Support NeoGAF

[Warm Machine]

So then would you get on defending George Lucas too? he had a creative vision, and some would argue the prequels were beautiful in their own right. Yet RLM took them down on tons of varied criticisms of the movies.

Yes I would. RLM's Episode 1 video holds two salient points yet has become a gross thing people parrot as though it is actual substantial criticism.

My point is both of them are using the visual and creative work of the author and making their own long form thing from the efforts of the people who put years and a loads of creative energy into making a film. This isn't a simple written review or a video blogger infront of a set discussing the movie. They hijack the film itself to create new material.

I'd hold the same perspective if someone grabbed Alone in the Dark or House of the Dead without paying for it or getting permission to use it. You can criticize a movie all you like but grabbing the movie itself and leveraging it for your own financial gain while purposefully shitting on it with made up issues is worse than unfair, it is ugly.

 

[Inferno313]

Which, I mean,there could be a funny gimmick in intentionally misunderstanding scenes, but he tries to pair it with extreme detail-oriented nitpicking and it just... doesn't work. And people keep saying "Oh that's the joke, he's bad" but it's like, that isn't reflected in the comments on the videos. The users who are actually interacting with the channel aren't going "Wow haha yeah he sure is a jackass!" they're saying "Wow this movie looks bad glad I didn't see it!"

They're just joking, playing along, it's part of the gag.

Spoiler

/s

 

[yuoke]

Which, I mean,there could be a funny gimmick in intentionally misunderstanding scenes, but he tries to pair it with extreme detail-oriented nitpicking and it just... doesn't work. And people keep saying "Oh that's the joke, he's bad" but it's like, that isn't reflected in the comments on the videos. The users who are actually interacting with the channel aren't going "Wow haha yeah he sure is a jackass!" they're saying "Wow this movie looks bad glad I didn't see it!"

That's not CS's fault...plus a handful of youtube comments is anecdotal.

 

[Bobo Dakes]

I watch serious reviewers for serious reviews.

I watch cinemasins to get some laughs and occasionally a pointed out minor flaw.

IT'S JUST A JOKE ISN'T A DEFENSE!!

Asking not to be taken seriously doesn't make you immune from criticism. How many times does this need to be said in this thread? We've broken down how it fails at comedy and criticism and your response is "well, I just watch it laughs" over and over again with the added "well Kevin Smith likes them" like somehow that's a defense. No one is trying to stop you from enjoying them.

I'd ignore you, but that smug ass avatar and your tone just annoy me.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That's not CS's fault...plus a handful of youtube comments is anecdotal.

Person who makes movie look bad by making jokes that make no sense or are even lies is not at fault for people thinking that movie is bad. OK...

 

[Glass Rebel]

John Roberts emptied the whole magazine this morning. Whew.

why is he even holding his left arm like that if he isn't using it to stabilize his shooting arm?

*ding*

 

[Seductivpancakes]

That's not CS's fault...plus a handful of youtube comments is anecdotal.

It's anecdotal, but it is 100 % his fault since he has actual influence over his viewers.

People with influence have a responsibility to those giving them attention.

 

[TurnipFritters]

That's not CS's fault...plus a handful of youtube comments is anecdotal.

No one else has stepped forward to explain what the actual joke is supposed to be, so yes I'm having to rely on the actual comments people are providing on why they watch these videos

 

[kiguel182]

hey to people here who do enjoy these videos for their comedic content, can you articulate what it is about them you find funny or entertaining or whichever?
like, is it seeing the flaws in a film, something about the dudes commentary?
i cant for the life of me find the entertainment value here, but considering the significant effort put up in its defense there must be something here im completely missing.

Sometimes I find the nitpicking entertaining because it's stuff that you notice on movies. I also find his observations and humor entertaining. He sometimes makes funny comments about the situation.

It's more about his situational comments that I find entertaining and also just seeing what he points out in the movie. When a movie is bad I'm curious about what he finds bad about ir (he sprinkles some criticism in the middle of all the nitpicking and funny comments)

I also find the running jokes and shit entertaining.

Also, they are good videos to turn off your head when you are tired and looking at YouTube for something to fall asleep to.

 

[Dynasty]

No one else has stepped forward to explain what the actual joke is supposed to be, so yes I'm having to rely on the actual comments people are providing on why they watch these videos

The joke is CinemaSins criticisms dont really matter, sins have no values, this can be seen by him giving sins just because he feels like it. That is the intention of the series by the creators, obviously some people will not get that and take it seriously, that isnt CinemaSins fault.
Everything Wrong With CinemaSins
This is a video created by CinemaSins criticising there own series.

