harmful would imply that anyone takes cinema sins seriously
It's indicative of very irritating thought processes found in, if you may excuse some pretentiousness on my part, the average viewer, given a platform that implies that they're valid and through the use of titles such as "everything wrong with x" seem to actively close off any discussion, which you may recognize as a pretty big fuckin' deal when it comes to criticism.
It's not a huge, huge, deal, but criticism is My Thing so I find it troubling.
what if the point is making you and others like you angry at them for being overly nitpicky
In what world is that a good thing
Because if that is true, it's a couple of smug bastards trying to prove that they're "above" people who care about criticism. I don't think that's what it is; what I think it is is people not being good at what they do and being taken seriously, and that's bad.
Like, congratulations, I guess. You treat film criticism like it's some quantifiable, value based thing in the most smug, condescending way possible and managed to irritate people who are passionate about it. Hooray for no one.
Are we even disagreeing here? The only reason I'm mad about it right now is that I've been presented with an opportunity to state what my problem with it is.
im just saying that the intentions behind cinema sins may not be "let us point out tiny plot holes in movies because that proves that they suck" and may be more along the lines of "let us point out tiny plot holes in movies and say that that proves that they suck because that will annoy people, not because that is what we actually believe"
im just saying that the intentions behind cinema sins may not be "let us point out tiny plot holes in movies because that proves that they suck" and may be more along the lines of "let us point out tiny plot holes in movies and say that that proves that they suck because that will annoy people, not because that is what we actually believe"
If anything it's both. I think ascribing any sort of consistent motivation to them implies they've thought it through in any meaningful capacity.
im just saying that the intentions behind cinema sins may not be "let us point out tiny plot holes in movies because that proves that they suck" and may be more along the lines of "let us point out tiny plot holes in movies and say that that proves that they suck because that will annoy people, not because that is what we actually believe"
If anything it's both. I think ascribing any sort of consistent motivation to them implies they've thought it through in any meaningful capacity.
like, the idea of a reproduction piece is generally taking something with a unique, distinctive design that's old enough that almost any vintage piece would be absurdly expensive and/or beaten to hell, and making brand new ones. http://unionmadegoods.com/product/levis-vintage-clothing-1933-501xx-rigid/ <= like so
but a trucker jacket from the 1970s is both incredibly similar to a contemporary trucker and an actual 70s trucker jacket in good condition could probably be picked up for less than a current model on eBay
More people have said that and been killed than there are thorium decay products.
*goes outside; bumps into a wall of trees* Well crap, now I have to find a way over this opaque blue water of death if I want to go to the grocery store! If only the draw distance were a little further, I could search for a boat.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Comments
and the content is the text
big decision right off the bat is to decide whether or not I care about winning the Hundred Years' War.