-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kong: Skull Island Director Takes on Cinema Sins
- Thread starter Cruxist
- Start date
Bobby Roberts
Banned
-fin-
Stallion Dan
Member
If you wanna criticise his actual reviews, do that. Don't criticise the EWW vids as those are just comedy entertainment.
Nah, it perfectly fine. People criticising the sins like score matters, like these are reviews and ratings, are grossly misunderstanding what they are watching. CS is comedy entertainment. Three Stooges is comedy too, but if you start criticising it for domestic violence you're really misunderstanding what you should be taking away from it.
Oh, gotcha. My bad.
I do agree he kind of made his point and should move on. Gaf will take it from here, Mr. Director.
You're gonna straight up ignore the point that they make the same misguided criticisms in both?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No, they're not.
Your dismissal of those very valid complaints (and the even more valid reasoning behind those complaints, as explained at length) is empty
Almost as empty as the content CinemaSins provides
You at least don't add sound effects.
They're the same criticisms. Just because one has more dumb jokey-jokes mixed in doesn't mean it's shielded from argument. It's comedy and film criticism, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that criticism stops being criticism if I make jokes about lapdances or what have you.
Stallion Dan
Member
If in the EWW vid it gets a laugh, mission accomplished.
If in an actual review, I guess it a poor review.
Doesn't make the EWW video a review, and criticising it as one is poor criticism.
This. Perfect comparison
Sure, but having seen bobvids's critique on the Sherlock Holmes, Ultron, and Civil War videos, are those just outliers?
How is "Why does the robot save Will Smith instead of the girl in iRobot?" a joke? How does that "get a laugh?"
Because it sounds to me like that and countless other examples were meant to be actual problems CS had with the film.
Don't forget the one he did for EWW The Last of Us.
Bobo Dakes
Member
This thread is just the same two people doing that over and over.
Stallion Dan
Member
Because that is the format, comedy entertainment (in form of nitpicks) presented as a review. As opposed to an actual review (with actual critical analysis) presented comedically.
The former not a review, the latter is.
An occasional nitpick being wrong or misunderstood doesn't change that. Entertainment doesn't just come as laughs either, though many nitpicks are.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I'm still confused as to what the discussion is about? We almost all unanimously agree their comedy is awful. We all know they don't influence the movie scene. We all know their criticisms are bad. Are we trying to get them less followers now?
To be fair that's their even shittier copycats
Stallion Dan
Member
But their comedy cannot be awful as Honest Trailers is apparently great and as someone who watches both, they have a lot of the same jokes and highlights.
TurnipFritters
Member
No one is criticizing the final tally like sins matter, they're saying he pads the videos out with nonsense.
I haven't seen those videos so I can't comment on them but I think every video has a couple of comments like that.
I think the problem is that they just use all the jokes and since they all come in rapid succession you kinda ignore those that miss and focus on the one you chuckle at. In a video with 70+ comments you end up disregarding those that misrepresent the movie.
Not saying that excuses it but given the amount of "sins" each video has the times where he bends the movie to fit a joke end up being the minority.
This isn't supposed to be a defense or anything just trying to put those "sins" in context I guess. It's definetly the worst part of those videos for me.
Edit: there's also no excuse for the dumb Hermione joke. He kept doing it and it kept not being funny.
So "comedy entertainment" and "actual review" are now mutually exclusive terms? It has to be one or the other?
How is it not "actual critical analysis" if nothing is changed except the format?
Also, again, comedy can be criticized for being bad, it's not some shield against critical blowback. Just because you don't take yourself seriously doesn't mean your criticisms aren't serious, because, again, they're the same exact criticisms in both the former and the latter.
It certainly isn't good satire when you put it like that. Intentionally misrepresenting something and claiming flaws is uncreative to me.
I'm not taking these video's that seriously though, pretty sure I didn't watch more a few video's and I made sure I watched the films. I don't want to get spoiled.
But yeah, it's stupid to structurally make up things for their own gain. And with seven million subs you can reach a lot of potential moviegoers.
Next time I'm going to read the full article before flaming.
TurnipFritters
Member
Like, going back to the i robot one, the person in this topic who was like "Why didn't the humans program robots to prioritize human life" is a better nitpicky criticism than "Why doesn't the movie explain why they saved the grown man instead of the child?"
Stallion Dan
Member
Quite a lot are trying to make that claim actually, claiming it turns people away from the movies.
TurnipFritters
Member
Maybe people are criticizing the content rather than the score
Stallion Dan
Member
Intent. If your point is to entertain with a fake, meaningless review, you're not really reviewing something. If you want to review something and make people laugh at same time, you are actually reviewing something.
I already said criticism of the comedy and entertainment is fair game. Criticism of CS as reviews isn't, because they are not real reviews, CS has said this.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
Even if "it's just for comedy", and CS does a terrible job at that, film criticism is still film criticism. MST3K is also film criticism but they're widely celebrated by everyone even to this day. You can be funny and still make clear points without nitpicking the shit out of it or just flat out making shit up but that's not clickbaity and garbage enough to attract an audience.
Prince of Space
Banned
hulkhogantweet.gif
Then they're being intellectually dishonest, because they are self-servingly trying to express their unfounded issues with a film without acknowledging it by claiming that none of it matters because jokey-jokes. If CS criticizes a film in a review and then put that same criticism in an EWW video, than they are essentially admitting that they don't know what they're doing in either case and don't deserve your attention in either case.
As Bobby put it, it's criticism for people who hate criticism, or rather people who hate the the idea of having to stand by what they say when they make a mistake.