 

[Ivan 3414]

The joke is that most of the criticisms aren't good and the sin points don't actually matter.

Which I why I laugh at people saying that Cinema Sins is taking themselves seriously or are "egotistical", or are devolving film criticism as we know it.

Look at the "Get Out" video. By the end of the "review", the movie received a whopping seventy-nine sins. Yet, when you watch the video, you get a pretty clear idea while watching that the reviewers thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There's several moments where they praise the movie's commentary on race relations even when they "sin", and also remove "sins" from their "sin counter" multiple times because they found the movie to be so ingenious. So what's the point of the points system? The answer is that the sins have no point, except to give their snarky one-liners and inside jokes a consistent format. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

Fans of the series realize this; just take a look at the comments of the Get Out video. They get that Get Out is a good movie, even though the CS video is, at face value, 15 minutes of nitpicking and shitting on the film. They get that these are mostly just snarky jokes that aren't meant to denote the actual quality of the film. I know how some of you fear the idea of people watching Cinema Sins and parroting these criticisms you find so shitty, and that somehow devalues all film criticism. Guess what: that's a problem for all critics. Folks flock to outlets they have affinity with, read/watch the writer's review, then conflate the writer's points with their own, if not simply parrot the writer. It is unfair to call Cinema Sins out for this when the phenomena has occurred with every form of criticism, legitimate or not, long before CS existed.

If you want to call this low-brow, LCD, shitty humor, that's fine. But it's a ridiculous assertion that Cinema Sins is "devaluing film criticism", when Cinema Sins consistently devalue their own criticisms within the framework of their absolutely wacky and arbitrary numerical score system. It's all played for laughs; no one is placing Jeremy on the pedestal with Ebert.

Stop taking Cinema Sins seriously.

 

[kiguel182]

The tone this thread took is ridiculous. Getting all hot and bothered when discussing some silly YouTube videos is a bit too much.

I think a lot of valid criticism was pointed out here. The new tweets from the director are good if a tad exaggerated. Cinemasins could definetly be edited down, they miss more than they hit these days. I still enjoy the videos.

Edit: Jeremy definetly is aware that he gets things wrong and that all of this is pointless. Him being self aware kinda saves the channel in a way. And even if his views on a movie are in his videos in a way they are sprinkled in the middle of the jokes. It's hardly a review and he nitpicks good and bad movies regardless. Of course if he likes he will do stuff like remove sins or comment how he liked something but then sin it or do something. It's all arbitrary.

 

[Stallion Dan]

5 seconds ago you were defending CS's critique, and now you are saying he is taking it too seriously?

If you didn't take it seriously why even bother defending CS.

I was replying to his claim that the sin was wrong not to defend CS, but to point out the flawed argument.

 

[Raziel]

It's anecdotal, but it is 100 % his fault since he has actual influence over his viewers.

People with influence have a responsibility to those giving them attention.

This is like saying a violent film is at fault when someone watches it and then shoots up a school.

Viewer accountability is a thing.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Stop taking Cinema Sins seriously.

You first

and/or

no.

This is like saying a violent film is at fault when someone watches it and then shoots up a school.

You kids are fucking killing me

The tone this thread took is ridiculous. Getting all hot and bothered when discussing some silly YouTube videos is a bit too much.

I think a lot of valid criticism was pointed out here. The new tweets from the director are good if a tad exaggerated. Cinemasins could definetly be edited down, they miss more than they hit these days. I still enjoy the videos.

...what

The tone this thread took is the exact same tone you just said was good in the same post.

 

[Bobo Dakes]

The joke is CinemaSins criticisms dont really matter, sins have no values, this can be seen by him giving sins just because he feels like it. That is the intention of the series by the creators, obviously some people will not get that and take it seriously, that isnt CinemaSins fault.
Everything Wrong With CinemaSins
This is a video created by CinemaSins criticising there own series.

That's not an out.

Just because you call yourself an asshole doesn't mean I can't criticize you for being one.

It started out light and fun and turned into movie SparkNotes that now enable people to say "phew, glad I didn't waste my money watching that piece of shit" (as if they had anything better to do).

 

[yuoke]

It's anecdotal, but it is 100 % his fault since he has actual influence over his viewers.

People with influence have a responsibility to those giving them attention.

I mean...maybe for like 12 year olds.

Anyone that is older than that should be able to know on their own what is meant as comedy, and should be able to think on their own and make their own opinions.

