Mike Choi picked up the conversation about the dismissal of all critics by Scott Kurtz.
I don't think the following really addresses the issue at hand, though:
Part 2:
After looking at the Saw V trailer, I found this on wikipedia:
Saw was a financial success. Shot on a meager budget of about US$1.2 million, it earned over $55 million at the box office in the U.S. alone and $102,917,772 worldwide.[1] Critical responses were mixed. It earned a 46% rating from Rotten Tomatoes, and a 29% rating from the most esteemed professional critics, qualifying it as "rotten."
Through 4 movies in the fanchise, the movies have an average of 32% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (with a 14.5% rating from the Cream of the Crop reviewers), but have garnered a total of over a half billion dollars ($555,063,218) worldwide.
I think sometimes, one is presented with a mutually exclusive decision of pleasing critics, or giving fans what they want.
I know what I'd do.
You see, Scott Kurtz said:
Recently, I called Mike Krahulik to compliment him on a new coloring technique he had used on a recent Penny-Arcade strip. I opened my phone conversation with the following statement: “Mike, Ignore all emails about the new coloring. It’s awesome. Pursue it.” But it was too late. He had already read all the mail and had been sufficiently discouraged enough to just drop the matter. “That’s what I get for trying to innovate.” he said to me.
He was joking, but there was some truth to his statement.
And that’s why there is no chapter in our book on when to accept that, sometimes, the critic is right.
Those e-mails and messages were from Krahulik's "consumers". So the Kurtz argument isn't against taking criticism because the critics are a good barometer for what will be popular, but, instead, argues for the art and craft being above any sort of critical input.
So, while I get that the critic can't account for the public's bad taste or it's ability to check their brains at the door, that isn't exactly the angle that Scott seems to be taking.
Now, if Scott's stance was like Mike's, I'd be able to appreciate it. But, then again, it kinda defeats the purpose: isn't popularity a bit of a critical response? Consumers demonstrate their opinions with their dollars.
His first part of the blog, though, poses a question to critics:
However, I will pose this: Why do critics do what they do? What is their impetus to sit down and write a critique on something? I've heard many answers to what critics do and what purpose criticism serves, but what is the reason that they take it upon themselves to fulfill that function, without solicitation or compensation?
I think many people do things without compensation with the hopes that they can turn it into something they are paid to do.
But that's a dodge. What leads people to want to do it to begin with? Hmm. You know, sadly, I think my answer includes a bit of ego.
Originally, I never thought about doing reviews. I only occasionally got caught up in message board discussions about stuff, which constitutes some form of criticism. But I guess it's just about being passionate about the medium.
I wouldn't have tried popping up my opinions for public view, if not for Troy Brownfield inviting me to be part of Best Shots. I felt honored by it, because I enjoyed the work of the team and was a regular reader of all things Newsarama. To be asked to be part of the widely read Best Shots column on the uber-popular Newsarama? Hell yes. Why turn it down? So I guess I was initially solicited.
When I started reviewing on Newsarama, I made a concerted effort to try to get advance copies of smaller books so I could get reviews up the Monday before release to help. I tried to get copies of smaller press books in hopes of reviewing something that could use the attention.
I think part of why I've continued (which I still consider myself as doing, despite a large break in covering comics) was to compensate for the sense of loss I felt after leaving the team. Sticking to some sort of routine of reviewing comic books helped cushion the blow. But part of it was hoping that people might still be interested in my opinion (which is the ego part).
So, I'd guess my drive for reviewing works would be a whole lot of passion for the medium mixed with a dash of ego.
My review of Scott Kurtz, the PVPOnline merchant:
Posts
