Seriously, I see so many people criticize others. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. But what does it give to the critics themselves?
To clarify my answer I want to mention 3 types of critics I've learned to differ:
1) - One of the crowd - an ordinary user/client/audience. Someone who, in our example, just watches movies. Those people are our target audience and they can say if they liked the movie or they didn't. They can explain "why" and "why not", and can suggest something to improve. We listen them only when many of them say similar things. I'm NOT talking about discussing movies with friends.
2) - Personal experience - Filmmakers - screenwriters/directors/producers/operators/etc. They see you making mistakes they have done before, and tell you what you should avoid, or give you advises of what you can do to improve. They look at the general idea, using the "Zoom Out" look, and tend to drop some technical details.
3) - Aggressive teacher - Some have personal experience, some don't, but they always tend to teach you. Some teach you good things, some mislead you. They look more at technical details, using the "Zoom In" look, and tend to leave the global idea route. They are aggressive, because they begin with aggressive critics, that drop the author's self-confidence. Then, when the author is fully disappointed at his work, the critic start speaking calmly, ans starts giving his own solutions. Some solutions can help, some can mislead. But the author WILL listen to everything the latter says, because that critic has become a Messiah for him. In other words, the author becomes a Pawn.
As you can see, there are 3 types of critics, which probably serve different causes. My question is what exactly those causes are? What a man who watches movies earns if he criticizes a movie on blogs/forums? What a filmmaker earns? What an "aggressive teacher" earns? What will I earn?
To clarify my answer I want to mention 3 types of critics I've learned to differ:
1) - One of the crowd - an ordinary user/client/audience. Someone who, in our example, just watches movies. Those people are our target audience and they can say if they liked the movie or they didn't. They can explain "why" and "why not", and can suggest something to improve. We listen them only when many of them say similar things. I'm NOT talking about discussing movies with friends.
2) - Personal experience - Filmmakers - screenwriters/directors/producers/operators/etc. They see you making mistakes they have done before, and tell you what you should avoid, or give you advises of what you can do to improve. They look at the general idea, using the "Zoom Out" look, and tend to drop some technical details.
3) - Aggressive teacher - Some have personal experience, some don't, but they always tend to teach you. Some teach you good things, some mislead you. They look more at technical details, using the "Zoom In" look, and tend to leave the global idea route. They are aggressive, because they begin with aggressive critics, that drop the author's self-confidence. Then, when the author is fully disappointed at his work, the critic start speaking calmly, ans starts giving his own solutions. Some solutions can help, some can mislead. But the author WILL listen to everything the latter says, because that critic has become a Messiah for him. In other words, the author becomes a Pawn.
As you can see, there are 3 types of critics, which probably serve different causes. My question is what exactly those causes are? What a man who watches movies earns if he criticizes a movie on blogs/forums? What a filmmaker earns? What an "aggressive teacher" earns? What will I earn?
Last edited:
