It Doesn't Matter
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Thank you Bob for introducing me to honest trailers. I have a feeling my plans for the evening are now sorted.
This is probably also why people are so hard on Prometheus for having a woman run around and jumping eventhough she just had a C-section, yet they forgot the equally ridiculous physical feat in Aliens where Ripley has a 2 ton alien hanging from her ankle in the middle of a vacuum without getting ripped in half.
It's part of the cynicism and "unearned irony" of this generation that is over-exposed to analysis, criticism and deconstruction of everything. If you go after plot holes you'll be able to find them almost everywhere, but to some people it's more important to feel clever and "superior" than to be completely absorbed in a movie/game/book. (I'm not even talking about "fun", but about engagement.)
We see it here everyday with the overly harsh criticism of some games, and games work in a similar way: you have to be willing to lose yourself in the experience, not analyze it from the first minute.
We see it here everyday with the overly harsh criticism of some games, and games work in a similar way: you have to be willing to lose yourself in the experience, not analyze it from the first minute.
That's it exactly. Prometheus wanted me to care about its characters when it hadn't done any work to make me do so. Alien, on the other hand, made sure I'd gotten to know and even care about the Nostromo crew so when they start doing stupid things, I had a lot more empathy for them.
My go-to film on this concept is Spider-man 2. After the credits rolled, I remember sitting in the theatre with my friends, finding about a dozen dumb things the movie did (e.g., who does cutting-edge and dangerous scientific research in a Manhattan loft?). But ultimately I look past all those nitpicks because that movie does all the important things right.
I've noticed that I have become irritatingly jaded about movies and things. Any sizable plot hole can take me right out of a movie-going experience. I have no problem with a movie full of dragons that can breathe fire, but god forbid they not use that power any time it could save them a plot development.
Perhaps that's why I enjoy Doctor Who and Harry Potter so much. Both of those series have some point where they address those plot holes, and then say "screw you, it's magic/wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff." For some reason, my brain accepts that as adequate.
Perhaps that's why I enjoy Doctor Who and Harry Potter so much. Both of those series have some point where they address those plot holes, and then say "screw you, it's magic/wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff." For some reason, my brain accepts that as adequate.
A very good article and really made me think about the absurd things I let 'good' movies get away with whilst hate in others, I guess building a believable universe doesn't mean everything has to make sense, just that i'm invested in the outcome.
Nailed it.tautologico said:
I'm so glad i'm not the only person on the planet who thinks this.tautologico said:
My old roommate was basically a walking Cinema Sins. He actively tried to compete with any movie he saw, picking up on any excuse to tear any movie off of any pedestal he thought it might have been on and then wondered why nobody liked watching movies with him. I don't talk to him anymore, but i sure hope he never finds out about Cinema Sins.
I think the key to all of this is compartmentalization, and understanding the difference between reviewing a piece, and critiquing it. You can critique the bad and good points of anything, but as soon as you start assigning any kind of academic importance to a review of a piece, written or composed for the purposes of advising an audience to or not to see a movie you have missed the point entirely. Both of these things are valuable in and of themselves (determining academic worth, and entertainment value respectively) and neither of them are mutually exclusive, but people need to stop expecting intellectual praise when they pick apart the physics of time travel in a movie about time travel (hint: nobody's gotten it right yet).
I really liked this article, as someone who really likes analyzing movies I think it put things in a good perspective for me. It's like when I was watching the new James Bond I was mostly enjoying myself but there were a few moments where I just went "that's bullshit" while watching. Those were bad moments because they took me out of the film as I was watching it. Conversely most of the stupid stuff in Prometheus at least didn't hit me till afterwards when I was reflecting on the movie.
Honest Trailers are fantastic. I'm not sure about the other programs they host on their channel, but they really struck gold with the concept and execution of those features in particular.
A wall of a building falls off/gets blown up. A hero looks over the edge and takes running jump through a window of a building right next to it - that's movie realistic. A hero runs, without looking, then jumps through a window and then into a window of another building, things get iffy. People start asking questions instead off explaining to themselves "well he did check to see if can jump over".
As with many things in movies, it's all about indicating and giving subtle hints. Limited time of a movie means counting every scene, because every scene is important if you want it to be and every second can be effectively used to raise drama and tension and keep the tempo going. And that's why some thing just can be believable even when it's not even close. Guy taking out a helicopter with a Glock, a bus jumping over a hole in a highway under construction, loads of people shooting at the hero but keep missing etc.
On the other hand, surviving an atomic bomb explosion in a fridge, yeah it might be doable but there's so many things about it that just don't seem likely and so many people don't really understand about it, they'll probably question it more. If it was a regular bomb/explosion, that part would be much more believable (not the flying over a cart part, just the surviving part).
Instead of using it in it's advantage (like let's say James Bond's or Batman's gadgets) where science is iffy but can be explained with "well it's high tech/magic", in Indy 4 fridge escape it's almost like an uncanny valley effect.
