Don't you think the "plot holes nitpicking" is the literal cancer of movie reviews...

Don't you think the "plot holes nitpicking" is the literal cancer of movie reviews ? There can be a lots of other ways to review a movie, begining by the direction, the editing, the rythm.

Plot holes nitpicking is the plebbest, flattest reviewing possible.

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/search?q=marxist film criticism
youtu.be/dEbwwcBHHLw
davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/02/10/off-center-mad-maxs-headroom/
youtu.be/aWAsaXdfVQQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Sure, but the Star Wars prequels fall flat in all of those other elements too.

The Plinkett reviews are a pretty holistic analysis of how the prequel films fail though. That the plot makes no sense is just the cherry on top.

I can't stand the fedora tippers whose idea of film criticism is bitching about plot holes.

You're not wrong. But...

If a work of art fails at that level, it makes you start thinking questions like "wait, what's happening now?" and "why are they doing this?". In some cases you even think "who even is that?". It takes you out of the immersive experience of watching a movie

You can ignore all this if you like, if that's the kind of brain you have. Some do.

I would say however that if you try and do film criticism without trying to treat successes/failures as objective facts then you end up with "well I like it" "well I don't" "you're wrong" "no you" etc

If you're a critic, it's not enough to say "I like this". You have to say WHY you like it. Just like if a critic said "I don't like this", their audience would demand to know why

As for you and me, fuck it, we can just say "eh I liked it"

If you want real cancer check YMS thoughts on Babadook

No one intelligent thinks the Plinkett videos are real, serious criticism. They're just for fun, comedy poking fun at both the terrible movies their about AND the weird basement dwelling nerds that obsess about them so much that they'd make a two hour long video nitpicking them.

The people that do it unironically and think they're film critics, a niche that the Plinkett reviews helped in part to popularize, are pure asscheeks though.

>YMS thoughts on Babadook
Just watched this, and thats literally what I was refering to.

I forgot to say how the plot hole nitpicking is also full of smugness, and lazy sarcasms... I can't stand them.

>YMS
You mean Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), the dog rapist who enjoys bestiality?

>Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid
WHAT A SHOCK

Criticising something in a funny voice doesn't make it not real criticism.

Are you quoting the wrong post? Because nowhere in mine did I imply either of those things.

Unless you're implying that the Plinkett films arn't like 90% parody.

>nowhere in mine did I imply either of those things.

>No one intelligent thinks the Plinkett videos are real, serious criticism

Therefore

>Everyone who thinks the Plinkett videos are real, serious criticism is not intelligent

You wouldn't say such a thing if you agreed, so that's exactly what you're saying. And you're clearly unintelligent for needing me to explain your own posts to you.

>Unless you're implying that the Plinkett films arn't like 90% parody.
They aren't.

more like literal cancer of movies. If the movie can't even tell a consistent story its pointless to bother with anything else because no good directing, editing, effects etc. can fix it.

the prequels are decent popcorn flicks, nothing more, nothing less. they are not at all worse than TFA (or other garbage Mike liked such as Jurassic World) and he could easily nitpick those in the same way. He's lost it.

the plinkett reviews were shit btw and full of dumb criticism like 'darth vader is too dark this is meant to be a movie for kids :((((('

>real, serious criticism
what, do you mean like marxist university garbage

so the story having a logical continuity isnt needed?

the sponge bob generation every body. give the dip shit a round of applause

Going full retard

>'darth vader is too dark this is meant to be a movie for kids :((((('
you missed the point entirely

>the plinkett reviews were shit btw and full of dumb criticism like 'darth vader is too dark this is meant to be a movie for kids :((((('
If you actually watched the review you would notice that they criticized they way they chose to do all these things, not the fact that they are done.

Killing children is fine, but you have to build up to it.

If what happens in a movie doesn't make sense then it has failed at basic storytelling and can't be a great movie (exception being surrealistic films).

Yes, pointing out logical flaws in the story or characters is easier than for example criticizing the editing, but problems with the basic storytelling or the characters are generally far more important than editing problems. Bad writing dooms a film far more easily than bad editing or bad rhythm or even bad acting.

>Killing children is fine, but you have to build up to it.
the word is shit. I'm just kidding the word is poop. I'm just kidding the word is TONE

Are they ever going to release the fucking star wars video, christ?!

It's real, but it's middlebrow. Simple as. No shame loitering in the middlebrow. It's where most people in the first world reside.

