I think the problem might be that you're being too didactic about this and thereby missing the point of what folks like fireproof78 are getting at. I'll put it to you like this:

The Office. The Office is about a despicable guy who is in charge of a company of people and comedy ensues from just how bad he is at his job. If there were a handful of viewers (and let's be realistic here, in the grand scheme of things, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the majority of people who understand that it's just a sitcom and not a guideline for real life) who ran their businesses and treated their employees according to what they saw on the show, what then? Keeping in mind we're talking about a small margin of people, not a growing epidemic, do we shun the writers of The Office? Do we encourage people not to watch the show or do we shake our heads at the dumb asses who can't think for themselves and ignore them?

I feel that similarly, shows like Cinema Sins are "criticizing" movies (again, even ones they like) "badly" (meaning hyperbolic nitpicking) on purpose, for comedic effect.

If Honest Trailers makes a joke about Gravity being "90 minutes of bumping into things" and then accompany that visual with pinball sound effects and someone agrees the movie is in fact that then oh well. You win some, you lose some. No matter how good Gravity is (and I do love it, myself) not everyone is going to feel the same way, just as no matter how bad Transformers 2 is, some people will un-ironically love it and that's okay. Honest Trailers didn't pull an Inception and plant the idea in that person's head that they didn't like the movie, it's possible that it just allowed them to articulate why.

When you say, "It is what it is," I think you're saying that it is what it is interpreted to be, and not what it intends to be. The problem is that nothing is going to be interpreted in the same way by everyone. If some people miss it, as Pav was saying, then they don't really understand what it is.

Some art is so screwed up that no one can decipher the intent, and at that point I would say that it's not what the artist intended for it to be; but I would say that CS and HT are what they are intend to be. Some people will miss it, but if they attempted to spoon-feed their intentions to everyone, it would detract from the entertainment.

EDIT: Not to give CS and HT too much credit, they're definitely not perfect. They do miss the target sometimes.

Last edited by Sam F (2014-06-29 19:08:42)

Exactly. They might not be perfect in their efforts, but I think that they state their purpose and try to do it.

Further proof that comedy is subjective. Honestly, as part of this thread I keep going back to SFDebris comments on commenting on bad comedy. Comedy, as an art form, is subjective. I love British and dead pan comedy, but that isn't for everyone-my parents can't stand it and my wife doesn't get it. Similarly, I do not appreciate slap stick or groin shots. Things like Jack Ass are not funny to me.

Like I said, it is subjective.

If you serve wine that you intended to be water, though, it means you're the Messiah.

I don't know what this thread is about anymore, so I'm looking forward to The Intermission even more than I already was.

Edit: Okay. So.
Film criticism tends to be film analysis. Though plotholecriticism takes this critiquing literally.
It is ostensibly offered as 'comedy', though if that is the case then its level of success is up for debate, as it often veers towards needlessly petty and trivial.
Some people take this as it seems to be intended, as comedy.
Others take this as legitimate criticism, so perpetuating a kneejerk culture of "here are trivial problems that I can use to dismiss the film with so that I don't need to engage in intellectual criticism". This is neither ideal, nor healthy, though people are free to do/interpret as they wish.

We all seem to like movies. But we don't like it when people trivialize what it takes to like a movie.

Is that where we are with this?

Last edited by Herc (2014-06-29 21:03:56)

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful

Kind of? We're also dealing with the subjectivity of what qualifies to some as trivial and important to others.

Sure, but what about the idea that these guys LIKE Die Hard? Aren't they just being cheeky? "I kid. I kid because I love."

You know, taking that optimistically, that's a good point. I can live with that.

Disclaimer: if you dislike the tone of a post I make, re-read it in a North/East London accent until it sounds sufficiently playful

And that makes the creators wrong for people's reactions? Again, after the Intermission, it certainly felt like this was a middle of the road issue, with some people for and some against. I still don't see the harm of things like CS, but I don't take them seriously either and I don't believe they are intended to be serious criticism, beyond the surface level variety. Which, just to point out, IMDB has a Goof's page, Movie Mistakes is a website devoted to nitpicky little points, problems or errors, and I have no doubt there are many more.

Also, something that I meant to articulate earlier, but kind of lost, was the fact that this feels, to me, like a play on the typical fan-forum critic. And what I mean is the type of critics who are not just going after the story, but will use hyperbolic language, name-calling, or other knee-jerk level criticism at a movie they don't like, and (by extension), supporters of the film they don't like.

Ok, I'm going to spoiler this because it is going to be very long, and give several examples based upon my own personal experience. This is not meant to target any specific fan or group but just comments about a film that I have encountered.

I will concede that this is film criticism, but that it isn't made to be taken seriously. Beyond that, I don't see this as detracting from RLM, WAYDM, SFDebris or others, because there are those who still want serious analysis. But some people don't want the steak dinner and don't care. They want a hamburger, are satisfied by it and move on.

I prefer steak dinner, but sometimes just a quick hamburger will do the trick. Same thing this. Would I prefer WAYDM analysis? Sure. Do I have the time to devote 2+ hours to each movie? Not always. So, I go with something that will make me laugh and move on, and save the analysis for later.

I just don't see anything wrong with that. But, hey, that's just me.

Wanna hear something depressing. Transformers 4 has blown past Edge of Tomorrow in box office in just 1 week, despite the Tom Cruise movie being out for a month. It'll probably outdo Oblivion, Elysium, Edge of Tomorrow and Transcendence combined.

My first thought: Terminator.