It Doesn't Matter

[J-N-K]

I'm confused about what Bob's saying re: ancient Greek and Plato. He seems to be contrasting it with what goes later, so you *don't* need to speak the language it was originally written in to fully appreciate it? Seems odd. Heck, it'd be a bit of a stretch, but he could have used it as an illustration *for* the point: by not reading the original, you've applied an unanticipated perspective to your experience of the work, which (by the nature of translation) means that the full meaning/intent/strength is missed.

(As it happens, I read ancient Greek and, while I hope I *don't* miss the ideas Plato is putting forward, I don't enjoy what he writes much at all. So that may or may not say something).

 

[Rawberry101]

This was a truly excellent article. Bob is totally right on everything. I don't have much else to say....Good on you Bob. A great piece of journalism.

 

[saintdane05]

You're right, Mr. Bob. It doesn't matter

<youtube=xTke7eiWm7Q>

 

[vid87]

I usually feel pretty stupid when I find out about a plot-hole I didn't pick up on to a movie I just saw. It never occurred to me to look it as "It's their job to not make it stand out." I feel a lot better now. Thanks Bob!

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

This is probably the most important article Bob has ever written. It's a detailed rebuttal to all those meatheads who call him out for hating the Transformers and Expendables films just because he refuses to excuse their massive flaws on the grounds that "they're just dumb action fun". He doesn't care. The films are flat, uninteresting, stupid and fail to ENGAGE, which is why he will NOT suspend his higher brain functions and just enjoy the explosions- because they're not entertaining enough to enjoy.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

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.

Though to be fair, the "professionals" sure like to trot those terms out regardless of context anyway.

 

[Redd the Sock]

In fairness, I doubt there's much cynicism in these videos so much as mimicry. James Rolfe, Doug Walker, Yahtzee, Linkara, there's a sizable industry on the net about knocking off people's blinders in a funny way, and it's hard not to be forgiving of someone trying their own hand in their own way. I won't say these are greatly skilled, but we all start somewhere.

Of course even gentle ribbing comes from honest flaws, and while fans can be anal, it think is can come from an honest place. I can sympathize with those that have realized just how often what's put out with the minimal amount of effort and thought to larger continuity. Something as simple as the kessel run being in parsecs because George Lucas couldn't track down a dictionary to look up a term before he used it can plant the seed leading to any number of plot holes and contrivances being born out of laziness not necessity. The Simpsons bit "a wizard did it" not only was a joke about how fans can take things too far, but the length to which those involved would avoid saying the error happened because they just didn't' give enough of a shit to avoid it. Yes we shouldn't poke too hard at every plot hole, logic leap, unexplained bit of lore or contrivance, but neither should the creators just expect the audience to suspend disbelief to save them effort in writing the script, or enabling a cool stunt.

 

[Evil Cabbage]

Whilst I agree with the point of the article on a personal level, I feel that assuming anyone who picks out 'plot holes' is just overly critical is a bit unfair.

As Bob said in the beginning, people have different ways of viewing films. Though this can occasionally be shaped around a false notion of superiority, I'd say it's mostly shaped around what a person enjoys.

Therefore, I'd say that being turned off by plot holes is not a sign of an overly critical approach, but someone simply being turned off by a nitpicky thing which they don't like - something I'm sure most of us have experienced at one point or another.

To provide an example, I used to know someone who despises Doctor Who. One of her main complaints with the show was that it never made sense and "wasn't real science fiction." She explained why these things mattered to her, and while I didn't agree, I could understand where she was coming from, so I don't think that makes her overly critical - just someone who, like anyone, knows what they like and don't like; and responds as such.

 

[irishda]

I was at another site that also ripped on Cinema Sins after their Avengers piece. I think people are assigning more seriousness to these videos than there actually is. It's a mixture of fairly great "Yeah, what?" points and just some humorous stuff that's not meant to be serious (see "nipple bed" criticism of Dark Knight Rises). I for one enjoy them

 

[Penguin_Factory]

I heard an interesting comment once about stuff like Mystery Science Theater 3000. It was on a podcast where one of the guests stated that they liked the show but worried that it was contributing to a culture that treated riffing as the default way to consume movies. This was supported by the observation that riff-tracks (both official and amateur) have gone from something reserved to exceptionally terrible or hilariously bad movies to a viewing method that's applied to all movies, regardless of quality. Eg, you can find "hilarious" commentary tracks for movies like Citizen Kane.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. We live in an age where it's seen as embarrassing or naive to affect anything other than an air of detached, jaded cynicism (look at reactions to the more emotional Journey and Walking Dead reviews if you don't believe me). I honestly think a lot of people, whether subconsciously or not, walk into cinemas primed to mentally rebel against whatever they're seeing on-screen.