Trying to say its inauthentic is a bad angle to take, because people who enjoy the reviews, and feel clever for watching them will inevitably be offended and just lash out against the criticism of their beloved, criticism.

So if you want to dismantle it, at least accept it as criticism first. Then at least you can make the case that it's bad criticism, rather than not criticism at all.

Which plot holes were nitpicked in the Plinkett reviews?

It's only valid if the person knows what a plot hole actually is.

Most reviewers don't.

>muh logic

It can be useful in the elevation of the lowbrow nonsense to passable tier.

What films do you enjoy, might I ask? A list of favourites maybe, or the best of the year for you so far?

Back to your containment board with your cultural marxist conspiracy trash.

>It's where most people in the first world reside.
but not a patrician Sup Forums user like you. Give me a break.

I'm including myself you nonce.
God, you rlm fans are so insecure.

>Back to your containment board with your cultural marxist conspiracy trash.
google.com/search?q=marxist film criticism

Ah, so you don't think it's garbage.

desu I'd rather take YMS over Confused Matthew. I remember we used to get a lot of threads about him, but I haven't seen him mentioned in a long time. He needs a revival because he's bafflingly bad.

Agree, which is one of the many reasons YT "reviewers" are utter shite

You're thinking of YMS not rlm. YMS is fucking cancer.

>Don't you think the "plot holes nitpicking" is the literal cancer of movie reviews ?

A genuine plot hole is a pretty damning thing in any story. Take Suicide Squad, for example. Once Flagg & the Skwad retrieved Waller, what was supposed to happen next if the Joker hadn't hijacked the second Chinook? There's no indication that *there was any thought given* to where the story was supposed to go if the Joker didn't turn things sideways on them. Were they just going to leave Midway and drop a nuke on an American city to stop the Enchantress? Who knows? It's a hole you could drive an aircraft carrier through, and it really hurts the movie.

That being said, a lot of "plot holes" that an overly-nitpicky person might pick out are really just the result of them not being able, or perhaps willing, to parse the information they're being given on their own.

Can you explain where you get that from my post? I think it's total garbage but I acknowledge that it really exists and that it's not a "conspiracy theory"

But Plinkett deals with issues like tone, overuse of CGI, absentee directing, behind-the-scenes issues like lack of directorial checks, and even film framework (like when he discusses the prequels in a character study format)

The nitpicking is just the only part of the review that's funny.

this

Although, another aspect of plot hole criticism is that it takes for granted that the film itself could have been worthwhile. It's criticism as a kind of product inspection.

Real criticism should in various ways, try to get at what the film truly is, or does.

Basically. Plot holes can be shit. It's fine to point them out. Plot hole based criticism is shallow, because a film is always more than its plot.

Do you think it's shit because it's not like half in the bag?
I acknowledge that I assumed you were a Sup Forumstard. Sorry.

>The Plinkett reviews are a pretty holistic analysis of how the prequel films fail though. That the plot makes no sense is just the cherry on top.

I guess less people watched them but the Plinkett Star Trek reviews leaned much more towards pointless nitpicking bullshit than the Star Wars prequels ones did

Plot-hole nitpicking does not even qualify as criticism. I'm not sure why you chose Plinkett as your image, though. The Plinkett reviews focus more on failures in other areas such as writing characters or creating a compelling story. The plot holes Plinkett does point out tend to be massive breaks from basic logic that fundamentally undermine the audience's ability to suspend their disbelief. He's not doing some YMS/Cinemasins type thing where you have to do research or autistically comb through the film to spot a hole.

youtu.be/dEbwwcBHHLw

It's more ridiculous when people try to blatantly copy their style but don't apply the same humor or even remote levels of critical thinking. This guy spent 40 minutes forcing Plinkett jokes because he hates Hellboy and yet is confounded by the most basic plot points like "why does Bruttenholm have cancer when he gets stabbed to death later"....but it's literally the whole reason the main character is in the fucking movie.

Calm your 'spergers friend.

Even more annoying than "plot hole" bullshit is people who think reviewing a movie includes describing the entire plot.

Kevin Smith has these retarded fuck podcasts where he "reviews" a movie by summarizing it from beginning to end. Channel Awesome does the same bullshit. That's not critical discourse. It's stupid boring shit.

No, because i think its wrongheaded and overly rigid and being exposed to it in college very nearly made me lose all interest in film.

