YouTube Critics Are Lying to You | A Bad Media Criticism Video Essay
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- CZcams critics on the left and right are lying to you. They're misrepresenting the media in question, hyper focusing on plot points that don't matter, or outright lying.
In this essay, I'll expand on everything.
Chapters:
0:00 When CinemaSins Lied About Kong: Skull Island
1:11 What is Bad Media Criticism?
3:32 Bad Reviews vs Bad Criticism
5:46 Why Plot is Not the Sole Element of Criticism
8:11 Plot, Audience Intelligence, and Blade Runner
13:13 Bad Media Criticism, Lying, and Engagement
17:05 Hyper-Emphasizing the Negative and Removing Theme
18:04 The Problem with Mary Sues (Star Wars, Literature Devil)
24:03 A Good Faith Criticism of Star Wars Sequel Trilogy
25:36 Honest Criticism Means Honest Thought
27:49 The Central Boogieman
28:55 Reacting to Everything (Prey, The Critical Drinker)
30:07 Shameless Lying and The Past is Better (X-Men '97, Mario, Spider-Man)
31:26 Let's Talk About Anita Sarkeesian
39:04 Lily Orchard
43:52 The Horrifying Truth About Lily Orchard vs. Right Wing Grifters
44:28 Lies About Media and the Mandela Effect
Links referenced:
www.hollywoodreporter.com/mov...
deadline.com/2024/05/x-men-97... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
One thing I would like to address is the idea that Life is Beautiful, is trying to “laugh at genocide” is flat out not true. It’s a movie that balances both comedic and tragic elements but understands the severity of the awful events that took place. It’s ultimately about a father trying to protect his son not just physically but also emotionally as he attempts to keep his son’s innocence intact. Speaking of, the son didn’t know his father died, as he was killed out of view, long after he and his mother were rescued.
"It's genocide, you'll get over it, son" is Mel's take, not "laugh at genocide."
@bobbysworld281995 true. Laughing seems to be his method.
You should read Mel Brooks' interview on it.
I think the fact that people can't understand that the title is literally telling you how to interpret the film shows how much we've lost subtlety in our media.
Exactly. There is beauty in life, even in its darkest moments.
It's a message of hope and perseverance in the face of overwhelming adversity.
Now on the one hand, it's not fair to put all the blame for the death of online media literacy on one person since it's obviously more complex than that. On the other hand however, this is all Doug Walker's fault.
CinemaSins's, too
I agree about this. Doug Walker is the final boss of bad, media illiterate, terrible youtube critics. He's the spawn they all imitate and come from, and beyond all reason, even after literally every friend he's ever had walked out on him for good reason, it wasn't enough to shunt him into the internet bin of irrelevance he should have always been in.
Sometimes I am still loathe to live in a world where that worthless chud is still popular in any regard.
@@agramugliaisn’t CinemaSins a parody channel and not an actual review channel?
You can just say you don’t like them dude :/
@@contentlobby3824 They always talk about how they are a parody channel, but they don't act like that, and their fanbase doesn't either. It's discussed in, for example, videos by bobvids.
You're not wrong. It's his fault and the fault of almost that entire crew. Same with others like YMS, IHE, and even RLM.
One factor that I have also noticed in myself: a viewer of a movie cannot remember every detail that occurred in the film after he / she watched it only once. If a critic says: "Character X does Y, but it is not explained, hence a plot hole!", then I have often thought: "That's right, that is a plot hole." When I watched the movie a second time, I realized that it was actually explained, but I had forgotten it. Many of these critics seem to be aiming precisely at the fact that the average viewer does not have every second of a film stored in their memory if they have seen it only once.
Exactly it’s expecting people don’t know better making it inherently a bad faith critique
Another one of my personal favorites: "Character A does illogical thing, hence bad writing!" That can be the case, but if it's done in service to the themes & plot of the story, in a way that makes sense, then it can be good writing.
Big Hero 6 & Hamlet are good examples. In both works, we have a character that acts in an illogical manner, but given how those characters function within their respective stories & the larger messages, it makes sense that they would act that way, even when a normal person would supposedly be more sensible in their decision-making.
For Hamlet, it's that Hamlet is a overconfident, paranoid, and indecisive sad boi who constantly overthinks his situation, irrationally creating a convoluted plan to expose & kill his father's murderer, all the while creating excuses for delaying himself in this endeavor, ultimately dying because he couldn't act in time to save himself due to his obsession with scheming, playing into the larger themes of tragedy about the pursuit of revenge being an act of arrogance that's ultimately bad for everyone involved.
For Big Hero 6, it's that Callaghan is a grief-stricken father who's decided to pursue revenge for the loss of his daughter, allowing his top student to be killed in the accident which, by the time he's revealed to the audience, he justifies away due to his obsession with killing the man indirectly responsible for his daughter's death having completely taken over his life, acting as a thematic counterpoint to Hiro's journey of dealing with the grief he has for his brother and an example of how not to properly deal with grief.
@@thirdcoinedge Yes, absolutely!
I had to give up cinema sins when he went after Lilo and Stitch and repeatedly called Nani a bad mother.
1. She's not Lilo's mother.
2. That's the whole point of the movie.
It's like he didn't watch the movie. He was just observing it to criticize it.
OH MY GOD SAME. Fucker doesn't realize she's an older sister who had to give up her dreams and her studies just to be a mother figure when they just recently lost their parents. Fucker is so dense in media literacy.
One day you will find out that his videos never were a serious avenue for media critique
@@braydoxastora5584 I don't think I ever really did. I just never realized just how bad it was until that point. But cheers.
@@braydoxastora5584 CinemaSins themselves act like they are repeatedly. They only claim they aren't when people rightfully criticise them.
imagine taking CS seriously. Do you have autism? Can you not recognize sarcasm or blanket humor? I don't even like CS. But if they hurt your feelings, that's funny. A bully needs to toughen you up.
There's a quote from the early 2000s internet, a line that the novelist Anne Rice said in an incredibly awkward response to negative reviews of one of her books: "You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective." At the time it was ridiculed for its hubris, and it became a minor meme in fandom circles. And yet... it's something I wish I could say to folks like Lily Orchard, so many times. Her recent takes on Dungeon Meshi are especially egregious, and read as if she herself read a plot summary on Wikipedia or TvTropes and drew her own conclusions. There's actually some solid evidence for this, but I digress (Someone ask me about it. Go on, ask).
Alright, I'll bite. What's the evidence? You've got the floor!
@@jod791 I should clarify; my hypothesis is that Lily only watched the first two episodes in any sort of detail, skimmed the rest of the series for background review clips, and pulled the rest of her info from Wikipedia and or TvTropes.
Alright, so within the videos themselves:
Despite Dungeon Meshi having a pretty broad ensemble of characters, Lily's videos only discuss 3 of them to any serious extent: Laios, his sister Falin, and her friend Marcille. The other two members of the main party are dismissed as unimportant (despite drawing focus plenty of times), and characters who become the POV for whole episodes (Kabru and his party) aren't brought up at all, not even an "There's this character. I don't like them." The second video does bring up a handful of side character moments, but oddly enough, Lily never refers to any of them by name (and Kabru's party are still entirely absent. So is Izutsumi, even though Lily claimed to have read the manga for the second one).
Some moments in the series are... I want to say misrepresented, but in all honesty they were just lied about. Lily flashes up a shot of one character, an elf with brown skin and white hair, and in the on-screen captions says "Yes, they actually call her a 'Dark Elf'", ostensibly to make us mad at fantasy tropes. Except that in the show, nobody calls the character in question a Dark Elf. Someone offhandedly accuses a completely different character (Marcille, who is white) of being a Dark Elf, before the first character that Lily mentions has properly appeared. At best, Lily skim-watched that episode for clips and conflated "Dark Elf" with the wrong character, at worst she read a reddit or tumblr post somewhere about the show having Dark Elves (which, funnily enough, it demonstrably doesn't) and decided to get mad about it.
Probably the most damning evidence comes from outside of the videos themselves though. Lily has... an unfortunate history of creating sockpuppets. One of those sockpuppets was confirmed recently when their Tumblr avatar was spotted in a document folder during one of Lily's livestreams. Said sockpuppet posted about Dungeon Meshi being "this show I haven't actually watched", a day -after- Lily's first review came out on Patreon.
So... yeah. Those are the main points. I could dig up more, but that would mean spending more time watching Lily Orchard. With all due respect... nah.
