The Dirty Little Secret Of Reviews

I’m sure I’ve written on this topic before, but many years ago, and some people are new here. It’s an interesting topic to revisit in light of the current state of the reviewing community and the current TV/streaming and movie discussion. Let’s talk critics.

Full disclosure of course: I technically am one. I’m not a professional, but that’s because I don’t get paid for this. WordPress gets the ad revenue for free hosting, my Amazon Affiliate links were so unused that Amazon kicked me off, the Paypal never gets used, I haven’t sold anything through the Clutter For Sale section of my other site in years, and while Clip Studio at one point wanted me to post an affiliate link because I use it for my comic work, I wasn’t sure WordPress would let me after they made changes to the service. YouTube decided I wasn’t popular enough to stay monetized, and Maker Studios destroyed Blip so they could use the assets to look pretty for the johns at Disney to buy it. I do this to make myself a better storyteller and because I’ve gotten to do some cool things because of this site. So I am definitely not in this for the money…though if I did make money from this I could focus more on it.

So let’s talk about the ones that are.

In the 1980s there were review shows, or morning talk shows that would have a movie review segment. I remember when Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, two movie reviewers for rival Chicago newspapers, had a show on PBS called Sneak Previews, where they would play movie clips and discuss the movie they saw. They got popular enough that they turned their show over to two other critics to start a syndicated series, Siskel & Ebert At The Movies, which underwent a few host changes when the two originals each passed away from different medical problems. This was before someone set up a bunch of tubes to create the internet, before YouTube existed, and before websites existed that only discussed entertainment. You had to get your news and reviews out of newspapers, magazines, and Entertainment Tonight.

We now live in the early decades of a new century. Any putz can start a website or host a video on YouTube. You’re reading the rambling of one such putz right now. Unlike me, many of them have gone on to be popular, and some other people don’t like it. Of course it’s about going after the popular spouters of opinions you disagree with. For example, around the time of this writing members of Nerdrotic’s “Friday Night Tights fellowship”, including Nerdrotic host and webmaster Gary Buecher and fellow FNT panelists like Ryan Kinnell and Jeremy Griggs of Geeks & Gamers, were reported to YouTube for violations of service that YouTube themselves did not find. The reason is their dislike of The Acolyte among other shows approved by the pro-“inclusion” crowd (actually the “everything for meeeeeeeeeee” crowd who hate something popular not catering to them) but disliked by the Star Wars and other franchises’ fanbases (which includes members of the same groups the crowd claims to speak for). Their reasoning is that it was the reviews of people of the “Fellowship” turning people away from the shows with their negative reviews and ruining the fun for those who enjoy the show.

However, what one needs to realize when it comes to these reviews is something many reviewers try to hide, many websites insist doesn’t happen, and no matter how much we who review things in article and videos try to work around it, is still looming there. We’re all biased as hell! For example, I will admit right now that I enjoy Friday Night Tights, but I don’t always agree with everybody there. The secret is they totally admit to what they are if you actually watch. Now you know my bias you can decide if you want to continue as I make my point. If not, that’s fine. Plenty of other articles, comics, and videos on the site for you, or find someone you enjoy. This is for the open-minded and the biased alike.

Sure, we can look at the technical aspects and point out good cinematography, excellent art and animation, gameplay that’s either really fun or really boring (or just really bugged out in the case of another Star Wars property, the recently released Outlaws game), but when it comes to the actual enjoyment of the property as a whole, bias is going to play a factor. Go back to Siskel & Ebert. They were clearly biased towards different types of movies. Some they agreed on. Others they fought each other to show off their disagreements.

By the way, Roger Ebert co-wrote the screenplay for Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, which according to a review of it I watched ends with a transvestite going on a murder spree of the orgy they were hosting because a 1970s prototype dudebro made fun of their body. So don’t tell me you can’t make a review if you can’t make quality stuff. He made that, and yet Ebert continues to have his reviews looked upon favorably by cinephiles and back then by regular movie goers deciding whether or not to see a movie. Not watching that one.

Both Siskel and Ebert had their own perspectives, and that’s why we tuned in to watch. (Also because it’s fun to watch friends argue without ruining their friendship–if you wanted the fistfights you went to Morton Downey, Jr or Jerry Springer.) People politely yet loudly arguing with each other due to their own media tastes is nothing new, and wasn’t even when their PBS show started. They had such a profound impact on rating things that even YouTube follows their thumb up/down rating system rather than a numerical or letter ranking. (I’m still trying to figure out how “S” is one step higher in rank than “A” if you follow the English alphabet.) We knew at least one of them might share our taste in movies, or maybe they don’t and we can find ourselves liking what they don’t. Yes, it’s possible to see a negative review and be drawn to see or buy it. I’ll give you a personal non-story example. This video is a bit long but I put it here for context.

Transformers toy reviewer Optibotimus hated the Mini-Con Assault Team, a remaining trio of Mini-Cons that was released in the Transformers Universe line instead of one of the Unicron Trilogy lines. He thought they were weird and cheap looking. However, the more he showed them off, the cooler they looked to me, even with Heavy Tred’s brick body and the weird gap in Centurion’s combined body. When I finally got my own and did a review for The Clutter Reports I overall enjoyed them. Then again, Optibotimus admitted he didn’t interact a lot with the Mini-Cons in the Armada, Energon, and Cybertron toylines, while readers of The Clutter Reports know I love my Mini-Con Army and wish the fiction had fully utilized the gimmick. I understood how to transform Mini-Cons, and this wasn’t the first Combiner team to for a larger robot among the Mini-Cons. I didn’t even usually disagree with his reviews, but in this case we did. They’re one of my favorite Mini-Con Combiners, but only three of them had robot combinations. The others were larger weapons.