>where he "reviews" a movie by summarizing it
ah the legacy of Television Without Pity

It does subvert the purpose of film to a narrow end.
You seem to have had a very negative reaction to it though.
Was your exposure to it your first encounter with academic marxism?

>It's criticism as a kind of product inspection.
A lot of bad "criticism" is. The TWO THUMBS WAAAAAY UP kind of film review is just a product review. Real criticism parses the film for meaning in its form, content, and context.
This is something that elevates RLM a bit over many modern critics. They discuss film quality with their simple "Would you recommend?" segments at the end of each episode, but also inspect the film's form and context. They rarely go much into finding meaning, but hey, they're not advertising themselves as that kind of critics.

Was TWP the worst thing to happen to online film and television discourse?

What did he say, out of curiosity

This isn't really Plinkett related but I really despise reviews that treat film like it's a book and never talk about cinematography and sound design.

But this?
This shit ain't no Rube Goldberg machine
It ain't no fucking Goodfellas shot, that's for sure

desu I don't even get the point of reviews anymore when nearly every time a blockbuster movie is released, you know exactly what you're getting into.

Reviews can be helpful for discovering lesser known indie or foreign releases, but exactly 0 people care about those movies anymore.

That applies for basic "here's what the movie's like reviews". About these rigorously "analytical" reviews from learned critics people keep talking about I don't know where to find them.

David Bordwell's blog and books. An analytical "review" basically can't be done to a high level of depth until a film is on home video because any film scholar worth a shit is going to watch their subject many times for study.

davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/02/10/off-center-mad-maxs-headroom/

Compare this to a typical film review

>treat film like it's a book and never talk about cinematography and sound design

YMS does this. Or I should say, he does this except for occasionally saying "the cinematography is good."

Film buffs who bring up cinematography in such vague ways, and only remark on it being good or bad, are really annoying.

This guy seems cool. Shame he's not doing a wacky youtube show.

Yeah, I mean some real level analysis not just like "it's pretty". Random example I was listening to a podcast with an editor on BSG and she described how one of their basic editing rules on the show was whenever Six "disappears" when talking to Baltar it coincides with crossing the 180 degree line because it adds to the weirdness. I fucking love tidbits like that, that's real craft.

>popcorn flick
>catalyst of the central conflict in the first movie being a complicated trade route dispute

pick one

Siskel and Ebert were the birth of a kind of shallow criticism, that now has its place among the other forms, historically at least.

However, I really don't think rlm does what you're saying it does. I don't think it's bad, but it's pretty skin surface stuff. Which, again, is fine.

I prefer technically oriented film criticism. 95% of criticism that tries to delve into meaning comes off like Room 237 insanity

>get completely BTFO
>y-you have autism

too funny

There is a whole meta tier to the Plinkett reviews that is actually making fun of this type of review style too.

It's just intellectual masturbation.

If you ask people who worked on a film, they will tell you the kind of shit these reviews talk about, like symbolism, themes, paralels, etc. wasn't even part of the creation process.

Prime example of the inverted snob here.

I don't think you know what plot holes are

There's plenty of great film books that don't over analyze, take Donald Ritchie's Films of Kurosawa - he generally breaks up each film into its production history, basic themes, the acting, and then technical analysis.

Skimming through Bordwell's blog, he doesn't really talk about symbolism and stuff like that. It seems like he actually focuses on the technical aspects of the movie and how they work towards creating an engaging work of art.

When people make a movie, nearly every shot and sound requires lots of desicions to make, and whether you make them conciously or not, it has an effect on how you respond to the final product, so it's very well worth it to explore and analyze those decisions.

You make a good point. I was talking more about film study teachers and over-analytical reviewers.

Oh yeah, like anything if you go too far the other way it's almost as bad as no analysis. Trick is just finding those writers that manage to not disappear up their own ass.

OP here.

You have another good point, over-interpretation with looney symbolism is another problematic reviewing method (it's often a cinema university thing), to which you can add political biased reviewing, I think it was Nostalgia chick who used to do that, or that twitter feminazi... Terrible.

THIS! thank you for the link user, didn't know him. That is what I would describe as film reviewing starting to be really interesting and patrician.

...

But Plinkett didn't focus only on the story.

He shat on everything from the constant exposition, terrible actor delivery, constant uncreative back to back camerawork when dialogue is happening in a blue screen room with some kind of couch there and laughable cgi matte city background, the pacing, no blocking of the actors, over exaggerated choreography, bland "so dense" shot composition, zero character development and george lucas directing input alltogether etc

Most of people here in this thread probably watched the first 5 minutes of every review and thought the rest is the same shit I guess

youtu.be/aWAsaXdfVQQ

He's without a doubt the smartest person to talk about kung fu movies to the point of it being hilarious.