@vexfidel4127 If I could award you something I would. That's a lot of damning evidence about just one topic Lily discusses. Brava
You're probably right about LO's process for Dunmeshi tbh
She HAS gone on record that even Kingdom Hearts, her favorite games series, she only watched cutscenes for and bases her interpretation of games off of JUST the cutscenes so she misses 80% of the nuance provided in casual dialogue
It resulted in her making a list of games that are mandetory to understand KH's plot/story and leaves out multiple games that are extremely relevant to specific characters and I'm not even A KH player to go into full detail 😭
I think that's true. Even if video essayists watch a show/movie, they will still just go to the plot summary or go through it in fast forward, thinking they "remember" all the important bits.
Not to mention how people nowadays also LOVE to look at things from improper perspectives to find all kinds of stupid pros and cons.
Think of it like how difficult it is to follow the throughline of a feminist media critique: It always requires several tons of context and history, and then you need to look at things symbolically, in ways the creators never even dreamed about. It's quite literally taking media and trying to make it your own.
Choosing Zelda in particular to criticize the damsel in distress trope is a weird choice, because a lot of the time she's actually pretty active, like going off on her own adventure in skyward sword, or holding ganon back for a hundred years in breath of the wild. Even when she does get trapped or such, a lot of the time it's by her own choice as some part of a process to hold back Ganon.
I would not be surprised if Anita didn't particularly know about the plot of Skyward Sword, she seemed focused on OoT in particular. If nothing else, her example was funny.
Pretty sure her video predates Breath of the Wild, so she couldn't have known about that.
One could argue that even if her getting captured was part of the plan, it's still replicating the trope.
But I feel like with a lot of feminist media critiques, the point is more to point out the patterns rather than denote each of the examples as problematic. Which I feel the Feminist Frequency videos kinda missed the mark on.
I think the most recent game when Anita made that criticism was Twilight Princess (which still makes her wrong on account of Tetra).
@@Przemko27Z I agree with this. I'm a feminist and don't dislike Anita. There were some episodes of Feminist Frequency, particularly about video games, that I remember taking issue with, though. I was unable to have conversations about this with most people at the time, because it was mainly misogynistic b.s. and publicly denouncing her points was being used as ammo to show how women are the worst and ruin everything. So it wasn't even worth trying.
@@SkaiCyan that's wind waker. you're not even talking about the right game.
@@ViddyOJames I know what game I'm talking about. Wind Waker is still her most active role before Skyward Sword because she didn't really do anything in Twilight Princess, Twilight Princess was just the most recent game when Anita made the statement so that's the game I used since its probably what she played.
I used to like Lily's videos but stopped watching her after a bit. One moment that stuck out to me was in the comment section of one of her SU videos someone referred to her views on the morality of violence as Utilitarianism. She responded by saying there was no such thing as a moral philosophy called Utilitarianism, Utilitarianism just means designing stuff like clothing only for practicality. When the guy tried to explain that no, there is also a kind of moral philosophy that uses the same name she just started insulting him and calling him an idiot. Made me rethink if this was someone worth following.
Yeah, Lily has never been good and constructive criticism, and it's part of the reason I stopped watching her. Her go-to responses are always to either insult or belittle the person, or just delete their comment outright.
"Utilitarianism just means designing stuff like clothing only for practicality"
lmao NO FUCKING WAY you can't be serious! Jesus Christ no wonder he favorite character of all time is Anakin Skywalker, they both have potatoes for brains.
…she didn’t…oh my god. She dumb. Like dumber than the people she thinks is dumb.
LMAO she couldn’t even pause to fact check herself on a minor thing before going on an internet tantrum shes so goofy
Wow, talk about having a massive ego. Utilitarianism has not only a practical concept, but an ideological, political, and philosophical one.
Utilitarians belive in only doing things that maximize happiness. The main criticism is how to measure happiness and who's happiness we are talking about. It's quite a naive ideology, hence why it typically isn't even seen as one.
I followed Lily for a very long time, she was interesting to listen to and I never really payed enough attention to hear what she was actually saying
That was until Baldur's Gate 3 came out, and she completely disregarded one of the great stories about a victim reclaiming their life and bodily autonomy, just because they were white, pretty, and male... That's when I realised how stupid I had been to listen to her for such a long time. It taught me a valuable lesson about listening, and forming your own opinions before taking someones word on it.
