When Marty McFly is fleeing the "Libyan" terrorists, the mileage on the odometer jumps back and forth where the filmmakers spliced together non-consecutive shots of the DeLorean's dashboard
oh snap I just nitpicked a popular movie
whatcha gonna do
You know, for whatever reason, those sorts of continuity errors never bothered me. The sorts of errors that only come about because we're editing multiple takes together and forgetting to keep everything exactly the same. Oh look, Bullitt's car lost six hubcaps over the course of the chase scene. How droll.
The sorts of continuity errors that do bother me are the ones that happen at the script level. Since Mr. Incredible drove his car to the airport, then got driven back home by a government limo after destroying the Omnidroid, how is his car back in the driveway (where he can throw it at Syndrome) when he gets home? That's the sort of continuity error that keeps me up at night.
They don't say anything at all besides reeling off a list of goofs. I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff about pretense from. The mere use of the word 'sins' out of context means very little.
In this age of interconnectedness, it shouldn't be hard to find out straight from the CS people what exactly they're trying to accomplish with their series. Rather than making assumptions about their motivations and getting angry over those.
Imagine if there were two auto shops in a town. One of them is run by a guy who's been working with cars so long he can understand what's wrong with something about it from the sound of the engine. The other is only barely capable of actually solving anyone's car problems. But since it's cheaper, and no very few people really understand cars enough to know if car problems are imminent, they're relatively satisfied with the cars, even if they end up breaking down again suspiciously soon. Neither gets bad business; they're both able to stay afloat, but if you were to find yourself in the position of the first guy, wouldn't you be a bit irritated?
In this age of interconnectedness, it shouldn't be hard to find out straight from the CS people what exactly they're trying to accomplish with their series. Rather than making assumptions about their motivations and getting angry over those.
I'm not making assumptions here. The terminology, language, and tone of the series indicates that on some level they think these are actual problems.
And you can't just say that the terminology doesn't matter. Critiques are 100% words. You can't say that word choice isn't important. Like, if you were to say "The Republican Party is represented by an elephant and the Democrats are jackasses," it would be very obvious what your opinions were, just because of the semantics.
In this age of interconnectedness, it shouldn't be hard to find out straight from the CS people what exactly they're trying to accomplish with their series. Rather than making assumptions about their motivations and getting angry over those.
I'm not making assumptions here. The terminology, language, and tone of the series indicates that on some level they think these are actual problems.
And you can't just say that the terminology doesn't matter. Critiques are 100% words. You can't say that word choice isn't important. Like, if you were to say "The Republican Party is represented by an elephant and the Democrats are jackasses," it would be very obvious what your opinions were, just because of the semantics.
By language they use, what I mean is that they mix in petty complaints "hurr durr he doesn't have the gun in this scene but now he does" are mixed in with what are clearly intended to supposed to be actual issues (which usually just amounts to namedropping a cliche that the movie uses) without making it clear that they consider minor quibbles to be on a different level than actual complaints, giving them equal footing, and indicates that on some level they don't really get the difference. Maybe not everyone takes them seriously, but it muddles understanding of the craft. That's not good.
By language they use, what I mean is that they mix in petty complaints "hurr durr he doesn't have the gun in this scene but now he does" are mixed in with what are clearly intended to supposed to be actual issues (which usually just amounts to namedropping a cliche that the movie uses) without making it clear that they consider minor quibbles to be on a different level than actual complaints, giving them equal footing, and indicates that on some level they don't really get the difference. Maybe not everyone takes them seriously, but it muddles understanding of the craft. That's not good.
Honestly you could justifiably say all of this about much of TGWTG's output, and they do actually attempt real criticism.
And you certainly are making assumptions. Like I said, I'm not sure CinemaSins even counts as criticism.
When you name your channel Cinema Sins, when you make a logo that invokes a demon's pitchfork, when you name all of your videos "everything wrong with x," when you keep a running tally for all your videos that lists minor continuity errors as "sins," and when you never, ever indicate that you understand what differentiates continuity quibbles from problems of framing, tone, characterization, etc., it indicates to me that you on some level feel that the "sins" are a valid thing to complain about. That is what I mean when I say it has pretense of being actual criticism.
By language they use, what I mean is that they mix in petty complaints "hurr durr he doesn't have the gun in this scene but now he does" are mixed in with what are clearly intended to supposed to be actual issues (which usually just amounts to namedropping a cliche that the movie uses) without making it clear that they consider minor quibbles to be on a different level than actual complaints, giving them equal footing, and indicates that on some level they don't really get the difference. Maybe not everyone takes them seriously, but it muddles understanding of the craft. That's not good.
Honestly you could justifiably say all of this about much of TGWTG's output, and they do actually attempt real criticism.
Not really. It's about a difference in tone. TGWTG series generally mark pretty clear boundaries between when they're just being pedants and when they're actually in serious mode. They don't always succeed, but if nothing else what they do indicates that they care about what they're doing and are interested in discussion.
I don't think any of that can be taken seriously. It's trivial, and probably tongue-in-cheek.
But there's no grounding. There is nothing in it to indicate that it's supposed to be tongue in cheek. The only perspective being presented is that of the commentator who actually believes that these things are problems. It's never acknowledged that the things are minor pedantic quibbles, because, as I've already mentioned:
The tone and manner of presentation of all their videos.
The use of imagery and words to make these things seem like they're the worst thing in the world
The equal footing given to pedantry and the actual complaints. (which I use loosely because they're pretty fuckin' terrible at finding things that are actually wrong with the movies.)
Yeah but even when TGWTG is in serious mode it's usually pretty shallow and soundbitey. Their brand of criticism is very entertainment-oriented and uninterested in deep analysis.