Meh it's lowest common denominator shit. Which is a pity because the two guys seem to have an appreciable knowledge of the media but then again their audience (ie working class america) is so insecure, so averse to learning and "heightened" discourse and so offended by opinions, they feel they literally have to apologize for these things or avoid them entirely to prevent backlash or a drop in numbers. Considering they make a living off of it it's probably smart business.

Easy, decent entertainment; bad in terms of culture. Then again good reviews are hard to find.

Reminder

They made a full announcement video months ago about a new Plinkett review. That's a bigger deal than some random youtube comment. And there's still no new review.

It will be finished by December so he can release it around when Rogue One comes out

Shit webm, famme. Should have ended before cut to broken bowl.

Just remember, there was 6 months between "Rise of the Plinkett" (oblique announcement of Titanic as the next review) and the review itself.

It's almost like it's a small project someone does in their spare time and doesn't have a set release date

>a complicated trade route dispute
How would you know? They never talked about it in the movie. Wasn't it a dispute about taxation?

Did you read the script too?

I think it says the Jedi are going there to resolve a dispute about "the taxation of trade routes" in the opening text crawl.

It certainly doesn't explain why Jedi are also being used as diplomats or what the fuck "the trade federation" is or who is disputing what with whom or how the blockade of Naboo helps the cause of the trade federation, whatever that may be

I have no idea what Plinkett nitpicked TPM for.
You'd have to be retarded to not be able to follow the plot, it all made perfect sense.

You'd have to be retarded to think it makes perfect sense.

DELETE THIS

Yeah, that's what so frustrating about it all. They clothe it like a boring, complicated political movie, but then have nothing boring, complicated or political in it. It's just a bad popcorn adventure movie

I wouldn't even have minded if they made a low key nor-intrigue film as a prequel. Jorge certainly put a lot of elements pointing to that in the second one, but either fumbles them or does nothing plot-relevant with them.

It honestly depends. If they point out something that actually contradicts the film's logic in an important way, than it's more than fine. But if the reviewer spergs about some tiny detail that lasts for a fraction of seconds and only the most autistic person would give a thought about, then it's just irritating (like when pic related took 2 minutes of his Edge of Tomorrow review complaining about the movie reduntantly repeating the characters were in London, when it's something so fast that a sane person wouldn't even notice).

Plenty of other things to rip on. Too much poetry, too much it rhymes, too much convenient coincidences, many useless characters, tonal shifts, scenes that go nowhere...

I don't mind if he fucks his dog, but he really shouldn't defend that kind of behavior.

well, on a technical level his reasoning isn't WRONG, but that said, I would never talk about my perversions like that in the public

btw, does he really have a dog is this just a meme? Knowing what he thinks about bestiality, that would be hilarious

why the fuck is he saying that kinda shit in public?is he a fuckin retard? keep your sick fetishes to yoursell man

More like it makes sense until you actually try to think about it

He is autistic, so maybe he's just obsessed about being right.

Besides, it's all beside the point. Animals are legal objects, so consent is not an issue. I doubt the cows and pigs in the ground meat I'm eating ever consented to that either.

Forbidding sex with animals is either based on a taboo, or the harm principle, both of which are fine.

To be honest I think being a furry is even worst than bestiality. The latter is "just" the urge to fuck something weird. I mean, people have been fucking literally anything, living or not, since forever.
But the furries just don't fucking accept themselves. They subconsciously hate their existence so much that they prefer to dress up as weird anthropomorphic things. And then fuck.
Pretty pathologic, if you ask me.

>just a meme
A meme you say? Like Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), the dog rapist who enjoys bestiality hiding in a fake RLM thread?

But something not being logical isn't a flaw because it's fiction

>why the fuck is he saying that kinda shit in public
Because he's Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), the dog rapist who enjoys bestiality

Those reviews are pretty openly petty, just talking shit for comedy

No, I was just asking wether he really has a dog or if it's a rumor spread around because memes.
I forgot the"or" in the previous message.

More rationalizations for abuse from Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), the dog rapist who enjoys bestiality

"furry" is shitty taste and doesn't victimize anything but aesthetics. Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), however, is a dog rapist who enjoys bestiality