Some Media Critics

The three critics/orgs I chose:

NYTimes A.O. Scott- http://movies.nytimes.com/movies/critics/A-O-Scott
www.Spill.com
http://www.catholicnews.com/movies.htm

A.O. Scott: When it comes to critics they can talk about nearly anything they want. I like Scott because he talks about the rhythm and pacing of stories and their overall feel rather then just focusing on the plot or a specific aspect of a movie. When I was younger I may have enjoyed something along the lines of what I just described however now that I am more knowledgable in movie making I find the overall picture more interesting.

Spill.com: I came across this through hyperlink clicking and I found it very interesting. The website, from what I can tell, is a collective of four different hosts who do collective critiques on movies. What sets Spill apart is that they do their critiques set to an animated short, it's rather interesting in itself. I chose this critic/webpage because I like how you can get four rather different opinions on a movie. After watching a few of the videos myself I found that I agreed and disagreed with each of the four hosts at one point or another and took their critiques more seriously or frivolously according to our similarities.

http://www.catholicnews.com/movies.htm: This site doesn't click with me, however I do find it very intriguing and insightful (even if insightful means into something I may not believe 100%). For those who do not know the Catholic religion (forgive me for possible incorrect capitalization) has its own rating system for movies in the Media Reviews Office. The system reflects the moral views of The Church (again, capitalization). If you go to http://old.usccb.org/movies/movieall.shtml the ratings are at the bottom. I chose this critic/website because I find it very interesting. If you were to click through some of the movie ratings yourself I think you may agree. Firstly the MPAA ratings do not relate to the Catholic CNS ratings. Secondly some of the plot summaries and highlighted points might seem strange to point out or phrased in a jargon that... actually, yeah makes sense for the Catholic Church. Finally, and what I find the most interesting, is the base for which each system comes from. MPAA is fluid, it has the ability to change and mold with society. CNS is a religion, it is not fluid and is unaffected by the constraints of society. I think it is interesting reading the CNS "moral test"-esqu critiques because I never thought of it from that perspective. (It also brings into perspective on how much society has drifted from "morals" at least in the Catholic Church standard. For ex. The Great Gatsby was harshly rated because of it's general acceptance to adultery... The audience in the theater doesn't really care about that though.)

When it comes to finding specific critics however, I struggled. I searched for a solid day before writing this post. I'm not exactly sure how to come across critics with a similar [personality, driving factor, moral standard, thought process]. I guess the best way is to just keep looking!

Slate Articles on Criticism

I don't read many television reviews or keep up with the top TV critics, my favorite information is the ratings. However I did find Josh Levin's articles interesting and thought provoking. It was nice to get a simple explanation of how television criticism worked. I always assumed that there were different types of critics for television but having Levin use the restaurant analogy helped explain the situation further. I thought it was interesting how critics play a role in a television show. When it comes to Sepinwall I had no idea that Community cameoed him or that he was such an advocate for keeping Chuck alive (thank god he did). It is interesting to find out how shows are affected or effect critics.

I clicked on two links sort of crucial to my understanding of the article. For example one link was when Levin was summing up Sepinwall's career. I had no idea what NYPD Blue was. After clicking on the link I found that it brought me to Sepinwall's website on the show NYPD Blue. It looked very complete and full of information, if I had seen NYPD Blue before I may have been more interested in looking into the website. The second link I want to talk about is the Community link. Sepinwall had a cameo on the NBC show Community and I clicked on that to find out more. Having seen the episode and having a fairly good memory about it I can say that Sepinwall didn't have a large role, but I'm sure it was an exciting experience nonetheless (tying in Levin's concern about objectivity or duty towards a show).

When it comes to responses to this topic everybody has an opinion and a lot of people have voiced it. Looking at the comments from the assigned readings people have a fairly open mind about their opinions and are having discussions in the comments section. (Then there are those people that comment only about Lost...) What I think is important out of the responses is the idea of where the critics are posting from. There are two totally different expectations when you pull an article from NYTimes and The Onion. I'm sure that the reasoning behind this applies to subjective sites that criticize media.

I want to add my own response to Josh Levin's thoughts about television criticism and the idea of critics feeling obligated to say one thing or another based on extraneous experience. I think that Josh Levin and others are too focused on keeping a traditional sense of criticism. When all the cards are down it comes down to what people want to read. Criticism is just a persons opinion in the first place, what adds or subtracts from their opinion is not foul play as long as the reader knows about the factors. In the case of Sepinwall he has openly explained what happened and that he was in an episode of Community. Viewers should understand that his experiences with the show will effect his thoughts ergo writing. People should not scold Sepinwall for having an experience or a change in opinion, it is inhuman to remain the same all the time.

MDIA 3110 Television Lists

Here are my lists:

1) Shows I've been watching since school is out

The Soup, The Office, Community, Archer, Bates Motel, Tosh.0, Hannibal, Survivor (season just ended though), The Following, SNL

2) Shows I watch sometimes because of others

Grimm, Touch

3) Shows I should watch

Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Dr. Who, The Americans

4) Guilty Pleasures

Adventure Time, Burn Notice, Suits

5) All-Time Favorites

Prison Break, Bravest Warriors, 24, Whose Line is it Anyway, Breaking In (cancelled, then restarted, then cancelled again...), Superjail!, The Amazing Race, Breaking Bad, Dexter, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Pretender, Get Smart

6) Shows that have fallen out of my favor

The League, Naruto, Family Guy, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Boardwalk Empire, Psych, Monk

7) Shows I resisted but now watch

The Office, America's Got Talent

8) Rather eat charcoal

Grimm, Glee, American Idol

9) TV shows I have actually stopped in the middle of to re-watch a section that I loved

Community- the moment when Chang first used his name as a pun.

Breaking Bad- Season 4 finale when Walter says on the phone "I won".

The Office- Michael Scott singing Happy Birthday all alone in the woods of Scranton.

Expand/Explain:

#1 Survivor: My family made a habit of watching the shows for the past few years. The show is like a family event that we share every week.

#4 Adventure Time: I feel a little guilty for this show because it's on Cartoon Network and younger kids watch the show. I think that I watch it because of its nostalgic principals and its different dialogue.

#5 Superjail!: I really think this is a good show because of its very intricate fight scenes and its very detailed scenes. I could go without some of the Adult Swim-esque humor but I still think this is a great show.

#6 Psych: I've come to find some of the humor and quick jabs irritating.