Hey, thanks for getting the word out! I hope you enjoyed it!

I know this is probably going to anger the panelists (and many of the forum members for even suggesting it) but I think you guys should seriously consider watching a handful of these videos beforehand, to refresh your memories on the actual content, instead of what you think or remember of them, (which can be a bit removed) and to give you specific talking points and examples to delve into.

Yes, all of those words were one sentence. I did it just to see if I could.

.....Yay?

Wow, I had no idea so many people hated such silliness as Cinema Sins and Honest Trailers. I guess it boils down to what one considers to be "minor nitpicking" and what one considers to be a substantial, egregious error in screenwriting. Cinema Sins ripped into Marvel's The Avengers and even though I love that film, the video never made me angry. It did what it was meant to do, make me laugh. *shrug*

     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.

Yes, that was in fact Roger Ebert who said that.

While it's vague enough to theorize on multiple meanings from it, I think the main thing he was saying was:

     Regardless of similar genre or plot, not all films are created equal, so presentation and execution counts for an awful lot. For example, you can have two films about a zombie apocalypse but how you choose to tell that story can play greatly into whether or not a zombie film, uh, zombie likes one over the other, or even if he likes either one at all. To put this in a more topical context, look at the core through lines from Twilight and let's say, the first three seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: A romance between a human and a vampire. Strip everything else away, and that's the single, consistent narrative that touches and changes everything else. Both properties, when you get at the heart of them are about watching these two characters fall in love and try to have a relationship and make it work, despite their stations in existence.

     Everything else is either reversed or completely different, right down to the film stock, storytelling format and aspect ratio. All of this will influence and inform the viewer's opinion and assessment of that basic story idea. If you're a fan of that "human loves vampire" theme, because of all those other differences, even if you do in fact love both properties, you're going to eventually prefer one over the other.

Personally, the only "critic" I've seen that tends to review things from a generally shallow, almost narrow-minded perspective, the way in which I think Ewing is raging against would probably be Confused Matthew but maybe that's just me.

I... Wow.

LOL!

Okay but if that's the case, that's kind of dumb. It doesn't make any sense. The chip in his head has corrupted data, so it makes his head hurt? What? It doesn't work that way. The science doesn't check out.

     Troy Duffy is a bully, with the contradictory mentality of a victim. He refuses to recognize and take responsibility for his situation and behavior. Maybe if he actually took a few film and screenwriting classes, he could make better movies, instead of just coasting on something he did 15 years ago. He's making Boondock Saints 3 (that's the story, anyway). For crying out loud, is that all this man has in him? Is that all he knows how to do? A bunch of self-indulgent, masturbatory macho posturing bullshit, filtered through the arrested development of an ill-mannered, adolescent YouTube comment?

     What's worse, it'll probably follow the same structure, arcs, set pieces and plot points as the last two Boondock films. Go watch the second film, it's basically the first one but with different actors in all the supporting roles. A few years ago, Duffy talked about a Thriller he was writing, revolving around a serial killer. As he went into detail, I realized the skeleton of the script was exactly Boondock Saints! This guy is a grade-A douche bag.

     By the way, who did Eddie name check as an asshole director who keeps getting work? I couldn't make it out through his "cough".

"Someone's at the door."

Oh, I know. I was just coming at it from more of an "agree to disagree" kind of perspective. While I don't completely agree with Doug's assessment of Short Round, I can understand how and why he might feel that way, so I move on to the other names on the list. I just didn't want him to throw the baby out with the bathwater, based on Doug's opinions about Short Round.

That was not my point and for the record, I actually like the first Transformers film. I am well aware that many people love those movies, for many different reasons. Some love it because they can relate to it, which is great. I'm glad someone can actually connect/identify with such a thing, even though it makes me scratch my head as to how that's possible. People also love things for other reasons, besides being able to relate to it.

I kind of like David Lynch's Lost Highway. That doesn't mean I relate to it in any way, or that I even think it's a good movie.

     Wow. That article was a horrible generalization and an insult to everyone, both men and women who does or doesn't like Twilight and does or doesn't like Star Wars. Seriously, almost everything about that was such a didactic dismissal of how a lot of people actually feel about the subject matter. Listen, it's true there are people (notice how I said people, not men or women) who are predisposed to hate something without giving it a chance but to imply that one is the authority on why an entire society of others do or do not like something is extremely rude and narrow-minded.

     It's particularly sanctimonious to say that anyone who doesn't like Twilight and feels compelled to boo at the latest trailer, is doing so because they've either never read or seen it and are just seduced by the mob mentality, too stupid to think for themselves or they don't like Twilight because they're all terrible people with a sexist bent against entertainment made by and for women. Everyone. Every single, solitary person who hates this one thing, especially if they have a Y chromosome, is secretly resentful towards or afraid of the opposite sex....or something.

     It's all so absurdly presumptuous, it's almost impossible to take seriously. Additionally, to compare Twilight to Star Wars makes little sense and doesn't really do Twilight any favors. Now, I'm not the biggest Star Wars fan. In fact, while there are specific aspects from the franchise I enjoy, The Empire Strikes Back is the only film I really like. The rest of it, I can take or leave. Empire is the one I'll watch all the way through, of my own accord.

