"Valid" vs "Invalid" forms of criticism.

[TheAnimationFanatic 3,596]

Entertainment is subjective, especially in the case of MLP, but what do you think constitutes as a valid form of criticism and scrutiny over invalid forms of criticism? How would you define/differentiate the two?

[Here No Longer 5,276]

The only criticism that I say is really invalid is bashing. Like when somebody says an episode is of poor quality without giving a real reason for it. This applies beyond MLP as well, to other shows, and to anything (games, music tracks/scores/songs, movies...) in all honesty.

[Gestum 2,493]

The only real invalid criticism is when someone acts like their personal opinion is fact. You know, stuff like "This movie is bad because it's a comedy and I don't like comedy".

[Metemponychosis 1,262]

You need to put reasons behind your criticism for it to be valid and that is also true of praise.

'I like it' or 'I don't like it', for no reason, isn't valid criticism.

[Goat-kun 2,527]

If entertainment is subjective, then how can any honest criticism be invalid? I'd much rather separate criticism on the subjective criticism, and criticism that tries to be objective by drawing from rules of storytelling and similar examples from other works. Of course, one can express both in one go.

 

 

There are some forms of entertainment like concerts and dancing where rules of movement and sound are paramount. How about an actor's ability to play a character and fake emotions? Can we truly say that there is absolutely no objective criticism to be had in entertainment?

[TheAnimationFanatic 3,596]

To me, saying that a movie/tv show/etc. is bad because something that you wished had happened didn't happen isn't a valid criticism.

Edited April 28, 2019 by TheAnimationFanatic

[Metemponychosis 1,262]

2 minutes ago, TheAnimationFanatic said:

To me, saying that a movie/tv show/etc. is bad because something that you wished had happened didn't happen isn't a valid criticism.

I think it depends. Maybe your criticism is based on your perception that something should've happened because it seems obvious to you that it should. If it doesn't, then it's on the material to provide a good reason why it didn't. It's internal x external coherence. We live in a world where things make sense to us, and so it's sensible to expect that things will happen in a similar way, until the show/movie/whatever provides a reason why it's not so within it's own internal logic.

Of course, I feel like I should say that one issue doesn't make the whole thing go bad.

[TheAnimationFanatic 3,596]

Just now, Metemponychosis said:

I think it depends. Maybe your criticism is based on your perception that something should've happened because it seems obvious to you that it should. If it doesn't, then it's on the material to provide a good reason why it didn't. It's internal x external coherence. We live in a world where things make sense to us, and so it's sensible to expect that things will happen in a similar way, until the show/movie/whatever provides a reason why it's not so within it's own internal logic.

Of course, I feel like I should say that one issue doesn't make the whole thing go bad.

Say a character does something that is illogical but in character for them. Complaining about them not doing the logical thing would be invalid since it's in character to make a mistake like that.

[Metemponychosis 1,262]

44 minutes ago, TheAnimationFanatic said:

Say a character does something that is illogical but in character for them. Complaining about them not doing the logical thing would be invalid since it's in character to make a mistake like that.

Yes. It's internally logical consistent, because the material has given you reason to believe that the specific character would do 'the wrong thing' in that situation.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Metemponychosis

[Sepul-Coloratura 762]

For me, if something (TV show or any kind of entertainment) contradicts itself by failing to fulfill the premise which has been established by itself, or fails to establish anything at all in the first place, it's bad entertainment. There are logical explanations and theories to find what is good entertainment and what is bad, but of course sometimes it is very hard to do. But it also doesn't mean everything is meaningless or everything is subjective so there is no rules or standards to anything.

Everybody has a different opinion, it's a constant argument of persuading others and make your point come across. It can be refuted by other more solid opinion, but just saying nothing matters because "it is just your opinion"? Well, that's just your opinion. Sometimes opinions can be right. Whoever giving an opinion has to back it up with logic, others refuting has to do it with logic too.

The logic of argument is similar to how I said about differentiating good entertainment to bad. The person has to establish a premise, make it internally logical and back it up with some examples so make it externally logical as well, and put MLP (or whatever entertainment) in it. Others refuting that should either establish a new premise that can replace or succeed the premise better than before, or a better premise with more solid logic. Or refute it by pointing out the flaws. Eventually they can choose or combine the two to make a stronger premise.

If someone just simply says an opinion in a realm of simple expressions like "I liked it because Pinkie!" or "I disliked it because it felt boring.", then it is just that. No need to try to debate with that. Just say "Oh, good for you." or "I liked it too!" or something like that.

So finding out which is a valid or invalid argument is up to all of us. Finding that out itself is an argument.

[Rebel the Wolfgirl 5,605]

 

This sums up my thoughts nicely.

[RDDash 19,191]

In all of my experience people don't like to be criticized, yes I know it's a shocker. (And that includes fictional works they helped to create).

[Misty Shadow 7,937]

Valid criticism is grounded in facts, invalid criticism is grounded in lies and feelings, simple as that. Look over every 'professionally written' negative review you've read about something you once thought was good, and tell me which reviews changed your mind about it. The ones that pointed out legitimate flaws you subconsciously overlooked because you wanted to believe that thing was good, or the ones that took stuff from that thing out of context while going on about how they feel about things that aren't even relevant to it. 

[SharpWit 2,689]

In the instance that opinions are asked for, then everything thereafter is valid.

I think pretty much everything else has been covered.

[TheAnimationFanatic 3,596]

Just now, CloudMistDragon said:

Valid criticism is grounded in facts, invalid criticism is grounded in lies and feelings, simple as that. Look over every 'professionally written' negative review you've read about something you once thought was good, and tell me which reviews changed your mind about it. The ones that pointed out legitimate flaws you subconsciously overlooked because you wanted to believe that thing was good, or the ones that took stuff from that thing out of context while going on about how they feel about things that aren't even relevant to it. 