CinemaSins doesn't mark boundaries because they're just a gimmicky YT channel which nobody in their right mind would take seriously.
Really, though, I don't see why you guys are so invested in this. None of you are as interested in criticism as I am, and a good portion of you were perfectly happy to jump on the "TGWTG is harmful" boat a while ago.
To this day, he will throw in random snipes at Terrence Malick, the director of Tree of Life, in movies that have no relation to him. He does this at least once every five movies he reviews, and he does a once a week schedule.
having learned that this Brad Jones person is the "Cinema Snob", and given the fact that every single TGWTG thing i have seen has been infinitely cringeworthy, I hereby deem the whole TGWTG enterprise to be hella garbagee.
Really, though, I don't see why you guys are so invested in this. None of you are as interested in criticism as I am, and a good portion of you were perfectly happy to jump on the "TGWTG is harmful" boat a while ago.
To this day, he will throw in random snipes at Terrence Malick, the director of Tree of Life, in movies that have no relation to him. He does this at least once every five movies he reviews, and he does a once a week schedule.
Really, though, I don't see why you guys are so invested in this. None of you are as interested in criticism as I am, and a good portion of you were perfectly happy to jump on the "TGWTG is harmful" boat a while ago.
I am doing this because it is annoying to see something harmless called evil in the same breath as someone calling RLM good criticism.
Yeah but even when TGWTG is in serious mode it's usually pretty shallow and soundbitey. Their brand of criticism is very entertainment-oriented and uninterested in deep analysis.
That's really not true. When going into serious mode their complaints are usually rooted in valid concepts even if what they're saying doesn't work, and it usually does.
I'm very interested in criticism. As in, actual, serious criticism. I just think the notion that CinemaSins represents a serious threat to criticism is ludicrous.
Perhaps they are a serious competitor for TGWTG, I guess, since both are shallow, make no demands on the intellect or attention span, and chiefly set out to be entertaining. TGWTG try to be proper critics sometimes, which limits their appeal to bored Internet users who are just looking for a laugh.
I realize I'm being a total snob here, but don't tell me what I do or don't care about, thanks.
I'm very interested in criticism. As in, actual, serious criticism. I just think the notion that CinemaSins represents a serious threat to criticism is ludicrous.
Perhaps they are a serious competitor for TGWTG, I guess, since both are shallow, make no demands on the intellect or attention span, and chiefly set out to be entertaining. TGWTG try to be proper critics sometimes, which limits their appeal to bored Internet users who are just looking for a laugh.
I realize I'm being a total snob here, but don't tell me what I do or don't care about, thanks.
I'm very interested in criticism. As in, actual, serious criticism. I just think the notion that CinemaSins represents a serious threat to criticism is ludicrous.
I don't think it's a huge, serious, pressing threat. But it is reductive and harmful, and absolutely cannot lead to a greater understanding of film as an art because the people who made it have no interest in teaching people to appreciate film more.
Perhaps they are a serious competitor for TGWTG, I guess, since both are shallow, make no demands on the intellect or attention span, and chiefly set out to be entertaining. TGWTG try to be proper critics sometimes, which limits their appeal to bored Internet users who are just looking for a laugh.
This is really, really untrue.
Like, I can't even articulate why because- and I'm not going to blame you in particular for this- I'm actually really, really upset right now.
I have not seen a single vaguely compelling piece of evidence that vaguely suggests anything to the contrary. If you can provide one go right ahead. But until you do, don't expect any of us to be taking them seriously.
Arguments here seem to make you upset, and I don't like that this is the case, because you're a nice person and I don't like seeing you feel like crap.
There is a big, big fucking difference between what TGWTG does and what Cinema Sins does, because fundamentally, TGWTG contributors actually give a shit about what they're doing. Cinema Sins takes the most reductive, ass-backwards approach to what it's trying to do and does it in the most smug, unfunny manner possible. Even if the people on TGWTG don't always succeed when they try to actually do serious criticism, at least they care, and are invested in the idea of actually having a discussion.
And if nothing else, at least when they're attempting to be funny they aim a bit higher than "there's a plot hole, isn't that [obnoxious bleeping noise]ing stupid"
I have not seen a single vaguely compelling piece of evidence that vaguely suggests anything to the contrary. If you can provide one go right ahead. But until you do, don't expect any of us to be taking them seriously.
And even if they do end up seeming like they only end up pointing out plot holes (they don't; there is a lot of work put into what they do and most of them are fairly decent critics in their own right) at least that's not their literal modus operandi.
Comments
The sorts of continuity errors that do bother me are the ones that happen at the script level. Since Mr. Incredible drove his car to the airport, then got driven back home by a government limo after destroying the Omnidroid, how is his car back in the driveway (where he can throw it at Syndrome) when he gets home? That's the sort of continuity error that keeps me up at night.
SHIT
GODDAMN IT LAUREN YOU FUDCKED IT UP
It's, I dunno, a shop selling fuzzy dice.
It strikes me as even more unlikely that the majority of their fans consider them actual problems.
Honestly you could justifiably say all of this about much of TGWTG's output, and they do actually attempt real criticism.
CinemaSins doesn't mark boundaries because they're just a gimmicky YT channel which nobody in their right mind would take seriously.
Perhaps they are a serious competitor for TGWTG, I guess, since both are shallow, make no demands on the intellect or attention span, and chiefly set out to be entertaining. TGWTG try to be proper critics sometimes, which limits their appeal to bored Internet users who are just looking for a laugh.
I realize I'm being a total snob here, but don't tell me what I do or don't care about, thanks.
I like Kyle for the reasons Myrm mentioned, and I need to watch more of his videos.