Broken Clock Right Twice Daily
I still watch Orchard and Jimquisition videos, even though I don't agree with their opinions and theories at times
@@Ramsey276one Sterling has been on repeat, harping the same tune for too long now. They're not wrong, just that I enjoy some variety.
Until I hated her because of her Dungeon Meshi/Delicious in Dungeon anime review about badly portraying Laios with an autism chart.
@@primisimperator2189 Silver lining: other CZcamsrs made videos that debunked THAT
And that's how I found Dungeon Meshi Explained (probably got the title wrong) to watch !
@@Ramsey276one🥔
Since we are talking about critics that lie, I do have to call you out. Specifically at 19:50
Luke didnt know, how to use a lightsaber in the first movie. The only time he uses it, is when he trains with it under the supervision of Obi-Wan. And in Empire Strikes Back, he only uses the lightsaber in an actual fight, after he trained with Yoda.
Now in general, while I still think Rey is a bad character, its not because she is extraordinarily capable. There are countless extraordinarily capable protagonists, we and the critics love, that are by their own definition Mary Sues (or Gary Stus). Its because she has no goals, desires or opinions. Followed by her not having any deep relationship to anyone in the cast, she is just an incredibly bland character.
It's honestly both. Rey being extraordinarily powerful and being a flat character are both problems with her character.
In her “Pixar movie’s are only for kids” video. (It was actually called “Stop saying that Pixar movies are for kids.” I just thought I’d give it a more accurate title) Lily Orchard said that Antoine Ego from Ratatouille “Ruined the reputation” of critics and that’s a bad thing.... But she missed the entire point of the character. Ego was supposed to represent a bad faith critic and she completely missed that, in turn disproving her own point. Which is why pointing out bad faith media criticism is a great thing, fantastic video.
The resolution with Ego is honestly one of those moments that force you to reevaluate the critic. Another critic moment is Birdman. There's a scene involving a critic in that film that deeply bothered me because I knew people like that critic in that film. If you've seen it, you know it. But comparatively, Ego is positive.
Anton Ego’s whole speech at the end isn’t a take down of critics, it’s him coming to the realization that, for as much effort and knowledge you must have to become a critic, you are inherently putting less on the line critiquing something than you are creating something. Which then goes into the line “Not anyone can be a great chef, but a great chef can come from anywhere.” Creators present themselves in their truest, rawest form by putting out something, be it art, performance, or food, into the public eye to be judged. Ego’s big moment is realizing how brave you have to be to do that and endure the reviews.
Kind of fitting for Lily to not realize this considering she tears super hard into every creator on the planet and calls you a bigot if you don’t like the content she makes.
The irony.
@@Cosplaybuddygiraffeswhen he talks about the "everyone can cook" line he says he originally despised it because logically not everyone can cook, however he revaluates the meaning of the sentence and realizes the real meaning, "not everyone can be an artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere". Is the moment he leaves the nitpicky attitude and starts evaluating the food for all the effort and talent that was put into it he is finally understanding the art and appreciating it.
People think criticism is about being smarter and better than the author, but in reality it is to evaluate the author's intent and result
Of course Lily doesn’t like it when point out that critics can be bad faith sometimes
I do actually want to point out that specifically with that Mary Sue example, a master swordsman losing to a farm boy doesn’t have to be treated as inherently bad writing if that event serves to reinforce a theme or tone of a piece of media.
Personally I think a master swordsman just getting old and losing to someone who’s younger then him can serve to reinforce that time comes for us all eventually, that a lot of what gets attributed to skill can often be a matter of luck, maybe the swordsman reputation is overblown because he’s a member of the nobility, etc.
Fundamentally the idea only becomes an issue if the writer doesn’t actually do anything with it.
That or the victory is determined by another factor. Game of Thrones honestly dealt with that very well, where random chance could ruin everything.
You do realize you're talking about Luke Skywalker, right? He's not much older than vader by tlj, and God forbid count dooku. It was bad writing all around.
Yea I agree, also we’re talking about vast amounts of skill and powers that couldn’t be attained by multiple lifetimes from a regular person. They’d have to be about equal in everything else for age to be the determining factor.