 

[Vault101]

I kind of took to the Idea that plot holes are only worth complaining about if you notice them WHILE watching said work for the first time...otherwise your always going to find plotholes

Here's the problem with this - I do nitpick as I'm watching, and every mistake pulls me out of the experience, little by little, no matter how amazing the visuals are or ambient the music. The more that are made, the less interest I hold, and the more poorly received the movie is. Call me fussy, but if something unbelievable occurs for even its own fictional setting, how am I supposed to take the movie seriously myself?

you have to draw a line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" suspension of disbelif

I heard an interesting comment once about stuff like Mystery Science Theater 3000. It was on a podcast where one of the guests stated that they liked the show but worried that it was contributing to a culture that treated riffing as the default way to consume movies. This was supported by the observation that riff-tracks (both official and amateur) have gone from something reserved to exceptionally terrible or hilariously bad movies to a viewing method that's applied to all movies, regardless of quality. Eg, you can find "hilarious" commentary tracks for movies like Citizen Kane.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. We live in an age where it's seen as embarrassing or naive to affect anything other than an air of detached, jaded cynicism (look at reactions to the more emotional Journey and Walking Dead reviews if you don't believe me). I honestly think a lot of people, whether subconsciously or not, walk into cinemas primed to mentally rebel against whatever they're seeing on-screen.

thats a good point

one thing is I actually prefer fiction where I'm emotionally invested... sometimes I feel like saying "jesus fucking christ...is it a crime to want to take things seriously? or want works to take themselfs seriously?" actually how many times have you heard people say "it doesn't take itself too seriously" as a good thing? somewhat unrelated but it makes me think of Tarantino's movies....which are both "meta" yet take themselves dead serious at the same time, you don't see that often

to me its almost kind of pointless if I'm not invested in the charachters or the unfolding events

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I've never heard of Cinema Sins, but if they're mocking movies that don't make sense then I applaud them.

"If something utterly impossible, nonsensical or unbelievable plays out in front of you and you're so wrapped up in the experience thanks to the music, action, performances and overall verisimilitude that you don't even think about something not having made sense until later, if at all, that's good!"

The key word in that sentence is "if". Fridge logic is not fridge logic when you notice the problems in the theatre. You talk about how the audience "feels", but I don't feel anything for characters that aren't relatable and I can't relate to a character that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Zachariah Wheeler]

As a film studies major, thank you very much. Not enough people fight against the rampant and juvenile cynicism found throughout internet film criticism. As RedLetterMedia's Half in the Bag stated: It feels like every movie review is either "Well what were you expecting from a movie like that?" or "This film is overrated"

Everything is either so awful that you're wrong to criticize it, or it's good, but not as good as everyone says it is. I find the latter opinion to be expressed almost exclusively by people attempting to set themselves apart as "edgy". "Oh man you like (insert popular critically acclaimed movie), I mean it's good, but people only like it because they aren't as film literate as I am"

 

[Scorpid]

As a film studies major, thank you very much. Not enough people fight against the rampant and juvenile cynicism found throughout internet film criticism. As RedLetterMedia's Half in the Bag stated: It feels like every movie review is either "Well what were you expecting from a movie like that?" or "This film is overrated"

Everything is either so awful that you're wrong to criticize it, or it's good, but not as good as everyone says it is. I find the latter opinion to be expressed almost exclusively by people attempting to set themselves apart as "edgy". "Oh man you like (insert popular critically acclaimed movie), I mean it's good, but people only like it because they aren't as film literate as I am"

I think it's not so much they want to be edgy but that to actually invest into something emotionally and saying "Cloud Atlas is pure awesome!" Is much more risky with viewers because if a viewer thinks (more often assumes) the movie is bad he won't stick around because he'll think since you don't agree with him you're wrong and not worth listening to. But having your hook as it's good but not great lets them think that if they continue they'll see you echo their own opinions.

 

[spiffleh]

If something utterly impossible, nonsensical or unbelievable plays out in front of you and you're so wrapped up in the experience thanks to the music, action, performances and overall verisimilitude that you don't even think about something not having made sense until later, if at all, that's good!

Agreed. But in my head, that is what Cinema Sins is doing: pointing out the moments that break my suspension of disbelief /later/. I know others don't necessarily agree with me, but I enjoy fridge logic, and laugh at the ridiculous of things in movies I never noticed. But I don't generally let them change my opinion of the movie. I've seen both honest trailers and cinema sins version of the Avengers and neither of them impacted my opinion of the movie in the slightest. It was still fun, had great dialogue/banter and exciting action sequences. The fact that all the heroes act like they have ear pieces when they clearly do not only made me laugh a little. I know that movies aren't perfect and that there are always going to be problems.

I'm still going to defend cinema sins. If you do what cinema sins does the first time you see a movie, then I'd argue you are setting out to hate a movie. But if you notice these things on a second, fourth, or tenth viewing, you are just using your brain and observation skills now that the immediate impact of the film has worn off.

 

[IronMit]

I agree and disagree with Movie Bob

I refer you to youtuber 'Mrbtongue's first video. (the guy who made a 40min review of mass effect story telling)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs&t=23m0s

Narrative coherence; when so many internal inconsistencies, mistakes, unexplained stuff happens the movie starts falling apart.

And he makes a really good point...you can overlook 1 or 2 'problems' but they build up.


I still don't understand how the CIA can trace the list in Mission impossible 1 but that's ok cos that's just one problem...however in Prometheus there are about 15 problems that are equal or bigger then this (not even including the crap character development) so yh it is a problem.

So while cinema sins is nit picky and annoying at times...it's not entirely useless...and I'm pretty sure it's made for fun