As with many things in movies, it's all about indicating and giving subtle hints. Limited time of a movie means counting every scene, because every scene is important if you want it to be and every second can be effectively used to raise drama and tension and keep the tempo going. And that's why some thing just can be believable even when it's not even close. Guy taking out a helicopter with a Glock, a bus jumping over a hole in a highway under construction, loads of people shooting at the hero but keep missing etc.
On the other hand, surviving an atomic bomb explosion in a fridge, yeah it might be doable but there's so many things about it that just don't seem likely and so many people don't really understand about it, they'll probably question it more. If it was a regular bomb/explosion, that part would be much more believable (not the flying over a cart part, just the surviving part).
Instead of using it in it's advantage (like let's say James Bond's or Batman's gadgets) where science is iffy but can be explained with "well it's high tech/magic", in Indy 4 fridge escape it's almost like an uncanny valley effect.
Dear Movie Bob,
I hate you. I now have to go watch ALL Honest Trailers because The Avengers one was freaking hilarious and I just can't stop. Thank you for getting me addicted to a witty, well-written program that will likely keep me up laughing for a long time now. Have a nice day.
Hm. I wonder how long before these comments just become about Honest Trailers and not the actual article? I too would like to see a movie about Teddy because I always hear, and read, about what that man did but I've never seen it.
I hate you. I now have to go watch ALL Honest Trailers because The Avengers one was freaking hilarious and I just can't stop. Thank you for getting me addicted to a witty, well-written program that will likely keep me up laughing for a long time now. Have a nice day.
Hm. I wonder how long before these comments just become about Honest Trailers and not the actual article? I too would like to see a movie about Teddy because I always hear, and read, about what that man did but I've never seen it.
The trouble with the democratization of criticism via the blogosphere/youtube is that a lot of people seem to think all critics (both bad and good) just have a bag of tricks they trot out and accordingly follow suit. Is there cleavage? Sexism! Is a character dumb? Bad writing! Is the main character a white guy? Racism AND sexism! Unrealistic event/sequence of events/coincidences? More bad writing!
The nitpicking that replaces actual analysis is just the most external result of the 'critic' never considering why these pairings initially came to be or whether they might have exceptions.
The nitpicking that replaces actual analysis is just the most external result of the 'critic' never considering why these pairings initially came to be or whether they might have exceptions.
![jFr[e]ak93](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/91/91030.jpg?1620781506){kind=avatar}
I hate cinemasins for that reason and love honest trailers for the same.
Even though Dark Knight Rises had problems (mostly in atmosphere and timing) I enjoyed that movie. Sure it had some holes... but in that universe, some of it made scenes.
Same with The Hobbit. You might think it was too long, but it captured the book and the "light hearted Lord of the Rings" vibe so well, I didn't realized how long it was... actually it was shorter the second time.
Even though Dark Knight Rises had problems (mostly in atmosphere and timing) I enjoyed that movie. Sure it had some holes... but in that universe, some of it made scenes.
Same with The Hobbit. You might think it was too long, but it captured the book and the "light hearted Lord of the Rings" vibe so well, I didn't realized how long it was... actually it was shorter the second time.
hehe Thanks for the nod to cinemasins, very funny stuff.
As far as analysis of film or any work for that matter, the incredible lack of academically taught "art appreciation" or "design philosophy" dominates most of the stuff out on the interwebs. The post modern deconstruction is a pseudo philosophical approach that embraces post modern subjectivity and relativism. It is valid when discussing what is "contained within the text" when deliberating if a work is art unto itself, or a cultural commentary (lazy post modern philosophy paper).
Bottom line, criticism by it's nature is post modern deconstruction and has little or nothing to do with academic critical analysis.
As far as analysis of film or any work for that matter, the incredible lack of academically taught "art appreciation" or "design philosophy" dominates most of the stuff out on the interwebs. The post modern deconstruction is a pseudo philosophical approach that embraces post modern subjectivity and relativism. It is valid when discussing what is "contained within the text" when deliberating if a work is art unto itself, or a cultural commentary (lazy post modern philosophy paper).
Bottom line, criticism by it's nature is post modern deconstruction and has little or nothing to do with academic critical analysis.
Excellent article, Bob. Criticizing the wrong kind of criticism. I'm going to sound older than I actually am and shake my proverbial walking stick, but what is it with kids these days shitting on everything meant to be enjoyed? to make themselves superior? If they're looking for excuses to call something bad, they'll only depress themselves further.
I wonder if CinemaSins is just one giant PARODY of bad "nitpick for page hits" review shows.
I certainly hope so, because it's clearly not sincere. With all their stretched and shoehorned-in nitpicks to preordain the worst possible final rating at the end, it is transparently clear that they don't actually believe their schtick.
Even if it is a parody, it's still annoying and unfunny; but if it's not, it is quite possibly THE most soulless and hollow schtick I've ever seen in one of these things.
I certainly hope so, because it's clearly not sincere. With all their stretched and shoehorned-in nitpicks to preordain the worst possible final rating at the end, it is transparently clear that they don't actually believe their schtick.
Even if it is a parody, it's still annoying and unfunny; but if it's not, it is quite possibly THE most soulless and hollow schtick I've ever seen in one of these things.