What screenwriting instructors get wrong about teaching screenwriting

Whether you are new to screenwriting or just trying to brush up on your skills as a seasoned and professional screenwriter, screenwriting courses can be a blessing or a nightmare. What is the use of taking a screenwriting course only to walk away learning little to nothing after having paid all the fees and time learning about the craft?

While some screenwriting courses are better structured than others, it's the individual teaching the screenwriting course that makes or breaks the students' ability to be successful at their craft - using words to illustrate the story they are wanting to share. There are also different ways to learn screenwriting as each teacher or instructor is different. But they all have a few fundamental flaws in common. These flaws not only ill prepare the students to go out there and woo the showrunners with their talent, they practically enable any bad idea that a student can throw at them in screenwriting workshops (if they even have them). This not only does not do the aspiring screenwriters any favors by not helping them advance their careers, but it also takes away the quality from the screenwriters' work.

I've been to a few screenwriting classes (about half of them are beginner's screenwriting classes) and at first, I did not think of it much, but now that I am older and more wiser, I have to wonder why these screenwriting classes suck so much - factor out the part where I was studying in Los Angeles, California and where I have gained some industry experience, the issues are still prevalent with any beginner's screenwriting course (whether you are charged peanuts to learn or an arm and a leg is besides the point).

The opening question of "why do we watch movies?":

Why do we watch movies? Is that the best these teachers or gurus can come up with? Did their awareness meter drop all the way down to zero when they ask this question? Are they ignorant to the fact that they are teaching a screenwriting class to bunch of people who will be tomorrow's greatest writers? I'd say yes to all of the above.

What they should really be asking is this: "why do we tell stories?" This is the most appropriate question to ask the students because it is most relevant to the class and the subject matter at hand. In his book: Sapiens, author Yuval Noah Harari claims that all human beings are sociable people and that we have a habit of gossiping from Smallville to all the way to Vancouver, British Columbia. When the question about why we tell stories comes up, it will result in a variety of responses being received from the students. The truth of the matter is that students from different backgrounds have different reasons to why they are taking a screenwriters class. Maybe they have stories that they found intriguing that they want to share with the rest of us, or maybe some will simply say that they are only doing it as a means of self expression.

Whatever the reason may be, I would strongly advise against asking the question about watching movies and gravitate towards why we're taking the screenwriting in the first place learning about it. What can happen when this question is asked is the students will be more open to discover their own voices sooner rather than later after everything is said and done in their lives, which by this time, the audience and the industry would have moved on.

Screening movies rather than studying already written scripts:

If you have ever completed a screenwriting class, you will find that the students will be watching the movies that have been finished. Meaning that the final rewrite has already taken place before distribution to the general public. I say final rewrite because editing a film or any content is classified by editors in the industry as the final stages of piecing a story together with all the footage in sequence that is coherent and a natural flowing story that people will (supposedly) enjoy when it is released to them.

What the students should really be doing is getting into the habit of reading screenplays and familiarizing themselves with how effective descriptions are written in the screenplays they are studying. They need to be practicing the craft within the confines of screenwriting school in order to make sure that the quill is in fact mightier than the sword.

When I first started to officially learn screenwriting in 2011, our screenwriting instructor at that time (Mick Curran) was the first screenwriting instructor/teacher to tell us that we need to be using dynamic action verbs in our screenplays. Same goes for directors directing their actors. While he had some great advice, I would say that him showing a movie towards the end of the class was what put a stop to the urge to start writing. It is for this reason that screenwriting teachers and gurus should focus more on getting the students to practice their writing rather than wasting time watching a finished film.

Not challenging mediocre ideas from students:

I'm not sure how many times I've come across a situation where almost 100% of the time when it comes to conceptualization of a film, most students are not even being challenged. I would put forth the notion that this is primarily due to the fact that the teacher or guru teaching the course will suffer backlash from the students or from the higher ups if this screenwriting guru is working for a large educational organization that has set its sights on gaining more students than turning existing students into quality screenwriters. When there is obvious evidence of mediocrity in the ideas been formulated or presented by the students, the screenwriting guru or teacher doesn't challenge their students. They will simply accept that "is the idea, now let's make it a reality". That sort of mentality is not doing the students any favors as all it is doing is pumping out more mediocrity and weak competition in the industry. No one is standing up to the mediocre screenwriters and telling them to "do better". Probing questions need to be asked why the student writer has come up a mediocre idea and if said student writer has done their research and asked themselves whether their idea is a heavily recycled one.