An excellent argument, but nearly review of a movie/tv show is based on the writer's subjective tastes and feelings. People judge entertainment on different standards and go in with different baggage.

For example, someone who served in the military might positively connect with "Newbie Dash". Whereas someone else might have been rubbed the wrong way by it. One person might see it as a realistic portrayal of hazing, but the other might see it as bullying because it reminds them of something traumatic in their life. An introverted person might relate to "Hurricane Fluttershy" more than an extrovert. 

Both perspectives are valid.

[Jeric 46,854]

The only invalid criticism is one based on complete inaccuracies. Saying I love MLP because Dinosaurs are my favorite, or I hate Star Wars because of what they did to Cylons are two absurd examples. Most everything else is valid. Even incorrect statements misidentifying narrative elements like deus-ex-machina can be valid.

There are plenty of media elements that you can “bash” quite legitimately. I’ve seen, heard, and played some real bad shit and I’ll be damned if I say a nice thing about these items. It’s smug and pretentious to consider a scathing review or cirque as somehow unworthy of validation. 

12 minutes ago, CloudMistDragon said:

Valid criticism is grounded in facts, invalid criticism is grounded in lies and feelings, simple as that. Look over every 'professionally written' negative review you've read about something you once thought was good, and tell me which reviews changed your mind about it. The ones that pointed out legitimate flaws you subconsciously overlooked because you wanted to believe that thing was good, or the ones that took stuff from that thing out of context while going on about how they feel about things that aren't even relevant to it. 

A story is not calculus. The elements of style and technique change so radically over time for starters. Also a good segment of art is predicated on what emotions you feel from it. Early German cinema was all about emotional tone. 

[ShootingStar159 2,157]

37 minutes ago, TheAnimationFanatic said:

An excellent argument, but nearly review of a movie/tv show is based on the writer's subjective tastes and feelings. People judge entertainment on different standards and go in with different baggage.

You’re confusing opinions with criticism, by associating Critics with criticism exclusively.

Critics can be critical and give criticism, but I believe most of them would admit that most of what they have to offer on an art form is just their opinion on the matter. That doesn’t mean objective criticism isn’t real just because most critics rely on opinions to arrive at a conclusion.

The example of Newbie Dash is a good one. There are lots of reasons that can be given for why someone might not like the episode, but is there anything about the episode that would make it badly written?

Well, there’s no plot holes or contrivances that exist to keep the story moving. No one’s acting out of character to create the issue. There’s no lore ignorance or retcons to fit the story. From a critical aspect, Newbie Dash is a story that works within the setting and doesn’t break any established facts.

There is no such thing as a valid or invalid opinion. There is absolutely a valid or invalid criticism, and that’s because a criticism is an argument backed up with facts that arrives at a conclusion. But that conclusion can be wrong, it can gets facts incorrect, it can ignore or be ignorant of story elements that weaken or disprove their conclusion. It can even be an opinion masquerading as a fact based argument.

The biggest problem with this entire debate of “valid or invalid” is that people have trouble differentiating facts from opinions, and the subjective nature of art doesn’t do them any favors.

[Misty Shadow 7,937]

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

A story is not calculus. The elements of style and technique change so radically over time for starters. Also a good segment of art is predicated on what emotions you feel from it. Early German cinema was all about emotional tone. 

But I wasn't saying that reviews had to be 100% objective. I was only referring to invalid criticism, which is never grounded in facts and truth. For example, you point out an "inconsistency" in a work that actually is explained, that is an invalid criticism.  

[MangoFoalix 25,029]

This has almost nothing to do with MLP, so with that I will be moving it to a category more suited for this kind of discussion.

[Jeric 46,854]

2 hours ago, CloudMistDragon said:

But I wasn't saying that reviews had to be 100% objective. I was only referring to invalid criticism, which is never grounded in facts and truth. For example, you point out an "inconsistency" in a work that actually is explained, that is an invalid criticism.  

No. That would be a valid criticism explained or communicated incorrectly. If someone dislikes an element of a story and uses the wrong terminology, it doesn’t invalidate what they disliked. The criticism is valid, the use of the word to describe the criticism is wrong. There is a clear distinction between the two. As far as the nebulous use of facts, that is a bit oversimplification. 

“That movie was ridiculous because John Smith betrays his brother. I don’t feel he would ever betray him”, is a statement grounded in fact, but not exclusively fact. Most opinions incorporate some element of factual statement, even if it is implicit. It is only when the sole fact is erroneous that it becomes invalid, as I explained above. 

So would you agree that the incorporation of “feeling” cannot invalidate an opinion as long as the opinion is not based on incorrect or erroneous statements?

[Misty Shadow 7,937]

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

So would you agree that the incorporation of “feeling” cannot invalidate an opinion as long as the opinion is not based on incorrect or erroneous statements?

Yes. I'm not unaware of the fact that reviews are opinions and should reflect the feelings of the writer, I just think that telling lies based purely on emotions in reviews is inexcusable. If you were to mislead someone by expressing contempt for a story based on something that actually does not happen in the story, that's invalid criticism to me. 

[TBD 17,256]

Valid criticism is based around facts with an proper explanation while invalid is just simply..

 

[EpicEnergy 23,222]

I think that hypercriticism is an invalid form of criticism and constructive criticism is a valid form of criticism. Also, I don't think the inclusion of subjectivity in one's criticism in and of itself would invalidate the criticism.