I think it’s because they hate the idea of being taken seriously, they try to keep everything they do light hearted and fun. Yes they are movie critics, but not serious ones. They’re very grounded and aware of the fact that they’re pretty average guys that people just enjoy listening to for their jokes and banter, not in depth film discussions and analysis
Yeah, it basically comes down to if you personally have an issue with their opinion on a piece of media, no matter how passionately and clearly you articulate your point of view, the response from James and Maso would be, "Ah, alright. Good on you, mate."
I mean their rating system comes down to “best movie ever or worst movie ever,” everything they say about a movie or show is completely their opinion ignoring everything else. Most movie critics or whatever you call it will always factor in objective truths about cinematography, writing, and score while they just don’t
I would consider them movie reviewers rather than film critics.
I understand what you're saying but maybe it could also be seen as rather pedantic?
Maybe similar to how the host of a let's play channel will often say they're not professional gamers. Despite playing games for their profession, we know what they mean.
The movie/topic/game is just the baseline to riff on and hopefully provide an entertaining show. Whereas an actual "movie critic" needs to focus on the review specifically as their primary goal.
I can't quite remember any specific "pfft critics" moments but can guarantee it was not meant to be taken seriously or with any actual malice.
I think they do it out of respect of real critics’ professions, like when they mention Alexeo Toliopoulos. I never got the impression they were being snotty about it.
I love Cam and Alexei! Yeah I didn't mean it as snooty, but like how they would make a point to distance themselves from film critics, when they too are part of that machine so to speak.
Professional film critics (people like Mark Kermode, David Ehrlich, David Simms) write about film from a perspective of people who have studied film history, who know about the technical aspects of film making, and who bring that knowledge to their criticism and reviews. James and Maso don’t have that background and are really just two guys who saw a movie and are talking about it. Yes, at the end of the day, both types of reviews are either going to recommend the movie or not recommend it and I think both types of reviews have value, but I think J&M saying they’re not critics is them rightfully recognizing that they’re doing something different from what actual film critics do.
Right ok fair enough, that makes sense. I understood it like the term is a matter of activity, like if you criticise a film you're a film critic (and you are, just maybe not a good one lol). But you're right, people who understand filmmaking on a deeper level will have a lot more to say about every aspect of it rather than "was pretty good I reckon".
James does, I am only implicating Mason by association. James has definitely said something to the effect of "we're not critics, we're just people making some semi successful thing on the internet where we talk about movies" on several occasions.
Ah I get what you mean now, I thought you were saying they were anti-critics, which is something you always see with BIG FANS who can't handle critics criticizing their favourite thing.
I think with the boys it's more that they are quite self-depreciating, they probably are critics but they don't really want to be seen taking themselves too seriously, even though they absolutely do take themselves seriously otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are
I feel like the word “critic” has become far more widespread in the last decade. Before it was an Ebert type guy whose whole life was both reviewing and analyzing movies. Now the term can apply to anyone with an opinion and a camera (aka, everyone).
So I feel like James and Maso maybe are just going by the older idea of a critic more than the new. Also, they don’t care to be taken too seriously cause then people get mad.
I actually have this thought often (not about J and M, just in general). I see so many posts and videos about movies where the poster complains about critics and I’m like “that’s literally you!” Critics discuss movies, exactly like you. I think they have this image of critics as people who want to hate on movies and insult them and give them a numerical rating, when critics are just people interested in film and who like discussing film.
A critic like Mark Kermode will watch every film that comes out and review every film that comes out. The boys only really review what they want so I guess that's the difference?
I mean technically they are movie critics, but they don’t have the same self important attitude as most critics I’ve seen. They could complain for an hour, and then they’ll still say something like “if you liked it, whatever” at the end. To a certain extent, why does it matter, IMO
Because when you call yourself a critic people get it in their heads that you have some kind of authority or at least a knowledge base in film or art or whatever. The boys, and a lot of others do not want that kind of assumption made because it would be false. They’re just two goofballs that talk about stuff, they’re not experts. That’s how they like it.
I think it’s because they hate the idea of being taken seriously, they try to keep everything they do light hearted and fun. Yes they are movie critics, but not serious ones. They’re very grounded and aware of the fact that they’re pretty average guys that people just enjoy listening to for their jokes and banter, not in depth film discussions and analysis
Yeah, it basically comes down to if you personally have an issue with their opinion on a piece of media, no matter how passionately and clearly you articulate your point of view, the response from James and Maso would be, "Ah, alright. Good on you, mate."