Leaving the student writer to figure out how to write effective descriptions:

While in screenwriting class, the student writer is given a few examples of how to write effective descriptions that leap off the page, but there are no tips offered on how to approach the complex topic of writing it so that the reader is instantaneously compelled (in a good way) to turn the page. There should be a lot more time spent on practicing writing out descriptions effectively and exploring how these descriptions differ from Genre to Genre.

Until this is done, quality of the work put out by screenwriters will be either subpar or non-existent.

Most screenwriting gurus haven't critiqued a screenplay, aren't a reader from the industry or are a produced writer themselves:

Most screenwriting gurus have no idea what a reader will look for in a screenplay, because if there is one thing I did learn about film critics and script readers in the industry is that they are always looking for ways and or reasons to say no to your film or screenplay. They (the critics and script readers) are always on the lookout to find something wrong with the work of the filmmaker or a screenwriter.

I know. For a guy that heavily critiques the critics, I sure have done a complete 180 in supporting them, but no. I am simply affirming from experience, based on the fact that critics in the business do this. In fact, this is one of the reasons why I have started to analyze a critic's feedback or critique to determine whether or not I was receiving, fair, balanced and objective criticism rather than the destructive kind.

What I would love to see in these instances is a stringent code or criteria set by the industry that will keep all the shitty critics and script readers out while seeking out the most genuine ones out there.

Until something changes, it will all remain the same for generations or centuries to come. My passion for screenwriting was realized during the final semester of being in film school. I noticed how I really enjoyed the writing process and how I was looking forward to rewriting it if the story or the characters or anything in the script needed fixing. This is unwavering. What would make it better for the rest of those are aspiring to be screenwriters who would one day end up working in the industry.

My ideal country

Have you ever wondered what it would be like having or running your own country?

I am pretty sure that once the idea germinates into the minds of other people (including the ones that are criminals), every single person on the planet would dream about their ideal country and what would be permitted and what will not be permitted. Also, I am pretty sure most of you will be thinking about the type of people you'd like to have live with you in said country and what the politics and the policies in this country would be like.

I'm going to go ahead and give you my version of this:

My Own Country

The naming:

I would pick a name that is easy to pronounce. I would also pick an area that is away from the major continents and would only let select members of the public know about it. I would choose a name that suggests 'respectable' and 'worth'.

The Citizens:

The citizens of said country will all have fluency or mastery of the nation's language. They will be respectful to one another and live by the axiom: "Treat your neighbor the way thou wished be treated".

The laws of the land:

Citizens will be allowed to live the lives that they choose and will be responsible for their own health and wellbeing.

A citizen will be allowed to subscribe to or formulate their own religions. However, they will need to agree to the nation's fundamental law that they are not in anyway, shape or form allowed to force the average Joe in the nation (including immigrants) to conform to their beliefs. They are not to demand respect for their religious beliefs while deploying methods or tactics that forces or compels another citizen to subscribe their religion that they are trying to promote.

To assist with the process of manufacturing a religion, the laws of the land shall make some recommendations as to what to consider and what to exclude. The ultimate decision will be left in the hands of the individuals or the congregation who are forming or manufacturing their religion. They will also be guided on what to do if a member of a said religion commits a crime that is punishable by the nation's laws.

Furthermore, they are not allowed to cause harm in the name of their religion to any citizen for whatever reason - even if they say it is being done for the greater good. If they do violate this fundamental law, they will be taken to the nearest shore and be drowned for their atrocity.

The Justice System:

When it comes to Crime and Punishment, the country shall decide that the perpetrators or the offenders will suffer a fate worse than death itself. Since prison time is becoming less effective in reforming these offenders and prevent them from repeat offenses, a psychological penalty should be more effective than that.

The punishment for causing harm to a citizen if one citizen disagrees with the life choices of another is automatic banishment or death (depending on the nature of the crime and severity of the alleged crime).

To decide on these matters, instead of a system of jurors and a judge like in the western hemisphere, there will be a panel of 3 - 4 judges chosen before a case can be presented in court.

The Education System:

Public education will actively be discouraged in this country in favor of homeschooling. The government shall provide life coaches who are qualified in passing down life skills and will encourage their clients/students to gain as much life experience as possible throughout the course of their life.

Children will be encouraged to learn their language skills from their parents and once reaching the age of 7 years, the parents will send in their expressions of interest and or their applications to seek a life coach for their children.

The only private education allowed will be tertiary education and even then, these tertiary educational institutions will be required to price their courses and their degrees quite fairly. They must use the life experience gained by a potential student to assess said student's eligibility for admission into an institution and the courses being offered. Literacy will also be tested as well as meeting with the parents.

Entrepreneurship following graduation:

If after graduation, a citizen has an idea to start the business, they will be given access to all resources available to assist in getting started. The entrepreneurs will however, need to provide adequate training to whoever they are choosing. They will be required to choose candidates from the country and will receive tax breaks for doing so.

