one points out plot holes that aren't actually there, or when one doesn't even know what a plot hole is in the first place.
This is a problem with the critics of entertainment. They need to know how both storytelling and the show or book they are talking about truly is and it probably takes more than just one casual watch or read in order to do that.
Critics are just control guys specialized on entertainment meaning that it is full of subjectivities.
But unlike inspectors, they aren't getting paid by any government.
Yes, some people who don't know how to make things may still be talented at judging them.
Most critics aren't very good but neither are most people who make things. The best critics are better at judging things than the average creator.
You don't have to be a chef to think that a particular meal tastes bad.