well I respect the opinions of true reviewers because they carry the burden of responsibility (the concept of all opinions holding a power and hence one should be careful with them as opinions changes the world around them) with reasoning to hold their claims. until I get said reasoning, I just can't respect it. Something that just seems like an alien concept to most people and to my ire
Just because something gets a bad review doesn't mean it's bad or good. What is a true reviewer in your eyes? Which in it's self is an opinion. Reviewers only have on advantage over other people and that is that they are heard. Look at things like MovieBob, AVGN, yahtzee, IGN, gamespot, even people like TAA and Mr.repzion. Just because they are heard doesn't make their review(opinion of the porduct) right. -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
moviebob=not a reviewer avgn=now a *squee!*. In the early days he was a reviewer. until he found out his hate reviewing was entertaining. Yahtzee=just a **** that rants IGN-paid off gamespot=also paid off. you need to look at actual reviewers man. like in the newspapers and magazines. reviewing is an opinion but it is an objective viewpoint reasoning the pros and cons to eventually come to a cohesive conclusion.
Magazines are just printed opinions. All the people I mention review something in some form. Just because their view or form isn't liked doesn't make their opinion anything but that, an opinion. If I said to you make a review of the green lantern film and I would do the same. Do you think we would review it the same? I doubt it because our opinions on it differ. -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
lets put it this way. no one in the gaming community listens to these reviews for the opinions. Moviebob? there are a whole range of critics and reviewers published in big movie magazines that many movie goers go to read. Why? because every single one of them knows their stuff (because the readers know their stuff). If they didn't they would be fired then and there.
I say screw the reviews and opinions. As a response to this thread. I don't think the fandom has reached its brink. Yet.
They know their opinions of the product they just viewed. Lets do a little review here. I'll post two pictures and we all review them. Review both of these anyway you want. I'll make a post myself reviewing them. -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
First pic. Has a little sketchy eye boundaries, little shadow/lighting is seen, and the mane does not have much in the way of layering, apart from the back end. With that said, the simplistic feel of the face is nice, the fading gradients in the mane do show an element of lighting and/or dynamic colours. Second pic. The highlights in the mane are well defined, and the layering, pointing-in-all-directions type of look gives a anime sort of feel. Shading is used effectively, and has quite varying amounts of it, giving a sense of realism. The thing that catches my attention the most is probably the eyes, and the emotion expressed from them. Thats the best I got, sorry.
like I said on the original post. It's still young but its at a stage where the action of bronies now will decisively effect the outcome later.
this is critique guys... the purpose of a review is to promote or demote something through your opinion.
First picture I know the artist that drew this and really I look more at the artist enjoyment then the final product. The eyes are a little off and the mane is just a mess. The artist had a ball making this picture I give it a 7/10 Second picture Once again I know the artist, this one Is a little hate centered on his art. The mane and hightlights add a nice touch to the character. The emotion shown shows that at least she is happy. Some of the lines are a little think and the artist self hate brings it down a bit. I give it a 7/10 It's still a review of the overall product, there for review AKA opinion. Lets try a song then. Pick one. -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
Waiting on that song. Maybe I should pick one or let another member pick -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
See here is a common misconception. The above is is indeed true, but facts are so easily mistaken as opinion all too often. This is why evidence is usually given to "validate" the opinion. I've looked into theology a lot and the whole atheist vs theist thing. Interesting thing to get your head around. So let me show the biggest misconception in this battle. "Science does not hold all the answers. Hence God is better, because he provides everything"-opinion. why? baseless. Bible? can the bible be proven true? nope. Hence the bible is baseless. "Science. It works."-fact. why? provable. through thought experiment, mathematics and if you have the money, actual physical experimentation. easy enough right? now lets get tricky. "Science does not presume to know all the answers." fact, sounds like an opinion however. Scientist follow the process of claim and then test. If proven false, the theory is false. If true it is true. and scientists are even open to the idea of being wrong. of EINSTEIN HIMSELF being wrong, IF PROVEN TO BE SO. now lets think about this in this context. now. what is fact. now. what is opinion? I freakin' HATE it, when people that just don't give just a little bit of thought into something and just label fact as opinion just because they truly can't get their head around it. Hence in things like film theory. A movie is reviewed as rubbish because of the science (metaphorically) behind cinema. How lets say, a master work like gone with the wind or citizen kane (seen as "perfect" with the following reasons of which many a film historian has written books about) is compared to today's movies. A film review involves How years of film theory (learning from film history) is put into it with each frame, each angle, each line of dialogue, the acting, the lighting, etc. etc. shows you a movie. If you think a real film review is just an "opinion" then frankly I'd just wanna throw a book at you. a film review is an educated objective observation of the product by which case the reviewer forms an opinion (it is still true reviews hold opinions) ON THE BASIS of the standards given by their knowledge of quality film through knowledge of theory, cinematography, history, etc. and decides whether to promote or demote the said product. now lets get to the point. Is the opinion of a reviewer fact? Good reviewers are respected because their opinions are formed on the basis of facts. e.i (assume reasons+examples are given) the writing is bad, the cinematography is awful and actors can't act, hence this film is awful. This is fact. the opinion is the film is bad but because of the given reasons, it is fact. I really can't believe I had to elaborate this much. seriously people.
So basically, you just agreed with me, while masterfully injecting several more topics for discussion. Well done. As much as I hate do do so, however, I will take the bait you have offered up. Particularly I find your views on Theology interesting. I am a Christian, and I am proud to admit it. The problem with your points stated above is that you are arguing both sides, while obviously being biased towards one. I will start by stating the biggest problem with Christianity, and Religion in general. It thinks it has to fight science. Why? I don't know. Christianity and Atheism only butt heads over one issue, which is the existence of a greater being. Why, then, did both Christians and Atheists feel the need to try and prove the other wrong where before it was generally agreed that they were right? Most of the time, Christians and Atheists resist each other simply because they have been mistaught. Christians are taught that atheists are godless scientists who represent sin, blah blah blah. Atheists are taught that Christians are religious nuts who think everyone should believe in god, blah blah blah. It's all so much crap. I have never claimed that Christianity holds all the answers. Nothing on earth holds all the answers; searching for something that does is fruitless. Both Science and Theology will continue going nowhere in the end. But that's not the point of Christianity; sadly, many "Christians" don't understand this. Also, if you do your research, there is very little conclusive evidence in regards to the Bible at all. You cannot really say that it has been proven right or wrong. Therefore, you may either take what it says, or leave it. Your choice. "Science works." It's a fact. So? Just because science works does not imply that religion doesn't. This says nothing. "Science does not presume to know all the answers." No, they don't. Obviously. As I stated before, anything claiming to know all the answers is false. Answers, however, are different from solutions. And very often, Science in general is only open to being wrong if the majority of the scientists agree it should be wrong. There are many instances of discoveries being ignored because they did not suit the rest of the world. Humans see only what they want to most of the time. Anyways, I will end by saying that the main reason Science and Religion don't get along is because they don't bother to actually look at the other and attempt to understand it. I apologize sincerely for getting so far off topic, but I feel that I have explained myself well enough now.