Manufacturing:

All manufacturing will need to be staying within the country and the government will encourage this by offering tax breaks and salary supplementation if needed. The government will work with individual businesses to negotiate this.

Importing goods into the country:

Goods may be imported into the country but will attract higher taxes to consumers than those produced and sold within the country. Importation will only be allowed when a government approved inspector accompanies a supplier of goods to a proposed country and examines the conditions of manufacturing. This will be the deciding factor when approving a supplier to import goods from a country.

Trade agreements will also be revised by the government upon input and feedback received from the citizenry.

Consumer Law:

All citizens are afforded the right to dispute faulty goods and services with a supplier should a problem arises. Suppliers and retailers alike are not allowed to place restrictions and limits on consumer goods when it comes to guaranteeing their safe usage. However, to take advantage of this beneficial to the citizen piece of legislation, the citizen or consumer in question will need to be honest and a mediator will be chosen to act as an observer during the initial stages of the dispute between the consumer and the supplier of goods/services and will need to file a report to the relevant governing body. The next steps will then be advised by the governing body based on this report.

Selecting of a senator or a congressman into government:

When selecting a congressman or a senator to represent the citizens in government, the government shall select an individual from the general population and request referrals and recommendations from the citizenry. It will not be the same as voting, but if enough people recommend a selected individual, said individual will be appointed as the nation's representative into government.

As for governance and leadership, the nation will have a president and a governor.

Military and Defense:

All military personnel will be afforded the ability to invent futuristic and powerful weapons to defend against invaders and will be tasked to work with manufacturers in the country to secure defense contracts for the supply of said weapons. Any manufacturers who are willing to step up to the plate and assist the military personnel in defending against enemy troops will be awarded a special benefit by both the the citizenry and the government.

The Media:

The media shall be independent and all journalists will be required to be as objective as possible. There will be a governing body that will release a report to the citizens based on feedback (including complaints) received from the citizens and rating the media on a scale of A - F (with A being a top notch, reliable, credible and trustworthy source of news and information to F being a complete joke to the country).

The Entertainment Business (including filmmaking and Broadcast television):

Filmmaking and Filmmakers:

All filmmakers will be afforded the right to make films and content as long as they are able to demonstrate that their work doesn't unnecessarily glorify something that happens in real life or influences a citizen of the country to break any laws. Quotas will be set if said filmmaker is in the habit of making too many romance based movies concerning the opposite sex and has been found to be constantly glorifying it for no reason. The quota in question will be a 50/50 measure: for every film that a filmmaker produces containing two characters that are members of the opposite sex, said filmmaker will need to produce one for the LGBT community.

Same goes for broadcast television:

All rules that apply to filmmakers will also apply to broadcast television as well. There will be no special locations alloted to the celebrities because they are celebrities and the citizens will be required to respect their private life since these celebrities will be living amongst the citizenry.

Why Quora is the worst Q & A site on the planet and detrimental to your knowledge base

It was by chance that I found Quora. At first, I found this site to be interesting and noticed that the biggest feature was voting on answers and responding to and commenting on answers. Not to mention the recently added ability to choose your credentials when answering a question. While this can be a benefit in most circumstances, it can be used to mislead the asker as to who is giving the answer.

Not long after signing up and starting to use the site to exchange knowledge, I soon found out that the moderators are not very well qualified (any Joe Shmoe or an unqualified dick head can be promoted/elected to be one).

I found that the site allows anyone who is a provocateur to delete, report and insult you when you try to engage in a civil discussion about it. Now, I am not denying that when a topic is a subject of controversy, some people will get emotional, but I tried to keep a cool head the entire time and tried to reason with the provocateur - big mistake. One even accused me of being an 8 year old sitting in front of his father's computer and failing to understand the reality of the world. Contrary to said accusation, I am old enough to have gained enough life experience to know that you cannot win a debate by insulting people or win an argument by using the strawman fallacy. You win an argument or a debate through reasoning and acknowledging the other point of view. And this is something that my mom always keeps reiterating. Also, I will show you the respect you have earned if you do the same. 

However, what I found to be the problem with others (both on the Internet and real life) is the fact that I am expected to give people the benefit of the doubt while excusing their inability to understand my point of view. Well , enough is enough. If you'd like to hear my point of view, I will be more that happy to share it and let you know upfront that I will not allow myself to be forced into accepting another person's point of view. Plus, when I try to ask sensible questions, I am shut down and blocked.

Quora is not the only culprit in this scenario. Other platforms like Facebook and Twitter are also guilty of the same crime - whether it is legal or not. Let's start with what makes them hypocritical to begin with.

