Christ, that was way too damn long and repetitive. I'm still reading it but I needed to come back here and suggest that this whole topic should be an Intermission (call it "Plot Hole Criticism" or something). Also, I'm very curious to know what Trey thinks of all this. I mean, a lot of people disliked The Dark Knight Rises for this very specific reason: All the plot holes. I rather like the film, still because the previous two films have their own share of plot holes. Character means the most to me, above story and plot. It's why I continue to love all of LOST, including the ending.
Having said that, I do believe there is value to be had in this kind of plot-hole-structure-logic approach to critiquing movies. To me, the answer "Because then there would be no movie" is a cheap, lazy cop-out in and of itself. I feel like if your script is tight enough and well thought out, people wouldn't even be asking some of these questions. "Why doesn't the hero just do BLANK?" It's the movie's job to provide an answer on the screen. "The victim in the Horror movie can't just call for help because their phone is clearly dead/broken/gone" is a much better answer than, "Because then the movie would be over so shut up and don't think about it."
It's like a complete dismissal of Fridge Logic. We'll just invalidate Fridge Logic as a worthwhile form of criticism. That way, we can do whatever we want because it doesn't matter. All that matters is WHY people are watching Indiana Jones falling a mile down a waterfall in an inflatable lifeboat and surviving. That's another thing that bugs me about the article. It's too didactic and fascist in how people digest "art", which by its very nature is subjective. It's telling people how to think and feel and I don't support that. People go to movies for all sorts of reasons, not just the single one the article states.
People can be empathetic towards Indiana Jones all day long and they could be totally loving his adventures they're in the middle of but if his hiding in a refrigerator to survive a nuclear blast, only to be tossed into the air and hit the ground and also survive just breaks the movie for them and takes them out of it, then I think that's valid (For the record, I'm one of the few people who enjoyed Crystal Skull because quite frankly, they're all that preposterous in one way or another). It's not necessarily about the characters fucking up and making bad choices. That's all well and good. You can't have conflict resolution without conflict. The issue for a lot of people is when the movie itself, through its screenwriting, directing or both fucks up and makes bad choices.
Then again, maybe like others here, I just find Honest Trailers and Cinema Sins really funny and while it may occasionally make me go, "Oh hey, yeah! I hadn't noticed or thought of that before!" my mind is already made up about a film and these videos aren't going to make me like it or hate it any more or less. First and foremost, they're there to make you laugh. It's not a film studies class. Though there may be people who treat it as such and take it seriously, one shouldn't hold the videos and its makers accountable for that. It's a separate issue. Hate the "fans" for their own personal "stupidity" if you must but don't blame the creators for the actions of others.
). Considering that IMDB has a whole section for goofs on films, and Movie Mistakes has been around to highlight where movies mess up technically, this is not new.