@@mattd5240I don't think they're talking about Luke specifically, they're talking about the general idea of "farmer defeats master swordsman in a fight", or to be even more general, "person with no background in [thing] defeats expert in [thing]" and how that can connect to what the story wants to be, relating the result to age is just an example, as is relating the result to situational luck
@@lWaterFlowlAlso, as anyone with martial training can tell you, it is not uncommon for newbies to get in lucky hits against masters. My first sparring session ever, I popped the instructor in the nose. Quite by accident - I was trying to do something else - but despite his decades of training, he was not in that moment, for whatever reason, fast enough to stop me.
You can look up news stories of pro MMA fighters who get injured in bar fights, or former Navy SEALS who get killed in home invasions or other crimes. It happens.
This doesn’t always make narrative sense, of course. But I’m always annoyed by critics who discuss “training levels” between fictional characters with a confidence that clearly does not come from personal experience or actual knowledge.
I used to think Cinemasins was funny when it started. Stuff like: Oh look this clock changed times or this object disappeared between takes. I thought it was all in good fun.
Two things changed my mind: First, a lot of people seem to take it seriously, despite some claims to the contrary.
Second, they often lie or deliberately misinterpret the movie just to make their videos longer.
meanwhile I regularly watch Th3Birdman, who has a series of rebuttals of CinemaSins videos
They were better when most of their videos were under 5 minutes, most movies don’t have nearly enough goofy moments to warrant longer videos
I used to watch it just to get a rough plot summary of movies I had no interest in actually watching and which weren't popular enough to have more in-depth summaries online. Then I discovered the straight up lie about stuff that happens in the movies!
The dark truth is that people just use it as a cheaper substitute to sort of get the experience of seeing a movie they're interested in. It's a market that is now exploited by those shitty recap channels (though there are some gems there too, like Big Will).
Harrison Ford was not bored. He didn't want them in the movie so he intentionally made them so bad that he thought they wouldn't be willing to use them.
Thats a myth. Ford himself insists he tried his best with what he was given, and he was given very little.
@@markuscriticus8278 He says that, but I don't believe him. He's a good actor and while those lines are bad, his delivery does them no favors.
@@DanteRatto From what I've read Scott actively refused to direct the voice over (which was intended to be there from the start and the movie was largely made with having a voiceover since it was meant as an old film noir throwback but sci-fi and those movies often have voiceover lines from the protagonist) at a certain point as an attempt to not having it in the movie after keeping rejecting every one they presented to him, Ford had recorded various versions of the voiceover (basically they kepts writing new ones because Scott always said they weren't what he wanted) before the one the studio settled with. Ford wasn't just bored or considered the lines bad, there just wasn't anybody telling him what was expected of him in terms of the type of delivery.
I'm just gonna throw this out there: The problem with Patrick's Willem's video was he was making a blanket statement when the reality was a bit more nuanced. Some plot holes don't matter, others completely destroy the story around them.
Very true. Sometimes they can be ignorable, but some are so glaring they insult the intellegence of the audience by expecting them to ignore it.
He called out specific ones that didn't make sense when seen in context though. Jay Exci did a good response to the ones Willems brings up.
I think that was his point. A: people don't understand plot holes so you can ignore those complaints. And sometimes they're irrelevant. Something that is expounded upon with his vibes video
Jurassic Park has a perfect example on why almost every plot doesn't matter. The escaping from the T-Rex scene by rappelling down the wall is preceded by a scene showing that the wall isn't a wall but an edge that separates the enclosure from the road.
This is definitely a plot hole. It also doesn't matter. The tension and excitement from the escape is awesome and used to build excitement. The vibe of the movie is what matters.
When you passively notice a plot hole is when something else went wrong that meant that you were jarred from the immersion of the movie. If you look for plot holes than your aren't immersed and aren't actually partaking in the experience.
@@A2forty It all depends honestly. Mysteries tend to be very story driven so plot holes are more a of an issue there.
But what if YOU'RE lying to me? 😮
This video honestly just screams "lack of self-awareness"
Can you give examples of him lying to you like he did extensively about the people he's talking about?
@@za-ir5ni r/whoosh
@@b.w.s3165proof?
If he's lying to you, then at the very least, he's lying to you by telling you to "observe carefully, and form your own opinions."
If you don't think you should be doing either of those, then by all means, don't watch the video.