The Be Nice Be Respectful or BNBR Policy is a complete joke and a farce

While every social media site has to have a policy that regulates their users and ensures that the platform is safe and secure for them to use, there are a quite a number of examples where a user (possibly a troll) has violated this policy and Quora does nothing to act on it. However, I have found myself in a situation where I wanted to find out more about why a user would believe a certain way and challenged them on their beliefs, said user ended up reporting me, deleting my comments to their comments, and receiving an email from Quora advising me that I have violated policy. I also keep wondering how on Earth are they still in business? I would have imagined that a mass Exodus would have taken place like it has been reported recently about Californians leaving California and moving to elsewhere in America.

For what it's worth, Quora has a policy, but platforms like theirs tends to enforce it against the wrong kind of people - the opponents who disagree with a certain narrative. Fortunately, we have a term in the legal books called "Selective prosecution". I am also left to wonder how on Earth is there no class action lawsuit against social media giants like these ass holes, or even a record of it being talked about it.

The support for members

Support for members who need it only exists by means of messaging. I tried appealing a couple of times where a comment of mine was found to be in violation of their terms of service or their BNBR policy even. All I received was confirmation that said comment was in violation of policy but no evidence pointing to what about the comment violated the BNBR policy. I responded by challenging the response and I have not heard back since.

Also, they will arbitrarily delete or not approve one or more of your answers that you have posted on certain forums and not respond when you ask them why they declined it.

Furthermore, what happens in some instances is that commenting is disabled for some answers from the get go or in the middle of a conversation with another user. Not sure if this is a glitch or whether members are doing this on purpose to avoid scrutiny, but there is definitely something to raise an eyebrow at.

People asking questions to answers that can easily be found using a google search

I primarily answer questions relating to screenwriting, the film industry and filmmaking. However, questions like: "How do I become a good screenwriter?" or "How do I become a better director?", or "What do I need to make a great film?". While I am pretty sure that the answers that the asker will receive by asking these type of questions will have some good advice, but when it comes to advice from professionals, it is non-existent. All you have to do is take a look at the credentials included of the person who answered the question and you will find that most of the people answering the question have no relevant qualifications to give the answer any credibility.

A lot of these questions can simply be answered by typing these exact questions using major search engines like DuckDuckGo, Google, Yahoo or Bing. I will admit that some of the answers posted on Quora will come with recommendations that a simple Google search will not necessarily include in the search results, but I also can't help it think that the asker is either lazy or trying to ask as many questions as possible to take advantage of the partnership program where they are paid to ask questions on a daily basis. Yes, there is a partnership program where you get paid to ask at least 10 questions on the site daily.

Users copy pasting a question verbatim before beginning their answer

I have found quite a few instances when I asked a question on Quora or when someone else asks a question on Quora, a few of the users have a super annoying habit of copy pasting the question verbatim before they start answering said question. It is mind numbing why they do this.

I asked one of these users why they did this and the response was less intelligent then a thermometer showing that your temperature is normal. The response: "In case the question is lost or is reminding the asker what they have asked. You can clearly see the question displayed before the answer. I have to wonder if they were blind to this fact.

If you have found other problems with Quora, please mention them in the comments below.

Knowledge is either incomplete, biased or sourced from Wikipedia

When looking through the answers that other users have written, some of the answers are either super biased, sourced from Wikipedia or incomplete to the point where further research is required. It would be a waste of time for a user to do research and post those findings on Quora only for some idjit to report the answer and get it removed for reasons ranging from the answer being politically incorrect to being downright offensive.

I have moved away from relying on Wikipedia for information on any topic because any Joe Shmoe can create an account and write whatever he/she wishes (no matter who incomplete or inaccurate) and Wikipedia doesn't do a darn thing about correcting it - even when someone points it out to them.

The last draw

The last draw for me came when a user responded on one of my answers with an opinion. I calmly pointed out that this was an opinion that I had and that I will be respecting their opinion but they will need to return the favor. I also pointed out that they were using forceful tactics to make me agree with them.

The same thing happened as before: I received a message from Quora advising me that a comment had been deleted because it was found in violation of their terms of service.

Remembering what happened the last time this occurred, I immediately deleted not only their comments to my answer, I also deleted my comments corresponding to their comments. I did not even bother to appeal this one, because I knew what the response from Quora will be.

I then emailed an account manager or an account admin requesting that they delete my account on Quora because I felt attacked and not respected while giving the respect the users expected of other people.

I am done with Quora and if anyone reading this is considering signing up for Quora, run. Run as far away as you possibly can until you have found the one Q & A site that does not do what Quora and other social media platforms are doing to some of their genuine user base.