In the same vein I disagree with TJOmega, a reviewer I’ve supported numerous times on this very site and still enjoy, with his insistence that robot modes have no alt mode bits or that Combiners need to be uniform when combined, and we’re are very much on opposite points of view on EarthSpark and the IDW comic runs even though we agree more often than not. Even when we don’t I find the reviews interesting and informative. You can learn things even from reviews you don’t agree with if the review gives their reasons why they like or don’t like something they’re reviewing.

People usually seek out reviewers who share their tastes and preferences. The “Fellowship” is made up of reviewers who share those tastes, and they come together on livestream to share those views with more people who share those tastes. They don’t always agree with each other. (Apparently Shad Brooks of often used Daily Video fodder Shadiversity is a huge Twilight fan.) I don’t always agree with their assessments, but I do more often that I don’t (plus there are usually around nine or ten panellists so odds are I’m going to agree with or at least enjoy the commentary of someone–RIP Az, who is still on one of Gary’s other podcasts, so the Nerdrotic Cinematic Universe is a mess). Having seen enough of their videos and streams I know they disagree with The Acolyte based on their love of Star Wars and distrust of modern Hollywood story goals rather than any issue with the performers. I still maintain Osha is the anti-Mara Jade. Meanwhile, those who were trying to get them demonetized were just happy that the show now catered to what they wanted to see rather than what fans wanted to see, a debate I’ll save for a more related commentary. They went to reviewers who wanted the same thing or were just happy to see the name on something, and even some of the latter had trouble defending the show near the end. So instead of Ryan Kinnel they might go to Grace Randolph.

Apparently, public opinion tends to side with the Fellowship and other reviewers who share their perspective. Formerly popular websites like IGN, Kotaku, and CBR are now seen as “shills”, looking more for those exclusive previews and interviews than actually giving fans an unbiased look at upcoming movies, shows, comics, and games. In other words, they’re accused of having a bias for a personal end. The Fellowship and other YouTube channels that both agree and disagree with them are gaining traction because they come off more genuine, more willing to admit their biases than the mainstream sites who act like their word is accurate and bias-free, and these “negative” sources of reviews should be shut down. Yes, the Fellowship is totally biased. So am I. So are these sites who claim not to be. That’s human nature.

My review of this book will forever haunt this site, but I wanted to see if it’s as bad as people say. Turns out it’s worse.

We have our own perspectives, and even if you match a person with the right project (like an RPG review done by someone who actually enjoys or at least understands role-playing games in video game or tabletop forms) their points of view will differ. They may prefer a superhero story to one where you play vampires or cyberpunk to high-fantasy settings. We’re all biased, and the general audience is also biased. They’ll gravitate to the ones who share those opinions, in the belief that their review will be more in line with their tastes and are thus, if not trustworthy, then at least allowing them to form their own opinion as to whether or not to check it out on their own. To insist that somehow a Nerdrotic video will change a pro-Disney Wars fan into a raving Lucas-only rage is just silly unless you think the audience is really that stupid and that gullible…and thinking that is why they fail.

Reviews these days have changed from the days of Siskel & Ebert, or even the days of the Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd, where the reviewer played characters while giving reviews of things they didn’t like. Even then have tried to find comedy in what they enjoy. Those are reviews for entertainment while Fellowship and anti-Fellowship alike fight for what they want to see in media, or court this or that creator for whatever reason they may have. Are they doing it for money? Yes, but that doesn’t mean any of them past or present aren’t honest about their views or that they don’t care about the fans they’re more familiar with. Buechler even hosts fan gatherings around the country and even internationally because they find him honest and approachable. He’s like them, never ignored his past (he owned a comic shop–we know, Gary–but also did time in prison for drug use, an experience he’s currently writing a book about), and never hides his biases. You know what you’re getting with him, and he’s pretty easy to ignore. Don’t watch his channel or visit his website. Or actually do and see what he actually says versus what his critics tell you he says.

I’ve gotten to interview relatively famous people from Billy Tucci and Landry Walker to Frank McLaughlin and Larry Kenney. I’ve always been fair to them (though I was unprepared for the Kenney interview and I probably annoyed him), and Walker actually did a check on me during the 2016 mess when I wasn’t posting much due to being in the hospital. That’s a friend I wouldn’t have made without this site, and there are others I’ve made because of the things I did due to this site, including my brief time with Reviewers Unknown. I’ve gotten to attend press junkets and panels with actors from Star Trek (two links there), Battlestar Galactica, Power Rangers, The NeverEnding Story (my favorite movie), and Team Four Star, among other stars only popular online. What I lacked in money I made up for in experiences. However, none of these were why I started this site. I just didn’t want to flood other people’s comments with paragraphs of commentary anymore, so I started my own site instead. I clearly had a lot I want to say, and still do even though I’m still not making money and those experiences are now harder to come by with no income.

Yes, whether they admit it or not, every reviewer is biased. EVERY. Reviewer. EVER! Some of us just admit to them more. Find the people who agree with you, but also see what the other side says versus what you’re told they say. Trying to understand their point of view won’t change yours, but by knowing where they’re coming from (honest or dishonest as that might be) will help you decide which reviewers will more likely match up with your tastes and thus whether or not you want to waste what little time you have in the day to that experience. “We watch it so you don’t have to” isn’t a bad thing, as you’ll know whether or not you enjoy it. And if the reviews are entertaining on their own, positive or negative, then so much the better. Siskel and Ebert were as entertaining in their reviews as they were biased to their preferred movies and worldviews, and that was the secret to their success. Nobody tried to cancel them.