Fudgepuppy
Banned
I'm not criticizing people for not creating things. I'm criticizing people who nitpick the smallest and most insignificant details in movies, and then toot their own horns for being so "smart and insightful".
It's like a guy I knew, that did this all the time. He would shit on every movie for the most pointless things ever. He would never let anyone air a single thought about the Sherlock Holmes movies by Guy Ritchie, because they portrayed the old guns the wrong way because RDJ would reload them with a clip, rather than sliding the bullets in the top.
Someone would mention a movie, and he would loudly interrupt everyone to talk about the smallest and most pointless details.
I've met tons of people like this, that just suck the life out of the medium because they have no suspension of disbelief or capability to actually analyze or critique movies on any deeper level than "The guns were not period accurate".
Unfriendly TimeTraveler
Member
The video for Kong: skull island didn't at all feel like a joke. Some of the sins were just mean spirited and didn't really come across like any jokes were made. Felt like he had something against the movie and the people associated with it.
CS is fairly inconsistent with its logic. At some point it sins the movie for actually giving a decent explanation of why Kong could be able to fight Godzilla in the later movie. When it would fault another situation for not explaining it.
The most you can say about CS is they are supposed to be playing a person that has no suspension of disbelief and the mindset it would go through watching all movies.
Side note: I'll be damned if people actually thinks nobody takes it serious. It does have an impact on a decent amount of people's feelings towards a movie.
CS is fairly inconsistent with its logic. At some point it sins the movie for actually giving a decent explanation of why Kong could be able to fight Godzilla in the later movie. When it would fault another situation for not explaining it.
The most you can say about CS is they are supposed to be playing a person that has no suspension of disbelief and the mindset it would go through watching all movies.
Side note: I'll be damned if people actually thinks nobody takes it serious. It does have an impact on a decent amount of people's feelings towards a movie.
Harken Raiser
Banned
So this thread has taught me that you can't criticize Cinema Sins as film criticism because then you are "taking them too seriously", but you also can't criticize their humor because "humor is subjective". Am I getting it right?
What I think Cinema Sins fans are really saying is: "don't criticize the thing I like, because I will interpret your criticism as a personal attack on my identity". Ultimately, that's not unique to Cinema Sins fans, you see this behavior on the gaming side, among genre movie fans, comic book fans, etc. It's not unique, but it is something you should try to grow out of, because criticism is part of a healthy discussion about the entertainment we engage with and it's also okay to enjoy something while acknowledging it's flaws. This inability to cope with criticism of your preferred media is where attacks on Anita Sarkeesian come from, and what fed into the birth of the Gamer Gate movement. I AM NOT SAYING CINEMA SINS FANS = GAMER GATERS, but I'm saying that this kind of visceral defensiveness is common in this, and many other, online enthusiast communities and that we should try to be more self aware than that.
What I think Cinema Sins fans are really saying is: "don't criticize the thing I like, because I will interpret your criticism as a personal attack on my identity". Ultimately, that's not unique to Cinema Sins fans, you see this behavior on the gaming side, among genre movie fans, comic book fans, etc. It's not unique, but it is something you should try to grow out of, because criticism is part of a healthy discussion about the entertainment we engage with and it's also okay to enjoy something while acknowledging it's flaws. This inability to cope with criticism of your preferred media is where attacks on Anita Sarkeesian come from, and what fed into the birth of the Gamer Gate movement. I AM NOT SAYING CINEMA SINS FANS = GAMER GATERS, but I'm saying that this kind of visceral defensiveness is common in this, and many other, online enthusiast communities and that we should try to be more self aware than that.
Fixed
It's also an extreme to want to take down CS and say they are hurting the industry.
mrmickfran
Member
Cinemasins is just for comedy, sometimes Jeremy gets serious, and that's mostly during real shit movies, but I think it's all in good fun.
Love that channel.
Love that channel.
Bobo Dakes
Member
The cycle continues.
Unfriendly TimeTraveler
Member
I just think it's dumb to actually think there are people out there that doesn't take it serious to some degree. Especially since it is the Internet and all.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Who are you talking about
What are you talking about
who are you talking to
what are you referencing
Who is saying that CinemaSins should be removed from the internet? who is advocating for that? Where, in any of the myriad criticisms bouncing off you like bullets to Wonder Woman's bracelets, are you seeing people saying "and that's why I want CinemaSins to be eradicated from YouTube."
Your inability to process criticism of the channel as anything but a malicious attack on its very existence is part of the problem. You are apparently somewhat threatened by the notion people don't like these guys, that feeling might spread if people are exposed to it, and that if enough of them grow to dislike these guys, that you will lose the thing you like.
So it appears like you're reading every argument from the perspective that the person making it is suggesting the best course of action is that we, the verbose, stone-serious old men of NeoGAF, rise up, grab CinemaSins by the pantsleg, and tear them down from their lofty perch on YouTube.
That's fucking ridiculous, dude.
Harken Raiser
Banned
I noticed you quoted me, but I can't tell if you're replying to me...?
Yeah this (and rest of Bobby's post).
Then why do Jeremy's actual opinions on movies overlap with the criticisms in the Cinema Sins videos?
They're not in "good fun" if they're mean-spirited. Which they are.
mrmickfran
Member
Y'all can give me shit for it, I don't care. I just find it entertaining, that's all.
Wait, criticizing a Cinema Sins video is giving shit to one another on a personal level?
Harken Raiser
Banned
You're not supposed to take Cinema Sins seriously, but you should take criticism of it very seriously.
THE MORE YOU KNOW!
I doubt the the casual audience give a shit about plot holes or anything and just in the movies for easy entertainment considering they also sinned highly successful movies
I think the director just doesn't care for their content