And if you haven't already after you have read this article, raise holy hell against Quora or start a class action lawsuit accusing them of unconscionable conduct.

To conclude:

There are much better websites that will serve the purpose that Quora will and if anyone out there is thinking about starting a competing Q & A site, have a policy where you specify that people will be shown respect if they themselves give it, and have users sign up by invitation only.

Quora is not the site it was marketed to be. It is mostly for those who need their feelings, their belief systems and their political ideologies validated and attract attention towards themselves.

As long as it doesn't end in violence or other sinister acts being commited, we all can respect each other, and acknowledge each other's beliefs and points of view while not forcing the objectors or the opponents of a viewpoint or a belief system to confirm to our ideology.

Why I distrust reviews on YouTube, and why you should too.

When reviewing a product like a piece of technology or a movie for example, one would expect the reviews and the reviewer to be objective in their reviews. However, given the popularity of YouTube and independent websites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes (Ewww!) even, you cannot distinguish whose reviews are being genuine and which ones are fake. Unfortunately this is becoming difficult and nearly impossible to tell with the pantheon of reviewers saturating both the Internet and YouTube.

Over the past couple of decades however, these reviewers have gotten so bold that anyone who is anyone is able to review a movie or a piece of technology whether they are qualified or not, have been churning out reviews that are not entirely objective, nor provide clarity on who would be the right target customer based or the right target audience for a movie for example. They defend their poor quality criticisms by calling them constructive criticisms. They argue that they are expressing their opinions. Maybe some of them are and maybe some of them are justifying their poor criticisms with excuses. Zeus only knows the answer to this. And to add insult to injury, nobody seems to be analyzing their feedback or criticisms and challenging them on this by asking relevant questions.

And where are these 'critics' coming from or originating from? Mostly from the Internet and YouTube if you were to ask me. Some of the critics are down right paid trolls and it shows in what they say about a particular product or reviews.

The biggest problem with critics:

The nitpicking - especially in product reviews. How on great Zeus' Olympus can they sit there in their armchair, with that flashy looking headset of theirs (while trying to look cool/stylish), and in front of their computer with that fancy keyboard that they spent more money than necessary for focus on every god forsaken flaw of a product or a movie and claim that you are expressing an opinion or providing constructive feedback? Let me tell you, these so called 'reviewers' or 'critics' aren't doing themselves any favors by nitpicking. They simply need to stare the crap out of themselves in the mirror and ask: "why I am doing this in the first place?" 

The fact that these critics on the Internet need no documentation or anything to show that they are qualified to offer any sort of criticism (constructive or otherwise) should be a cause for great concern.

Examples of poor quality criticisms:

• When it comes to movies and TV shows, every single aspect of the story is over analyzed and shredded to bits and heavily criticized as not being realistic or not believable. This is true when it comes to action movies and fantasy based movies and TV shows. What these idiots fail to see is that movies and TV shows are make belief, they aren't meant to be realistic because the audience wants to 'suspend their disbelief' when they watch the movie or TV show in question. They also fail to understand that when movies are made and stories are written, they are based off of the "What if" scenario and then answering that question in the end of the movie. 
• Here's the scoop: any movie or TV show that is heavily criticized is the best one to watch and anything that is heavily praised is to be avoided at all costs. 
• If you'd like an example, the critics who heavily criticized the film The Tomorrow War deserve a super strong and harsh slap on the face. They criticized anything and everything wrong with it. Are you fluffing joshing me? When I finally got to see the movie, it was a fantastic experience. Very well planned and executed. With J.K Simmons and Chris Pratt as the duo hero team working together to defeat the enemy.
• Smartphone reviews. Okay, I will give a pass to two individuals on this one: MKBHD and Mrwhosetheboss on YouTube. Most reviewers of smartphones however, are a different story: They start off with the specs as always and they compare it to other popular smartphones on the market. Some even argue how Android is better than iOS and make the same old dumb ass recycled arguments about the operating systems that are often refutable. They forget who the target customer base is for each operating system of the smartphone. These are also the type of reviewers who only focus on the hardware features and specifications and base their criticism off of that. They never really touch on the user experience. I have seen a lot of debates (some of them heated) arguing why this smartphone is better than that smartphone and yadiyadi yadda. Not even a mention of who really goes for something like that. Not everyone needs the features boasted about a particular smartphone.
• Camera lenses. When reviewing these lenses, I am pretty sure reviewers not only zoom in on a particular section of a still image or a moving image, they also fault the lens for having these imperfections and expect the rest of us to fork out big money to buy the lenses that they recommend. Since the final image will be viewed in its entirety, why would they bother with the darn details? The average Joe will not be purposely looking at the image for these flaws so what the bloody Lucifer are they doing here? The average Joe will only be interested in the experience of it all. Plus, they're not even mentioning who would use the lenses they are reviewing. There are areas that these critics are focusing on that aren't really relevant in some professional settings:
• De-clicked aperture ring: This is where when you turn the aperture ring to a desired number setting, the ring clicks when moving to the next number until it reaches the desired setting. I can only thing of one scenario where this could cause a problem: If you are recording a moving image and changing the aperture at the same time. However, I am not sure why this is relevant because most of the time, you'd keep the aperture constant and change it before capturing the next image or another image.
• Chromatic adoration or purple fringing: This is one of the most commonly critiqued flaw when reviewing lenses. This is where there is discoloration in parts of the captured image. This happens when the reviewers zoom in on various parts of the image and spot it. Not exactly sure why this is such a big issue for them when they bring it up.
• Comparing lenses from two different manufacturers: Like most product comparison reviews, comparing two different lenses that are similar in focal length and specifications from two different manufacturers has become common, and one again, while comparing images taken by these two competing lenses, the critics focus on the same darn aspects of the lenses. The competing lenses may cost less and yes, the general consensus is to determine whether the drop in price is even worth the cost and investment into the lens, but no mention of who would be the target customer base for them.
• Other tech like cameras and computers. Again, the specs and the hardware features come into play rather than the user experience of it all. They don't even reveal in their review who the equipment being reviewed is for.
• When it comes to cameras, rolling shutter seems to be the popular point of critique when talking about cameras for video. A lot of these reviewers do test hybrid cameras like the Sony A7SIII or a Canon or a Nikon Camera even. Rolling shutter is where when a camera is panned in quick succession, it creates a jelly affect. In movies, the panning is consistently smooth and slow: not as fast as these guys are using for the test. It is not an accurate test.
• When it comes to computers on the other hand, the critics rely on scores provided by a website by Geekbench. They take this number and make a preliminary determination about the performance of a computer. A lot of these critics reviewing computers are either computer enthusiasts or hard core gamers - not the average Joe. They forget that the average Joe is not into gaming or the average Joe is not into fluffing Geekbench scores.
• Some critics will determine that if a computer does not have the latest generation processor, it is a deal breaker. My rebuttal to this would be that if it gets the job done in a reasonable length of time, it is up to the darn job. I would also ask the question: "What it is about a computing device not having the latest generation processor that is making it such a deal breaker? Why do you believe this BS to be true?
• Complaining that elements in a script, finished movie or TV show are unrealistic, not believable or illogical: Seriously? You really want to go down that road?  Let me ask you one question: You spend an entire of your life dealing with reality and now you're telling me that you want more of it? How sad is that? Movies and TV shows that are produced from a written and fully polished screenplay are make believe. They ask the "What if" question. Plus, a lot of the reviews on YouTube complain about elements that are easily refutable. The movies have been made for their entertainment value and not there to satisfy your so called "realistic" expectations. People really want to suspend their disbelief and escape reality for a change.

And it will still continue:

Even if every manufacturer of a product or producer of a movie or TV show were to address all criticisms raised by the so called 'critics', they still won't be happy. They will still find something to criticize about. That is the honest to Zeus truth. They are always on the lookout for anything and everything wrong with a piece of technology or movie or TV production.

And we trust these guys?

The consequence:

The more power we give them, the more we distrust ourselves in making decisions that affect us and our choices in life. Letting someone make some of these decisions for us is letting someone else manage our money when being accused of being incapable of managing it ourselves - when all the while, we are completely capable of managing it ourselves. It undermines our confidence. The same thing is happening when we let critics decide what to buy or tell us what not to buy, they are undermining our confidence in making this decision on our own.

Sure, when large sums of money are involved, you don't want to make the wrong move and lose it all unnecessarily.  We can trust our instincts and factor out any compulsion or temptation that is influencing our decision. We know better that to allow someone to rush us into making a hasty decision like a salesperson urging us to accept the deal he/she is offering right then and there. You especially do not want to do this with investing. Here, you also want to trust your instincts and remove all temptation or impulsiveness from the equation.

But not all critics are created this equally bad:

Some criticism is warranted. Examples include when critics criticized the first two God's not Dead movies, I could see their point. When critics criticized Nicholas Spark's movie The Choice as being predictable, I can absolutely attest to this because I went and watched it and concluded the same. There are instances where critics are right, but for the majority of the cases, they are so wrong on a lot of levels, and this is why I am calling for every person who comes across any of these types of critics to call them out on their BS or at least challenge their analysis of things.