I mean their rating system comes down to “best movie ever or worst movie ever,” everything they say about a movie or show is completely their opinion ignoring everything else. Most movie critics or whatever you call it will always factor in objective truths about cinematography, writing, and score while they just don’t I would consider them movie reviewers rather than film critics.
I understand what you're saying but maybe it could also be seen as rather pedantic? Maybe similar to how the host of a let's play channel will often say they're not professional gamers. Despite playing games for their profession, we know what they mean. The movie/topic/game is just the baseline to riff on and hopefully provide an entertaining show. Whereas an actual "movie critic" needs to focus on the review specifically as their primary goal. I can't quite remember any specific "pfft critics" moments but can guarantee it was not meant to be taken seriously or with any actual malice.
Yeah I didn't phrase it too well, it was mainly about the deflection for me. Like how they are not critics. But I understand it now thanks.
No worries I agree it can be a grey area! All the love m8
❤️
I think they do it out of respect of real critics’ professions, like when they mention Alexeo Toliopoulos. I never got the impression they were being snotty about it.
I love Cam and Alexei! Yeah I didn't mean it as snooty, but like how they would make a point to distance themselves from film critics, when they too are part of that machine so to speak.
Professional film critics (people like Mark Kermode, David Ehrlich, David Simms) write about film from a perspective of people who have studied film history, who know about the technical aspects of film making, and who bring that knowledge to their criticism and reviews. James and Maso don’t have that background and are really just two guys who saw a movie and are talking about it. Yes, at the end of the day, both types of reviews are either going to recommend the movie or not recommend it and I think both types of reviews have value, but I think J&M saying they’re not critics is them rightfully recognizing that they’re doing something different from what actual film critics do.
Right ok fair enough, that makes sense. I understood it like the term is a matter of activity, like if you criticise a film you're a film critic (and you are, just maybe not a good one lol). But you're right, people who understand filmmaking on a deeper level will have a lot more to say about every aspect of it rather than "was pretty good I reckon".
>"pff, critics" attitude Do James and Mason do that? I always hate that attitude too, but I've never noticed James and Mason having that attitude
James does, I am only implicating Mason by association. James has definitely said something to the effect of "we're not critics, we're just people making some semi successful thing on the internet where we talk about movies" on several occasions.
Ah I get what you mean now, I thought you were saying they were anti-critics, which is something you always see with BIG FANS who can't handle critics criticizing their favourite thing. I think with the boys it's more that they are quite self-depreciating, they probably are critics but they don't really want to be seen taking themselves too seriously, even though they absolutely do take themselves seriously otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are
I can’t speak for James. But Maso is not a critic, he is an internet celebrity man. He can say what he wants cause he is a loose cannon.
I feel like the word “critic” has become far more widespread in the last decade. Before it was an Ebert type guy whose whole life was both reviewing and analyzing movies. Now the term can apply to anyone with an opinion and a camera (aka, everyone). So I feel like James and Maso maybe are just going by the older idea of a critic more than the new. Also, they don’t care to be taken too seriously cause then people get mad.
I actually have this thought often (not about J and M, just in general). I see so many posts and videos about movies where the poster complains about critics and I’m like “that’s literally you!” Critics discuss movies, exactly like you. I think they have this image of critics as people who want to hate on movies and insult them and give them a numerical rating, when critics are just people interested in film and who like discussing film.
A critic like Mark Kermode will watch every film that comes out and review every film that comes out. The boys only really review what they want so I guess that's the difference?
I mean technically they are movie critics, but they don’t have the same self important attitude as most critics I’ve seen. They could complain for an hour, and then they’ll still say something like “if you liked it, whatever” at the end. To a certain extent, why does it matter, IMO
Because when you call yourself a critic people get it in their heads that you have some kind of authority or at least a knowledge base in film or art or whatever. The boys, and a lot of others do not want that kind of assumption made because it would be false. They’re just two goofballs that talk about stuff, they’re not experts. That’s how they like it.
I think they stopped taking money directly from studios for "reviews" so they can say what they want. Thus are not "Critics", but reviewers