 

[Kinyou]

i would have no problem with someone nitpicking movies, but they're often simply wrong, so wrong that i question if they understood of even watched the movie

This is why I don't get it when people claim that Cinema sin is meant as a joke. Where's the joke here?

 

[Ivan 3414]

You first

and/or

no.

I take them seriously insofar as I see that they're making money. I don't take them seriously as film critics.

There's levels to this, Bobby.

 

[TurnipFritters]

This is why I don't get it when people claim that Cinema sin is meant as a joke. Where's the joke here?

Ignoring the entire basis for the film that's explained in the very next scene is a funny joke, stop taking it seriously. Real fans understand.

 

[rekameohs]

This is like saying a violent film is at fault when someone watches it and then shoots up a school.

Viewer accountability is a thing.

Yo, did you just equate people with murderers because they said an unfunny comedian wasn't funny?

 

[Raziel]

Yo, did you just equate people with murderers because they said an unfunny comedian wasn't funny?

No, it's an analogy made super extreme so the point about accountability is super clear for dumb people.

 

[yuoke]

This is why I don't get it when people claim that Cinema sin is meant as a joke. Where's the joke here?

I mean...this is one sin...literally one sin that has been quoted how many times?

I could screenshot tons of jokes to counter point this, but it should be very obvious.

 

[zeemumu]

If you can't see that this argument is less than a millimeter to the left of "there is no point in watching this at all then" I don't know how else to make this more clear.

Your defense of the useless thing is that it is useless and nothing matters.

Like, if you have to invoke the tenets of nihilism to explain/defend why you watch shitty YouTube videos, I dunno if that's a YouTube video that's worth the trouble.

I was answering the question. That's how they describe themselves

The Sin counts have no real value, because we feel that if they did, they'd lose their real value

-CinemaSins

Also

We often sin while making our own videos, and we wear those sins like a badge because that's the motherf*cking point

 

[Dynasty]

That's not an out.

Just because you call yourself an asshole doesn't mean I can't criticize you for being one.

It started out light and fun and turned into movie SparkNotes that now enable people to say "phew, glad I didn't waste my money watching that piece of shit" (as if they had anything better to do).

Never said you cant criticise them just blaming them for the actions of there viewers is stupid especially since you are refering to YT comment sections which is full of trolls. Show me some actual real world significant impact of the danger of CinemaSins.

 

[DrForester]

So then would you get on defending George Lucas too? he had a creative vision, and some would argue the prequels were beautiful in their own right. Yet RLM took them down on tons of varied criticisms of the movies.



That's fair, but he also made clerks and mallrats.

RLM gave a total breakdown of their critique of the prequels though. They made their point by going through mounds of behind the scene footage, and laying out their case.

Hardly comparable to the drive-by zingers of CS.

 

[kiguel182]

You first

and/or

no.



You kids are fucking killing me


...what

The tone this thread took is the exact same tone you just said was good in the same post.

Not really. I'm talking about some good points I think I were raised in this thread vs the tone of some posters and hyperbole being thrown around.

Like that "what" and those italics are unecessary. As I've said you are being super intense about a theme as light as this is.

 

[p2535748]

You first

and/or

no.



You kids are fucking killing me



...what

The tone this thread took is the exact same tone you just said was good in the same post.

I just want to say that you're doing the lord's work here, Bobby. The arguments here that just keep coming back to "stop taking this seriously" are insane.

Again, for everyone: comedy is not free from criticism. Calling something comedy or satire does not mean no one can critique it, and any argument that starts from that position is insane.

We can argue whether it's good comedy and whether it's good criticism, but I won't accept an argument that we should be fine with it "because it's not supposed to be taken seriously."

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Again, you can't say "don't take this seriously" while simultaneously taking it seriously enough to try defending it while simultaneously arguing that the criticisms don't matter while simultaneously going out of your way to prove that the criticisms have merit.

At least not if you're trying to provide an argument with any sort of internal consistency and logic to it.

As I posted before, the most internally consistent, logical defense of this channel as both criticism and comedy, as according to the channel's most ardent defenders, is that the whole of the channel's appeal boils down to these three factors:

1) nitpicking
2) being stupid
3) not giving a fuck

This is really all you have to work with so far as an internally consistent defense of Cinema Sins goes. Arrange those three points in their order of importance to you and lay that out:

"I like Cinema Sins because pointless, stupid nitpicking is, by itself, funny to me, and I enjoy the idea that they don't give a fuck, and I also don't give a fuck. So I watch it specifically to not give a fuck and laugh at pointless, stupid nitpicking."