Why I distrust the reviewers:

Time and time again, the reverse was proven true when I conducted the movie experiment some years back. I picked 5 movies that were heavily criticized and 5 that were heavily praised. I found that it was the ones that were heavily criticized were the ones that were really good. It has caused me to analyze the criticisms at hand and determine whether they were constructive or destructive in nature. To be honest, the majority of the criticisms you come across are destructive masquerading as constructive criticism and opinion based. They are not objective, but heavily subjective. This is why you see poor quality movies and TV shows being made and poor quality products being made because no one can win as long as these unqualified critics are running the show.

Critics are always wrong.

When critics told Elvis Presley that he had no talent and that he wasn't going to make it in the music business, we can see how wrong they were and this will never be openly admitted. As for Elvis, look at where he is now. He is the fluffing King of Rock and Roll for crying out loud.

Having said this, there are a few reviewers you can still trust. The key here is objectivity. You need to look for reviewers that are giving their objective view on any piece of tech or movie/TV show. Someone who understands who a particular piece of gear. tech, movie/TV show is aimed at.

So in conclusion, reviewers on YouTube and on the Internet are plentiful and are like the Wild Wild West (not the Will Smith kind). They are super subjective and have nothing of substance to offer except for nitpicking on everything and calling it an objective/constructive criticism or an expression of opinion where no qualification exists. And this is why we shouldn't be taking their criticisms at face value or accepting their criticisms as valid 100% of the time. Asking probing questions to determine how they came to this conclusion about a said product/service, movie or a TV show is key to deciding which critic we can listen to and which ones to ignore right from the get go.

We should be trusting our instincts and not let anyone undermine our confidence in our ability to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves just like we would never let someone manage our money when we are completely capable of doing this ourselves. Sometimes it can be an expensive exercise to try and figure out which product/service or piece of tech worked out for us and which ones didn't. However, if this can build our confidence in ourselves, then I'd say go for it.

We can do this people.

Don't let anyone, and I mean anyone, undermine your confidence and attempt to steal your dreams.

The Fundamental problem with independent computer shops and repairmen

I've spoken to quite a few independent computer shops and found that the owners are extremely bitter and have the propensity to complain a lot about one company: Apple. They criticize Apple with the same old dumb ass arguments that other critics use to discredit or find reasons to use against the company.

I found this to be extremely hypocritical because the accusations made against Apple under the false pretense of "Free speech" and "constructive criticism" is not unique to Apple. Their arguments fall flat because the majority of these accusations should be directed at any company that is guilty of what Apple is being accused of doing: i.e. price gouging, less hardware features, monopoly over its customers, calling Apple's customers "Fanboys", Apple copying another company, or being late to the game, etc, etc. 

When I assess these arguments for merit, I find that they fall flat for a variety of different reasons. A few of which are listed below:

Calling them "Fanboys" or Apple Sheep:

Seriously? I could easily walk up to an avid user of any brand and call them exactly that: Fanboys. This is primarily true of Samsung. if you love Samsung and if you love everything Samsung does, then that is your prerogative.  How are people who use Apple any different? Each tech company is doing this to its customers. They have something that their customers need or want. That is why their customers go to them or are loyal to them. The only difference here is Apple is offering something that the majority of the customers need: It simply works out of the darn box and is truly seamless and user friendly.

For critics of Apple to use this is an excuse to find something wrong with the company. What is stopping an Apple customer from saying the same thing?

Also, it is as simple as replacing the word Apple and inserting the name of any company that goes with the word "Sheep".

Apple copied <insert company name here>:

There is an old saying: 

Good Artists copy. Great Artists steal.

And that is exactly what Apple's competitors are: "Good Artists", and that is key. 

This argument falls flat because it is the exact reverse of what Apple is being accused of doing: Other companies copy Apple to compete with Apple - plain and simple.

Apple puts in the leg work when it comes to R&D and its competitors conveniently take the easy way out to save costs and turn around and encourage their fanbase to complain that Apple copied them.

Critics conveniently ignore this and continue to use this argument every time Apple releases a new product.

Apple is being Greedy:

If that is the best argument you're going with, then you fail again. This is not unique to Apple. There are other companies in the tech and other industries that are also this way. 

Again, why are critics singling out Apple? I know why: Those who complain are ignorant to the bigger picture and refuse to believe that the companies they support are also doing what Apple is being accused of.

The whole Throttle gate fiasco:

If you aren't aware, Throttle gate was when Apple was caught out throttling down its processors in an effort to prolong the longevity of the batteries in its iPhones and iPads. Critics accused Apple of "Planned Obsolescence", while other companies are doing the exact same thing. Apple explained that because of a risk of the devices shutting down when the battery itself has significantly worn out, Apple made the (controversial) decision to throttle down performance so that users can still keep using their device. If this was one of Apple's biggest competitors like Samsung or Microsoft, then they would have looked the other way. It forced Apple to release a software update to allow people to choose whether their devices will be throttled to conserve battery or turn the throttling off and continue to experience shut downs of their device until the customer gets annoyed and upgrades eventually.