     However, the fundamental difference between Twilight and Star Wars, and why the comparison falls apart, is that while both stories feature impossible romance, epic battles that transcend generations, silly costumes and growing up super-powered, Star Wars is widely considered to be the good example of those things. The author and her article seem to believe that all entertainment is created equal and that it's all on the same level of lame, so we should either like all of it, or hate all of it across the board.

     This is not how the real world works. This is not how Human Beings operate. If I bake a cake with pink frosting and Teague bakes a cake with pink frosting, using the same ingredients, the 10 same people we give our cakes to are going to have different, individual reactions to each cake. The majority of them may even prefer Teague's cake over mine and it's childish of me to to say, "Come on. They both taste the same and they both have pink frosting. If you like his cake, you should like mine just as much." Also ridiculous, is if were to say, "You guys just don't like my cake because I'm shorter and less attractive than Teague, that's all. That's the only reason. That, and nothing else."

     Incorrect. The bulk of the video is excerpted from Doug's Top 11 Dumbasses In Distress video. I've taken the liberty of transcribing the video so you can see in clean, plain text that is not what happens, or even what he's saying, really. I've also included the full list of names, for context and reference. Exhibit A:

     "And the absolute, biggest dumbass in distress is... Bella, from Twilight. This has to be the most selfish, Male-dependent, uncaring, manipulative, self-centered, pretentious, idiotic, whining little Bitch-bag you will ever see in your entire life! And honestly, that wouldn't be too bad a character. That'd be very, very interesting, if it was intentional! But it's not. Bella is supposed to represent the everyday, teenage girl. If that's the case, then the story really got mixed up who the bloodsucking monster is! She thinks she's tortured even though really, she has no problems. She gets a crush on a boy and decides she wants to marry him, even though she's not even out of high school yet. She wants to be turned into a vampire, which everyone has said is throwing her life away but of course, at the enlightening age of seventeen, she already knows exactly what she wants. Aren't you glad you follow through with every bright idea you had at seventeen? Aren't you glad that you totally committed to something that you knew you could never make a mistake on at that age? Oh yeah! Seventeen, nobody ever fucks up at that age! The boyfriend tries to leave her so that he can save her but she constantly keeps throwing herself off cliffs and putting herself in danger, just so he can notice her. Good. Fucking. God. That's right, girls. If your boyfriend leaves you, do exactly this. I assure you, it won't backfire in the least. Sure, you might be dead but that'll teach him! She then gets another boy involved, who actually seems supportive and attentive but she dumps him because the other guy looks at her weird. And by God, how can she turn down a guy with no personality that just looks at her weird? Again, one of those brilliant choices you make at seventeen. So now, a whole war is going on, all because of her and everyone is going out of their way to try and protect her and she's simply like, 'Yeah, that's cool'. Oh wait, she does try to say once that she's not worth it but that only lasts a few seconds. She then realizes she is worth it and is totally on board with having muscle boys carry her around everywhere. And just as her boyfriend finally agrees to marry her (imagine, a boy being pressured into marriage), she dicks around with the other guy, yet again! Oh my God. I mean Oh. My. God. I have never seen a character more needy and more insecure. She's such a dumbass in distress, that it's actually kind of scary. She is a scary character. In another dimension, maybe she could have been a great Shakespeare villain. This really complex, developed psychotic mind. But as the common, everyday relatable girl that we're all supposed to identify with? She is, and always shall be the biggest dumbass in distress."

     The marriage subplot is brought up only briefly and it's done to illustrate a larger point, which is what the bulk of the video is actually about. Doug isn't arguing that Bella is dumb for wanting to marry Edward. His issue with this is that Bella is too young and immature to rush into such an adult commitment and responsibility. Her priorities are out of balance and she's being very selfish. Not to mention, for someone who wants nothing more than to be married to Edward, she doesn't even crack a smile at her own damn wedding (or hardly ever, for that matter).

     Edward is a vampire. He's got all the time in the world. There's no reason Bella can't finish school, maybe go to college and settle into a stable career and then get married. She's seventeen, she's not even at the age of consent in most states. It's also important to consider that not only does she not know Edward very well (he's lived several lifetimes and had a million experiences before her), it's typically not a very good idea to marry your high school sweetheart. Very rarely does that work out. One of the reasons is because at seventeen, Bella is still growing as a person and figuring out who she is and who she wants to be. She may really only wish to define herself as "Edward's Wife" but that's pretty damn sad and not a strong character or a good role model for young girls, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

     No, most of the video is about how Bella Swan is brimming with poor, negative character traits and how she makes bad life choices because of some boy (who quite frankly, doesn't treat her with respect and does and says things that in real life, would and should result in a restraining order) and yet, she's meant to be a cipher for the impressionable girls in the audience and sometimes, is meant to even represent them. Bella has little to no agency in any given scene. Most of the time, she stands around while others (mostly men) decide what to do with/to her, all while objectifying her as this precious MacGuffin to be fought over.