That's all there is to it

And if you like that, and you're willing to enter (and re-enter) a thread to try clumsily gilding that lily over and over again, guess what:

YOU'RE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY

Because of course you are. Why wouldn't you be? What's wrong with that? Nothing! Nothing is wrong with it!

(now, is there something wrong with the notion that art, criticism, and any combination of the two, should aspire to no emotion higher than numbness and lazy superficial nihilism? I think so, but hey)

Like that "what" and those italics are unecessary.

I swear to God I've never met a group of people so fascinated and perturbed by text formatting before.

 

[yuoke]

I just want to say that you're doing the lord's work here, Bobby. The arguments here that just keep coming back to "stop taking this seriously" are insane.

Again, for everyone: comedy is not free from criticism. Calling something comedy or satire does not mean no one can critique it, and any argument that starts from that position is insane.

We can argue whether it's good comedy and whether it's good criticism, but I won't accept an argument that we should be fine with it "because it's not supposed to be taken seriously."

Hey I totally agree...but does this mean that the conclusion is that CS is in fact comedy and not serious criticism?

 

[TurnipFritters]

I mean...this is one sin...literally one sin that has been quoted how many times?

I could screenshot tons of jokes to counter point this, but it should be very obvious.

People use that particular one because the hilarious cinemasins-brand joke is, uh, the guy doesn't understand the entire premise of the film that's explained, literally, in no uncertain terms.

 

[Bobo Dakes]

Again, you can't say "don't take this seriously" while simultaneously taking it seriously enough to try defending it while simultaneously arguing that the criticisms don't matter while simultaneously going out of your way to prove that the criticisms have merit.

Try saying that out loud 5 times.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

but does this mean that the conclusion is that CS is in fact comedy and not serious criticism?

It's fucking both

 

[Kinyou]

I mean...this is one sin...literally one sin that has been quoted how many times?

I could screenshot tons of jokes to counter point this, but it should be very obvious.

But is it even meant as a joke or do they try to throw in genuine critic after all?

 

[kiguel182]

If you are criticizing a comedy channel for not being a good film reviewer then there's no argument to be made their. They aren't film reviews.

Nobody is saying you can't criticize their videos. But if your criticism is "they aren't good reviews" then yeah, people will roll their eyes because they aren't supposed to be.

I mean, those videos are full of flaws. You don't need to try and make a case that they are ruining people's videos on film to criticize them.

 

[BronsonLee]

BronsonLee
Son of Laimbeer
(Today, 08:58 AM)

I mean I have been known to be quite the tough customer and also the main instigator

I thought the Bronson Way was to change the outcome after the fact, so just make a robot that edits the scores when the game is over so that the undeserving team wins, instead.

Look just because the scoreboard malfunctioned at all of my pickup basketball games last year means nothing

 

[Bobo Dakes]

Hey I totally agree...but does this mean that the conclusion is that CS is in fact comedy and not serious criticism?

Well you guys keep moving goal posts so we're explaining while it fails at both, but you keep ignoring that.

 

[yuoke]

But is it even meant as a joke or do they try to thrown in genuine critic after all?

It's meant to be serious played off as deadpan because the comedy is that it's nitpicking to an extreme.

To some that is funny, to some that is not.

 

[Messofanego]

If you are criticizing a comedy channel for not being a good film reviewer then there's no argument to be made their. They aren't film reviews.

Nobody is saying you can't criticize their videos. But if your criticism is "they aren't good reviews" then yeah, people will roll their eyes because they aren't supposed to be.

I mean, those videos are full of flaws. You don't need to try and make a case that they are ruining people's videos on film to criticize them.

When they're bad at comedy, what else is there to criticise?

 

[kiguel182]

I swear to God I've never met a group of people so fascinated and perturbed by text formatting before.

Honestly, you are just being rude now.

 

[Dynasty]

When they're bad at comedy, what else is there to criticise?

Dont neccessarily agree with the guy you are replying to but Comedy is subjective.

 

[SeanC]

Hey I totally agree...but does this mean that the conclusion is that CS is in fact comedy and not serious criticism?

It should totally not be serious criticism because they don't really do anything constructive, even if I hear their talking points repeatedly online and even in real life. I just hand-wave it off, it's an annoyance and I think that annoyance dripped into this thread earlier from me personally. Criticism isn't saying "look at this" or "what about this" - but the problem is the same guy that does CS also does real reviews and still uses some of those talking points so that's where the hiccup is for me. Which is it? A joke or something you're truly analyzing? He's unclear, you can't have your cake and eat it too - so either he wants his comedy taken seriously or his film critiquing not to be.

