I think the thing we're all cueing off of — the thing we object to — is that PHFC is not a "style" of criticism that actually requires engaging with a movie. You don't have anything to lose as someone coming at it that way, you venture nothing. You're not at risk of totally misinterpreting a thing in front of everyone. You're just "critiquing," doing it on a surface level, and this way you know that your contention can't be argued on its merits. "I'm sorry, are you saying that her hair WASN'T in a ponytail a second ago? Clearly you're not watching the film!"

Which, yeah, sure buddy. You're right.

Also, just as an aside, what do you learn about people or art by pullin' that shit.

Oh hey, as if on cue, we get this article from the AV Club wherein the site's writers describe their own personal "pop culture hells." Here's the relevant quote:

Todd VanDerWerff wrote:

I think mine would have to be getting to watch movies and TV shows with an audience full of people who think pointing out the most minor of nitpicks counts as criticism. The spread of the “Cinema Sins” style of YouTube criticism might seem innocuous to many, but underneath it all there’s this pernicious belief that criticism is applied not to the whole of a work but to its bits and pieces. These videos often seem to confuse “pointing out continuity errors and logical inconsistencies” with offering insightful thoughts on a work. Don’t get me wrong: A great, scathing review is one of the best pleasures in life. But these are not assembled via the anal-retentive means these videos apply. And while I liked Mystery Science Theater 3000 more than almost anything, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to watch a movie with someone shouting at it if they’re not a robot with a gumball-machine body.

johnpavlich wrote:

Fair enough. I was just using Fridge Logic as an example. I do agree with your point about logic versus engagement WHILE watching something. If enough of that occurs as you're watching, to the point where you have to do all sorts of work to make it okay so you can still end on a satisfied note and especially if you don't succeed, then I think that's a big problem and worth discussing. Again, I'd really like to hear what Trey has to say and now that I really think about it, Teague as well. I really think this would be an interesting Intermission episode.
   
  I've listened to the Prometheus episode of WAYDM many times, as it's one of my favorites and I feel as though FCM and others are trying to invalidate much of that episode as nitpicky bullshit, as if to say, "Who cares? Stop over thinking it! It's not important! Just shut off your brain and enjoy the sci-fi action!" Obviously, you guys care (and so do I), hence the whole conversation about filling in your own concrete and how doing that for too long or for too much of the film can leave one with a bad experience.

I haven't listened to the Prometheus episode in a while, but I remember the overall problems with that film being inconsistencies in the story's structure and themes. And I certainly don't think anyone is advocating "turning your brain off." I'm just saying that we should turn our brains in a different direction.

Fun fact, because of you sorry goddamned assholes, we're doing an intermission this weekend called PLOT HOLE FILM CRITICISM.

So, good job Doc and Pav and Herc and BDA. You MESSED UP OUR WEEKEND.

*cries, runs away foppishly*

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Film Crit Hulk put it pretty well in this column.

Here's a de-capitalization site if ALL CAPS makes your eyes hurt.

     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.

If the story isn't about the fact that a character is lying and we're telling a story about liars here, then the lying of the storyteller — or possibility of lying — undermines pretty much one hundred percent of my ability to suspend disbelief. I'm willing to go with you if the apparent veracity of the story doesn't vacillate — always fairy tale, or always journalism — but when you introduce the "but wouldn't it be so cute if this wasn't actually true?" question, my answer suddenly becomes "fucking no it wouldn't you dick," and now I'm not even sure if I can believe anything you've said.

The trope of someone who has left out some crucial detail of their past, which is later found out by the main character, comes to mind. "Everything else was true! It was really me! It's just that I'm not really Space Ghost, that's all!" Or whatever. They may be telling the truth now, but the main character has no way of knowing that, and is now dubious to the point of feeling betrayed and pissed off. To some degree, the thing they thought they were both participating in equally wasn't actually true. Is it just that they're not really Space Ghost, or could it be more? And how could you believe them even if they told you?

I'm not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but that's how I react. And the only way this gets resolved is if there's (very quickly) a resounding answer to the question. If they immediately go "no no no, bad joke, sorry, I'm kidding, it's real" I can ramp back up some trust before the credits roll. If they leave it at the question, peace out.

Socially conscious media criticism is varied. There's writers who do excellent work taking that approach, and then there's some lackluster stuff. Lots of my favorite critics (like, ever) belong to the former category, and some of the worst pieces of criticism I've ever read belong to the latter. What turns a lot of people off to this mode of work, it seems to me, is that for some of the folks writing it there's something of a soapbox effect, the sense that her/his passion for the artform pales in comparison to her/his passion for whatever ideological position is being advanced. This might be related to what Doc's getting at. The best socially conscious critics tend to come off as equally passionate about aesthetics and social justice. (Just as the best socially conscious films tend not to be too heavy handed.) Those are the critics I like reading, the ones who come to the enterprise out of a love and fascination with movies/media and then explore that love and fascination through a socially astute lens. The ones I don't have time for are the ones who just seem to need a good solid club with which to beat the things they don't like, and so they'll use movies because, hey, everyone likes movies.

Story is social commentary. That's the point of telling one. All those other things are just the means to the end. To study all the technical aspects of the how but categorically exclude the why defeats the purpose entirely, in my view. And is probably part of the current problem with the way people currently review, and make, films.

It's funny that this thread starts when both CinemaSins and SFDebris release videos about this series:

http://sfdebris.com/videos/films/transformers2.php