GW Reviewers - opinion on review(s)

[Elwe Singollo]

Ok, i understand everyone has thier own respective opinions and such, but everytime i read a review of an episode posted on GW news, i am kind of annoyed on how these reviewers critique the episode. To make things blunt and clear, i just don't like reading them, but i can't say the review(s) are wrong in any form just because i think otherwise, i don't know, i guess i'll avoid those reviews

[Skydiver]

critiqueing an episode is what a reviewer does.


Every reviewer has his/her own predjudices and preferences. And the averave reader is only likely to agree with a reviewer if s/he also has similar tastes and preferences.

I know, for movies, Ebert and Rober can pick oscar winners, but 'good'....as in enjoyable and fun movies???? Nah. They keep picking dramatic sticks in the mud and turn thier noses up at movies that I would consider 'fun'.

I don't always read post episode reviews, although there's a set online, Mediasharkx that i've found that i enjoy, simply because the writer seems to also have my opinion and tastes.

I also don't read them because I write them for Arnise over at jackfic and by the time i get around to writing, it's old news and i don't want to read others stuff and have it color what i write.

[ShadowMaat]

I'd much rather read a review that includes a critical analysis of an ep and/or the reviewer's personal opinions of the content rather than, "This ep rocked! Teal'c rocked! Sam rocked! Jack and Daniel rocked! Wooo! STARGATE SOOO ROXX!!!"

If I want to know the bare facts of what happened in the ep, I'll read the summaries. If I want to know how the ep "worked" for people, I'll read a review.

As for Ebert & Roper, I swear they're paid off to say good things about certain movies. Especially since I've seen Ebert, at least, give thumbs-up great reviews of movies which are absolute cr*p.

[Shipperahoy]

Yes, Ebert and Roeper are definately the country club snobs of the movie critic sets. Although they did give 2 thumbs up to Harold and Kumar go to White Castle which pretty much made me fall off my couch in shock.

Anyway, I think that the Gateworld reviewers are doing an excellent job. As has been stated before a critics job is to give his/her opinion and to critique (hence critic) the show. They was what they liked or didn't like and why. The why is important. I've seen some pretty crummy reviews of stuff where the entire review pretty much consists of the person saying why they love it or hate it but with no reason behind it. Pretty much a page of "I hate it because I hate it so there."

[ibwolf]

I tend to read/listen to reviews. I don't pay much heed to their 'bottom line' but since any decent critic explains WHY they do or do not like a movie I'm usually able to figure out if I am likely to enjoy it.

[Skydiver]

exactly. In my opinion, a 'good' reviewer is aware of his/her preferences, likes, dislikes. Acknowledges them, admits them and then gives his/her opinion, letting the reader know where they're coming from.

to me, a 'bad' reviewer is one that just assumes his/her opinion is the only right one, they speak for every single person out there and they're absolutely right

[tera'ngan]

Ok, i understand everyone has thier own respective opinions and such, but everytime i read a review of an episode posted on GW news, i am kind of annoyed on how these reviewers critique the episode. To make things blunt and clear, i just don't like reading them

Then don't read them.

-tera'ngan

[Erik Pasternak]

Let's keep Ebert and Roeper AWAY from GateWorld. THEY ARE BAD!!! Ebert thought "Stargate" was the WORST movie of all time. AHHH!

[Major Fischer]

Let's keep Ebert and Roeper AWAY from GateWorld. THEY ARE BAD!!! Ebert thought "Stargate" was the WORST movie of all time. AHHH!

Thought that was North. At least that's the movie that he wrote the "I hated hated hated hated hated this movie ....." review.

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...07/931635.html

[Erik Pasternak]

EBERT'S STARGATE REVIEW--READ IT HERE

[Major Fischer]

It's a kind review to the movie IMO. Good ideal, not a great flick. The show is much better. But still, he gives it a star. North is still a much worse review.

[UberAeryn]

I thought 'Sacrifices' stank to high heaven and I think my main beef was Jolene Blalock (whom I usually love). In her first SG appearance she was so strong and forceful - but for 'Sacrifices' . . . It was as if she'd taken her twitchy emotional addiction from 'Enterprise' and recycled it for this ep.

I enjoyed Bra'tac, however. I'd read the interview with CJ and he stated that Tony Amendola brought some good beats to the script, and I think that's true.

Now, as far as telling one not to read the reviews if they don't like them - don't be ridiculous. Most people read reviews to obtain another perspective, see if valid points have been made, and find out if they're the only person on the face of the earth to have that opinion, be it good or bad.

[ShadowMaat]

Now, as far as telling one not to read the reviews if they don't like them - don't be ridiculous. Most people read reviews to obtain another perspective, see if valid points have been made, and find out if they're the only person on the face of the earth to have that opinion, be it good or bad.

You would think that people who aren't interested in obtaining other perspectives and who are wholly intolerant of differing viewpoints would be smart enough to avoid exposing themselves to information/opinions that will only upset and anger them. Unfortunately, some people insist on reading things anyway and then get angry at the writers/anyone who agrees with the writers. Thus, others feel compelled to step in and state the obvious.

I didn't bother with Sacrifices, it seemed like yet another overly-emotional plot-deficient episode.

[Martouf84]

BTW what happened to the Endgame review? No one writing it or do we still have to wait?

[MartoufMarty]

EBERT'S STARGATE REVIEW--READ IT HERE

Direct link for the review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...410280308/1023

Ebert sucks.