     And why, exactly do people fight over her? Is it because she's a deep, exceptional person who is kind and courteous to others, well-mannered, intelligent and empathetic? Nope! At least in the first film, Edward is drawn to her physical appearance, the alluring mystery of her "newness" and because she's a virgin, with virgin blood coursing through her veins. Hell, that right there is the only thing most of the vampires care about, too. So, basically, Bella rates about as special as a limited edition, soft drink flavor and about as important as a collector's edition blu-ray, with exclusive box art and packaging. Our protagonist, ladies and gentlemen.

     Not quite. Doug explicitly states that he confused the marriage subplot with the other subplot of Bella's desire to become a vampire. He also says that ultimately, it's irrelevant who said what because neither subplot is a good idea and how the two characters talk about and then execute them makes both Bella and Edward look bad.

     The correction in the last minute or so of the video is taken from Doug's Top 11 Nostalgia Critic Fuck Ups. Exhibit B:

"Bella didn't want to marry Edward in Twilight, you war whore!" (at least, that's what I think I heard)

     "Yes, when I put Bella in my Top 11 Dumbasses In Distress, I brought up that, among her other faults, she was pressuring Edward into marriage. Actually, I got it the other way around. It was Edward that was pressuring her into marriage because really, Ladies? Isn't that a common problem? Men pressuring you into marriage? God, we're just so obsessed with commitment! I guess I got confused by the fact that she was pleading him to turn her into a vampire, which from the sounds of it is a much bigger and even dangerous commitment. So, I figured marriage, after asking that wouldn't be such a big deal, but nope! Apparently, living her life as a bloodsucking beast of the night for the rest of her life, she's absolutely sure about. But being legally bound together, that's obviously the much bigger issue that takes a lot more time. And don't get me wrong, it is a big issue and it does take time but she just hears the word vampire and she's like, 'I'm in! I'm in!' Oh well, whoever's idea it was, it still makes both of them look like jackasses but still, fess up when you mess up. It was Edward who wanted to get married, not Bella. I guess that means we can like her now, right?"

TOP 11 DUMBASSES IN DISTRESS
11. Mary Jane Watson (Spider-Man)
10. Kayley (Quest For Camelot)
09. Willie and Short Round (Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom)
08. Robin (Bat-Man)
07. Inspector Gadget (Inspector Gadget)
06. Lois Lane (Superman)
05. Jubilee (X-Men)
04. Scrappy-Doo (Scooby-Doo)
03. Jar-Jar Binks (Star Wars)
02. Princess Peach (Super Mario Bros.)
01. Bella Swan (Twilight)

     As I previously stated, Transformers 2 was massively popular, that doesn't mean it's relatable. Success does not equal quality. Correlation does not equal causation. The best way to approach Doug's material is with the understanding that he is a comedian, first and a film critic, second. At least, that's how I tend to look at it. Much of what he says, he over exaggerates and yes, even yells for comedic effect. It's just his shtick. Often, he'll use certain words in a certain way because it has the potential to sound silly. For example, I don't exactly know what a bitch-bag is or why he called himself a war whore but I do recognize it as humor of the absurd.

     I'm not sure how you came to that first conclusion but I think you're missing out on something crucial. If Doug hates the character of Bella and the plot and/or story never goes in a direction to change that, then it stands to reason Doug hates the character despite the story, which he probably also hates. They can be mutually exclusive issues within a film. So no, the story may not be the reason why one hates a character but rather, the character may be why one hates the character. In addition, a good or bad character can sometimes exist within a contradictory, good or bad story and vice versa.

     That is a wildly absurd leap in logic to make, based solely on something like this. For starters, it wasn't several times. Doug refers to Bella as a bitch only once. Second, when not referencing the title of the video, he also refers to Bella, in the context of the video as a dumbass only once. Third, neither of these terms have anything to do with gender, as both men and women can sometimes be qualified as a bitch or a dumbass. Fourth, why is it you didn't say anything about the myriad of other descriptors he used, such as selfish, uncaring and manipulative? At one point, he implies that both Bella and Edward are being jackasses. Does this mean Doug has a problem hating men? What about Dorkman? Early in the Twilight commentary, he uses the word cunt, in relation to Bella. Finally, Bella is one person, not every woman ever, no matter how much the film makers keep insisting her to be. To top it off, she's a fictional character. Calling her names doesn't say much of anything about the misogyny or misandry of real life men and women, respectively.

     That depends greatly on one's reasons as to why they dislike Twilight. If they dislike it for the sole reason of it featuring a female lead because they don't want their protagonists to be women, then yes, that is a concerning issue that might need further discussion. However, keep in mind that it wouldn't be just Twilight getting booed at. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Aliens, Kill Bill, The Hunger Games, The Color Purple, The Help, Easy A, Hanna. I've yet to see a mob of people collectively boo at advertisements for these stories and characters. Here's a radical thought: What if one dislikes Twilight because they feel the film itself is disrespecting women?

     No, disliking Twilight does not necessarily, automatically equal respecting women....but neither does liking Twilight.