As comedy, it's fine to be entertained by it, but it's low comedy. It's not really creative or clever and they don't really present a tone that says "this is funny" because it's mostly monotone "ding a bell, point at a thing with a snarky comment." I like snark, but I like cleverness and wit more. Snark is perfect for the internet, though. It's easy, shallow and forgotten in two seconds. I also love riffing and all that, so for me I see a laziness to CS compared to something like a movie riff (rifftrax, mst3k) that's actually funny and puts time into saying something smart/clever or putting a joke together. They still are able to make a point but have a take on it instead of dinging a bell.

I don't fault people for liking CS, but, as Bobby as pointed out, I do think some take them very seriously in various ways which causes escalation in taking it seriously from those criticizing it. It's like a snake eating its own tail at this time. Or chicken/egg. Or...I dunno, some analogy of something.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I don't watch Cinema Sins, but here's my beef--

Too much damn time talking about movies is nitpicking, and often wrong in that there is an explanation of whatever in the film that the viewer missed. So instead of discussion on themes, or overall artistic vision and whether it was achieved, we get people complaining about how x didn't make sense because of y (which is often wrong, or just their preference about how something should have happened/worked).

I don't go to a movie to fight with it, I go along with whatever is put out there unless it's so bad it takes me out of the movie.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Dont neccessarily agree with the guy you are replying to but Comedy is subjective.

Entertainment is subjective but there is actually a thriving entertainment critic industry

 

[yuoke]

When they're bad at comedy, what else is there to criticise?

I mean the same was said for ghostbusters 2016, yet avid defenders of the movie demanded actual criticism....so RLM gave full on criticism of the movie.

 

[Xero]

Anyone that's ever been in a movie topic on gaf and sees the mindset in there and the ludicrous "nitpicks" people have with a movie despite half those things being explained in the movie should know they have clearly influenced a large amount of people. You take it as a joke fine, a good portion of their viewers do not though.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Honestly, you are just being rude now.

Not really

 

[JCHandsom]

I mean...this is one sin...literally one sin that has been quoted how many times?

I could screenshot tons of jokes to counter point this, but it should be very obvious.

Goddamn, you do realize that people have posted 30-35 min videos showing how CS misconstrues movies to create criticisms? It's not like people went hunting for a needle in a haystack to find the iRobot example, that shit happens all the time.

Even then, the point still stands that CS mixes dumb and unfunny jokes* with what seem like actual serious criticism of the movies. Why shouldn't I take them seriously when they keep mixing their message with actual knocks against a film?

*Seriously, how many weird digs against Black Widow in the Age of Ultron video does there have to be before it gets weird?

 

[kiguel182]

When they're bad at comedy, what else is there to criticise?

If you want to make the case for how they are ruining film criticism you do you. The response you will get from most people who watch the videos is "they aren't reviews". There's really no other way that conversation goes as this thread shows.

If you say "I don't find this funny" then well, there's also not a lot to say there is it?

I think saying why they aren't funny or how the format fails at being funny it's interesting. The director even expanded on that later in his tweets.

I just don't think the dialogue of "they are bad film critics" goes anywhere because it's a comedy series.

 

[p2535748]

Hey I totally agree...but does this mean that the conclusion is that CS is in fact comedy and not serious criticism?

If people want to say that nothing is CS is supposed to be taken seriously, none of their criticisms are supposed to be valid and the whole thing's a joke about being extremely nitpicky, fine (I disagree, but we'll go with it for now). I'll argue then that the joke is bad, that it's lazy, one note, poorly conceived, executed and edited, that there's some weirdly off putting sexist bullshit in there mixed in with tossed off, half thought through one liners that don't build to anything. I would furthermore compare it to something like MST3K which also does a "riff" on movies, but does so with well thought out, well written jokes that aren't simply "hey, there's a cliche!" but are actually creative in their own right.

However, that's not really what supporters of CS think. They'll say "don't take it seriously", but then they'll defend the criticisms of films CS makes. And then if you take issues with any of the criticisms, they'll say "no, they're just having fun."

Personally, I think CS is both bad criticism and bad comedy. It's neither funny nor insightful. I think it's trying to be humorous while also making valid critiques of movies, and I think it fails massively at both.

Having said that, my post was intended to say that even if I meet defenders halfway and just say "fine, it's just pure comedy, let's ignore the poor quality of the criticism," it still doesn't hold up.