Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apolog
Message-ID: <3200012@ccvaxa>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 12:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.3200012
Posted: Tue Sep 17 12:10:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:06:17 EDT
References: <2868@ut-sally.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:ut-sally.UUCP:-286800:ccvaxa:3200012:000:1261
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Sep 17 11:10:00 1985


> [1]  To make a statement about the inherent ridiculousness of the movie
> review itself.   Each viewer has a unique response to a movie, based on
> his or her unique set of preferences, biases, and tastes ... and yet
> some people -- sometimes one's friends and sometimes pseudo-oracles
> called Critics -- presume to predict how others will respond.  If a
> single person can have two different reactions to a movie on two
> different days, how can a Critic predict how millions will respond?
> And other artsy- fartsy bullshit.  /* Written  1:02 am  Sep 12, 1985 by
> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.movies */
----------
I don't ask or allow critics to choose movies for me, but I consider
the opinions of particular critics in deciding what I want to see,
along with a lot of other factors.  I don't know about you, but I don't
have the time or the energy to see everything.  A critic should give
enough factual information, in addition to her opinions, to allow
the reader to make an informed guess as to whether the movie is
likely to be interesting.  Too many critics do seem to think that their
opinions are all that matter and that they can judge what is worth
seeing, rather than just what they like.

-- 
scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com