Personally, I would rather have a working device that has a slight drop in performance than a device that shuts down unexpectedly while I am doing something midway.

Right to Repair Controversy:

Enter Louis Rossmann. One of the many complainants who conveniently makes money from YouTube videos complaining about Apple - while repairing Apple MacBooks. Seriously Louis? You're going to complain about a company while trying to repair their products for customers? You expect me to believe that you are fighting for the small independent repairman while making allegations of proprietorship and a company requiring consumers to go with genuine parts?

Hmmm. Let's list some examples of companies that are also doing this:

• HP,
• Epson,
• Canon,
• Brother,
• Samsung.

I could go on and on.

Here's the scoop: Some of these companies will tell you that the use of non-genuine parts will void your warranty and damage your whatever equipment you are trying to install the non-genuine part in. And yet, Apple some how is the big evil Goliath of a werewolf.

However, proponents of right to repair really need to step back and ask themselves an important question: Is it acceptable to blame the manufacturer if the consumer has deliberately destroyed their gadget and expects said manufacturer to fix it at their cost?

Also, 

• Will standards be set for repairmen to protect the consumer if any qualified or certified repairman does a botched job of fixing something? 
• Who is responsible when things go wrong with the repairman? 
• Is there a governing body the consumer can approach to refer their complaint to should the repairman refuse to make amends?
• Will there be penalties for wrongdoers?
• Will there be processes set in place to prevent unscrupulous repairmen from running wild and engaging in unconscionable business practices?

Nobody seems to be asking the hard questions when it comes to right to repair. It is simply: every repairman should be afforded the right to repair a gadget and have schematics available to them to do the job or every consumer should have the right to repair their own gadget since they bought it.

I can confidently tell you that this right to repair saga will yield a 10 headed, super thirsty Hydra.

Less Hardware features:

This is what's wrong with the tech community these days. They always seem to judge an electronic item or a piece of equipment by what it has on the outside. As the saying goes: "Don't judge a book by its cover." Unfortunately, a lot of them in the tech community do judge a book by its cover.

Sure, Apple may not have the bells and whistles that the tech community wants or wishes for, but where they shine is on the inside: the software side of things. The real power lies in the internals of all Apple products - more so than what is designed on the outside.

And yet, you find people who still end up complaining about Apple while using their products. I would call this hypocrisy at its finest.

You can have the most spec'd out PC or gadget that money can buy, but remember, it is all irrelevant if the hardware cannot keep up with all the software upgrades and the software changes that software developers introduce to the apps that you use on them.

A bad handyman will always blame his tools.

It costs too much (it's too expensive)

I can understand that this type of argument is made by those who are either price conscious or bargain hunting consumers. These individuals believe they are smart by paying less, but what they do not understand is the fact that this price reduction comes at the expense of product quality, durability and reliability.

Price is only one factor of the equation and definitely not necessarily a deal breaker when you weigh in the benefits alongside the short comings of the product that Apple has to offer.

Plus, the price conscious individual is not the type of consumer base Apple is interested in. They are more for people who value durability, reliability and simplicity.

I cannot begin to list the number of times I have been asked this question on Quora and in variations when it comes to the high price of an Apple product.

If the high price of a product is a deal breaker for you and you complain about it, then you also fail big time.

Everything listed here should never be controversial to begin with!

I don't know what it is, but critics go into automatic complain mode every time the subject of Apple comes up. It's like some of them are even paid to do it.

I now what you're thinking: that I am paid to write this article. Well, newsflash! I am not.

I'll tell you who is trying to get paid to bash Apple: the ones who go all out and sue Apple for the simplest of things and end up embarrassing themselves after the verdict is handed down in Apple's favor. I've seen people sue Apple for things like how the display didn't measure up correctly, or the frame of an iPhone didn't line up properly, or because someone typed the address of an inappropriate website by mistake and were 'traumatised' by it. So, they ended up suing Apple. 

Oh the insane humanity.

If you were to ask me why, I will simply say that their ulterior motive is to make a quick buck, and have this quick buck coming from Apple - now that they are valued at $3 Trillion (at the time of writing this article).

So in conclusion, if you are a computer store owner, your job is to give advise and sell what you have to offer to your customers in your store. Keep your super biased opinions about any tech company to yourself. You can easily turn off customers that way. Stop with the cliché arguments that can easily be refuted.