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.
Sure, but the Star Wars prequels fall flat in all of those other elements too.
Colton Carter
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.
Parker Brown
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"
Austin Harris
If you want real cancer check YMS thoughts on Babadook
Gabriel Cook
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.
Jayden Howard
>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.
Cameron Murphy
>YMS You mean Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), the dog rapist who enjoys bestiality?
Owen Parker
>Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid WHAT A SHOCK
Criticising something in a funny voice doesn't make it not real criticism.
Michael Rogers
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.
Carter Sullivan
>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.
Camden Ortiz
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.
Lincoln Cooper
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 :((((('
Ryan Jackson
>real, serious criticism what, do you mean like marxist university garbage
Angel Ortiz
so the story having a logical continuity isnt needed?
the sponge bob generation every body. give the dip shit a round of applause
Jonathan Davis
Going full retard
Dominic Collins
>'darth vader is too dark this is meant to be a movie for kids :(((((' you missed the point entirely
Noah Hernandez
>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.
Robert Perry
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.
James Ramirez
>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
Dylan Evans
Are they ever going to release the fucking star wars video, christ?!
Asher Wilson
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.
Kevin Thomas
Which plot holes were nitpicked in the Plinkett reviews?
Carter Stewart
It's only valid if the person knows what a plot hole actually is.
Most reviewers don't.
Benjamin Reed
>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.
Alexander Kelly
>It's where most people in the first world reside. but not a patrician Sup Forums user like you. Give me a break.
Easton Morgan
I'm including myself you nonce. God, you rlm fans are so insecure.
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.
Jordan Bennett
Agree, which is one of the many reasons YT "reviewers" are utter shite
Jose Lewis
You're thinking of YMS not rlm. YMS is fucking cancer.
Henry Richardson
>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.
Luis Peterson
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"
Ryder Williams
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.
Jason King
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.
Luke Brown
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.
Josiah Stewart
>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
Benjamin White
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.
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.
Evan Diaz
Calm your 'spergers friend.
Michael Brooks
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.
John Sanders
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.
Jackson Rodriguez
>where he "reviews" a movie by summarizing it ah the legacy of Television Without Pity
Dominic Butler
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?
Jack Jenkins
>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.
Thomas Taylor
Was TWP the worst thing to happen to online film and television discourse?
Austin Edwards
What did he say, out of curiosity
Xavier Wilson
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.
Luke James
But this? This shit ain't no Rube Goldberg machine It ain't no fucking Goodfellas shot, that's for sure
John Hernandez
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.
Lucas Miller
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.
>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.
Julian Evans
This guy seems cool. Shame he's not doing a wacky youtube show.
Nathaniel Kelly
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.
Dylan Wilson
>popcorn flick >catalyst of the central conflict in the first movie being a complicated trade route dispute
pick one
Ian Foster
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.
Easton Moore
I prefer technically oriented film criticism. 95% of criticism that tries to delve into meaning comes off like Room 237 insanity
Owen Murphy
>get completely BTFO >y-you have autism
too funny
Evan Baker
There is a whole meta tier to the Plinkett reviews that is actually making fun of this type of review style too.
Camden Clark
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.
Hudson Wright
Prime example of the inverted snob here.
Christopher Peterson
I don't think you know what plot holes are
Jace Robinson
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.
Xavier Brooks
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.
Hudson Diaz
You make a good point. I was talking more about film study teachers and over-analytical reviewers.
Thomas Brown
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.
Luke Ortiz
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.
Anthony Rogers
...
Adrian James
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
He's without a doubt the smartest person to talk about kung fu movies to the point of it being hilarious.
Josiah Lewis
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.
Kayden Brooks
Reminder
Nathan Taylor
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.
Ethan Walker
It will be finished by December so he can release it around when Rogue One comes out
Joseph Barnes
Shit webm, famme. Should have ended before cut to broken bowl.
Leo Morales
Just remember, there was 6 months between "Rise of the Plinkett" (oblique announcement of Titanic as the next review) and the review itself.
Ethan Hill
It's almost like it's a small project someone does in their spare time and doesn't have a set release date
Evan Garcia
>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?
Evan Foster
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
Josiah Walker
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.
Colton Walker
You'd have to be retarded to think it makes perfect sense.
Robert Morgan
DELETE THIS
Connor Ramirez
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.
Lincoln Lewis
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).
Daniel Stewart
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...
Oliver Myers
I don't mind if he fucks his dog, but he really shouldn't defend that kind of behavior.
Eli Ramirez
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
Nolan Butler
why the fuck is he saying that kinda shit in public?is he a fuckin retard? keep your sick fetishes to yoursell man
Adrian Kelly
More like it makes sense until you actually try to think about it
Mason Stewart
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.
Daniel Young
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.
Camden Anderson
>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?
Robert Johnson
But something not being logical isn't a flaw because it's fiction
Justin Cooper
>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
Liam Rogers
Those reviews are pretty openly petty, just talking shit for comedy
Evan Rodriguez
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.
Noah Price
More rationalizations for abuse from Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), the dog rapist who enjoys bestiality
Lucas Campbell
"furry" is shitty taste and doesn't victimize anything but aesthetics. Adam Johnston from YourMovieSucksDOTorg (yms), however, is a dog rapist who enjoys bestiality