When people think watching an internet critic's review of something gives them an informed opinion

Myrmidon

Or at least more of an informed opinion than someone who has seen/watched/read/played/ate whatever the reviewer was reviewing.

It's really annoying when someone gets into a debate over whether the Angry Nostalgic Spoon Guy(NOT AN ACTUAL INTERNET REVIEWER) was being fair in his review of something and people who just saw the review think they know what they're talking about based on some guy on the internet describing the media thing in question and attempting to make memes out of a few clips.

Zennistrad

Most people don't have the time to watch every single work of media that gets talked about online, so the best they can do to inform themselves is watch reviews.

Myrmidon

Well yes but surely it goes person who has never heard of thing

Malkavian

It might be they find the reviewer's opinion on the piece more trustworthy than the person complaining.

Noimporta

Most people don't have the time to watch every single work of media that gets talked about online, so the best they can do to inform themselves is watch reviews.

It's perfectly valid to decide to avoid something because of a review (that's pretty much what they're for, besides entertainment value, in some cases), but if all you know about something is what you heard/saw/read in a review (particularly a comedy one), then you really shouldn't be discussing the work at all.

ninjaclown

What exactly qualifies someone to be an "actual" reviewer anyway? What makes people think "professional" reviewers are more qualified than anyone else, when their preferences are different or they have no familiarity with the work in question? (Roger Ebert and what he thinks about video games comes to mind, brrrrr.) I tend to doubt "actual" or "professional" reviewers when they have bias or no familiarity towards reviewing their subject matter, or when there might be a conflict of interest (like reviewers getting paid to write positively or Sony hiring a guy to pretend to be a reviewer to review their games positively) if anything the lack of professional affiliation allows common folk to level the playing field. Just a thought.

You are free to think, agree or disagree about anything, so there is no such difference "actual" or "not actual".

Noimporta

What makes people think "professional" reviewers are more qualified than anyone else, when their preferences are different or they have no familiarity with the work in question?

Well, in the case of Roger Ebert, he has like 30 something years of experience, having seen an incredibly vast amount of films and also won a Pullitzer.

His opinion on games is dumb, sure, but, you know...

 

Central Avenue

For me, the distinction of "actual" reviewer has less to do with whether or not they're professional or whatever and more with the purpose they have in mind. That is to say, I distinguish between critics who are attempting to provide a genuine critique of a movie on its own merits and the comedic sort of reviewers who like to scream on-camera about how bad a movie is for entertainment value.

Mind you, I enjoy the latter at times, and they do often raise valid criticisms, but I feel it's important to keep in mind that they deliberately portray the movies unfavorably for comedic effect. Someone like the Nostalgia Critic is a comedian first and foremost, after all.

Super Lazuli

all I have to say about this subject is fuck The Needle Drop

thank you for your time.

Counterclock

So basically, nonsensical asshats are repeating verbatim something they've heard without putting any kind of thought behind it and you're bothered by this. That's not too bad.

MillerCross

What makes people think "professional" reviewers are more qualified than anyone else, when their preferences are different or they have no familiarity with the work in question?

For what is worth, Ebert himself has expressed this exact thought numerous times. 

 

As I explained before, I think there's an objective quality to media as well as purely a subjective one. Your enjoyment of X doesn't deter away from X not being well constructed. At the same time, X not being well-constructed does not detract from your enjoyment of it (Probably)

 

After all, enjoyment comes first and foremost from personal appeal rather than quality in and of itself. 

 

Which means that in the end, critics are often evaluated because of their insight into the construction of a work. 

 

The big problem, though, is how often critics are people who don't have much involvement in the creative process of whatever media they review. (See: Music critics who don't know much about music in the first place and often rely on abstraction in order to explain how they feel about X or Y)