IGN changes reviewer for Marvel’s Loki after receiving backlash

[Mezentine]

If I wanted to just read someone's opinion of a show there are countless posts online I can read. If you are a paid reviewer then I expect you to bring at least some objective standards to your review. I'm not saying large portions of it can't be subjective, obviously, but those subjective portions need to be grounded in at least some kind of objective reality. And here, I would argue it is objective that episode 4 does not "jog in place", regardless of it you actually like how the plot progresses.

Its like the equivalent of having a reviewer who only loves RPGs review the next Madden game. Sure, its subjective, but is it really going to have any kind of credibility? That's why professional reviews need to look at things a bit more objectively than the average person.

Click to shrink...

Part of why he got the gig is that he's been writing about the MCU literally for years, with some of the only coverage I've seen that tries to actually evaluate it through a critical lens.

I like episode 4, but his core point is that everything before the final 10 minutes is reiterating beats we've already seen, which I think is at least worth engaging with.

 

[deimosmasque]

There's no way for someone to be unbiased, though. You can't have objective reviews. But I'm wondering what bias are you suspecting?

You really want objective reviews, then just read a plot synopsis. Tell me one example of an objective review.

Click to shrink...

Of course not. But know your brand. Don't assign someone who is going to misrepresent a Marvel property as for lead reviewer for that property.

That's why I even mentioned Siskel and Ebert.

Siskel and Ebert were well know for hating the entire slasher genre. They would always misrepresent the movie and give it a thumbs down.

But that was part of their brand. They were "Film Critics" and they hated on slasher because it was "low brow".

 

[Dalek]

Of course not. But know your brand. Don't assign someone who is going to misrepresent a Marvel property as for lead reviewer for that property.

That's why I even mentioned Siskel and Ebert.

Siskel and Ebert were well know for hating the entire slasher genre. They would always misrepresent the movie and give it a thumbs down.

But that was part of their brand. They were "Film Critics" and they hated on slasher because it was "low brow".

Click to shrink...

And Ebert would always give movies a fair shake. His reviews could always surprise and entertain and inform. He was never a snob. That's why he was the greatest.

But to be fair he has his odd quirks. He gave Die Hard a thumbs down. People are people.

 

[Mezentine]

Of course not. But know your brand. Don't assign someone who is going to misrepresent a Marvel property as for lead reviewer for that property.

That's why I even mentioned Siskel and Ebert.

Siskel and Ebert were well know for hating the entire slasher genre. They would always misrepresent the movie and give it a thumbs down.

But that was part of their brand. They were "Film Critics" and they hated on slasher because it was "low brow".

Click to shrink...

Again Sid has written one of the longest set of critical examinations of the entire MCU currently out there, including examinations of his own relationship to both the material and the material's relationship to fan culture, he's absolutely qualified to discuss a new MCU project

 

[CrichtonKicks]

And Ebert would always give movies a fair shake. His reviews could always surprise and entertain and inform. He was never a snob. That's why he was the greatest.

But to be fair he has his odd quirks. He gave Die Hard a thumbs down. People are people.

Click to shrink...

Yeah Roger Ebert clearly couldn't give slasher movies a fair shake.

 

[CloseTalker]

Of course not. But know your brand. Don't assign someone who is going to misrepresent a Marvel property as for lead reviewer for that property.

That's why I even mentioned Siskel and Ebert.

Siskel and Ebert were well know for hating the entire slasher genre. They would always misrepresent the movie and give it a thumbs down.

But that was part of their brand. They were "Film Critics" and they hated on slasher because it was "low brow".

Click to shrink...

This ain't the hill to die on, bud. Accusing Roger Ebert of shitting on movies because they're "low brow" shows a hilarious misinterpretation of who he was as a critic. This really isn't the strong argument you seem to think it is

 

[Dalek]

Yeah Roger Ebert clearly couldn't give slasher movies a fair shake.

Click to shrink...

He has good taste!

 

[deimosmasque]

Can we please not bring personal opinions about the media into question here. The reviewer has all the right to give any piece of media whether it be a game, movie or show whatever score they want and that is absolutely not the issue here. The issue is that this particular reviewer was forced out because of fan backlash which is unacceptable

Furthermore you said that it's unimportant so why go out of your way to say that the reviewer is wrong and has a bias.

Click to shrink...

I wasn't talking about person opinions. I was talking about brands. IGN is a very big brand.

The original reviewer has a right to thier opinions. No doubt. And they have a right to not be harassed for their opinions. No doubt.

What I was talking about is that people follow a brand. They are expecting certain things from the brand.

If Siskel and Ebert back in the 90s suddenly started giving all the slasher movies 2 thumbs up people would be confused. Because their brand was that they pretty much hated slasher movies.

As for the reviewer who has been removed from reviewing Loki, I get it from a brand perspective. The reviewer was not enjoying Loki, and IGN is a geek brand. So they needed a person who was enjoying Loki.

And the original reviewers opinion is not wrong! I disagree but they are not wrong, because they are expressing thier opinion. What I was saying thar for people to harass and threaten of an episode of Loki is silly.

The show is unimportant in the grand scheme.

 

[deimosmasque]

This ain't the hill to die on, bud. Accusing Roger Ebert of shitting on movies because they're "low brow" shows a hilarious misinterpretation of who he was as a critic. This really isn't the strong argument you seem to think it is

Click to shrink...

Fair enough. Not dying on any hill. Just sharing my opinion and how I remember the Siskel and Ebert show from when I was a kid getting interest in horror.

 

[CrichtonKicks]

If Siskel and Ebert back in the 90s suddenly started giving all the slasher movies 2 thumbs up people would be confused. Because their brand was that they pretty much hated slasher movies.

Click to shrink...

Scream

Scream 2

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

 

[deimosmasque]

Scream

Scream 2

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

Click to shrink...

I knew about New Nightmare, it's very meta about the slasher genre.


So is Scream and Scream 2.

But I get the point and I back off my stance with Siskel and Ebert. They were more Nuance then I remembered. To be fair they were on the air when I was 12

 

[echoshifting]

I wasn't talking about person opinions. I was talking about brands. IGN is a very big brand.

The original reviewer has a right to thier opinions. No doubt. And they have a right to not be harassed for their opinions. No doubt.

What I was talking about is that people follow a brand. They are expecting certain things from the brand.

If Siskel and Ebert back in the 90s suddenly started giving all the slasher movies 2 thumbs up people would be confused. Because their brand was that they pretty much hated slasher movies.

As for the reviewer who has been removed from reviewing Loki, I get it from a brand perspective. The reviewer was not enjoying Loki, and IGN is a geek brand. So they needed a person who was enjoying Loki.

And the original reviewers opinion is not wrong! I disagree but they are not wrong, because they are expressing thier opinion. What I was saying thar for people to harass and threaten of an episode of Loki is silly.

The show is unimportant in the grand scheme.

Click to shrink...

This is a troubling perspective to me especially in this particular case because Siddhant Adlakha is *easily* one of the top critical voices to have written extensively on the MCU and that should matter more than IGN's geek cred. Audiences have always had a responsibility to familiarize themselves with the proclivities of the critics they consume, that's true of Siskel and Ebert and it's true for Adlakha as well.

 

[Nilou]

This thread is being locked since much of the conversation is pure speculation and accusations based off little evidence or confirmation. Should more information or sources come out related to the harassment feel free to create a new thread.