I was a pretty avid viewer of Lily Orchard for about a year, and during that period I found myself stuck at a conservative dance studio where I was emotionally abused by many of the teachers. In hindsight, I'm not surprised that this time period was when I was a fan of Lily Orchard, because her content riled up my anger at the situation I was in, giving me a toxic outlet for that anger because I didn't really have much control over the emotional abuse I was facing. That anger ended up backfiring on me when I directed it at a teacher who I particularly hated and I got kicked out of the studio (leaving that place was good, but the circumstances that led to it weren't.) Despite all her talk about giving solidarity to victims of abuse, Lily is in no way helping those victims find hope in their lives with her rhetoric. She's just making them even more angry and miserable.
There wasn't really a particular video or bad take that made me stop watching Lily. It was more a death from a thousand paper cuts. Her intolerance of valid criticism, shaming anyone who doesn't agree with her opinions, the constant inconsistencies in her arguments, tearing down other leftist creators for their flaws, ect... These were things I noticed and were bothered by even when I was at the height of my anger spiral, but after I was kicked out of that ballet studio and came across other leftist channels that were much more compassionate, understanding, nuanced, and thought provoking than Lily's content, the flaws in her videos just became all the more apparent to me. And so I stopped watching her.
It sounds to me like that anger was needed at a stage in your life, but that once you were out of that situation, you saw how toxic that is. I am glad you saw that, because that anger, even righteous anger, can be so self destructive if you hold onto it for so long.
I am very glad you found a better community to join, because Lily's toxicity can hurt you on an emotional level if you internalize it
@@agramuglia Ah yes because you're much better lol
@@agramugliaAnthony, you're not one to talk about anger, when you get pissed at Just Some Guy for not allowing you to campaign for a gay Spider-Man.
I’m actually REALLY happy you tackled Sarkeesian’s videos since I always got the impression that her brand of feminism was “you can’t do anything bad to women ever” and refusing to acknowledge the leaps and strides studios have gone to, even significantly early on in the medium’s timeline, to include women.
I don’t recall Sarkeesian EVER discussing Roberta Williams or Sierra, which would’ve been so easy to do as she’s a prominent figure in one of the most influential Western game genres, the point and click adventure game. How her games constantly twist perceptions of women, like letting the damsel Princess Rosella from King’s Quest 3 BE the protagonist saving her family in the very next game.
Or even stay safe and mention how Nintendo wasn’t satisfied with making Peach a blank damsel in distress and making her playable as early as Super Mario Bros USA, giving her the same cartoon antics in Mario Party, or just the entirety of Princess Daisy’s characterization after Mario Tennis. Bad faith criticism is ignoring how rich and diverse a topic is, with plenty of material to both support and detriment your argument. Because as much as I like arguing video games have always included women, I *did* get cat called and harassed a lot in Overwatch voice chat… Things aren’t black and white
Yeah, I remember when her videos first came out. I thought she had a few good points; but those points got lost in a larger body of bad-faith self-serving nonsense motivated by a deeply flawed and rather shallow idea of feminism (a part of what has since been termed "white feminism", for it's narrow, exclusionary, and rather stereotyped image of feminism). The problem was, any legit criticism was drown out by a flood of even-more-bad-faith whining and harassment by right-wing chuds. So pointing out where she did, in fact, screw up resulted either in those chuds thinking you were on their side (ugh); or her defenders lumping you in with the chuds because by that point they weren't willing to accept any criticism, regardless of how well-supported and even-handed it may have been.
One of the female artists that worked on Skullgirls actually wanted to talk to Sarkeesian after she criticized the game's art, just have an open discussion - not bashing, just talk about why she drew the game the way she did - and Sarkeesian completely ignored her. Obviously Sarkeesian is free to dislike the game's artstyle, but if you want to talk about 'feminism,' you should maybe give women in the industry a voice.
I always thought Sarkeesian's analysis was kind of shallow. The overall topic and issues she was discussing are perfectly legitimate but to me she didn't seem like a very good advocate because frankly it didn't even seem like she could be bothered to familiarize herself with the content to make her points and examples even from the start. I mean if you're going to discuss the damsel in distress trope in video games and discuss the character Zelda, Ocarina of time would not be my go to example. She's exceedingly proactive in that game far more so than any those that came before it and most of the ones after it (which a point that definitely warrants discussion) its Zelda who devises the plan to seal Gannondorf all he while assisting Link in her Sheik disguise and the entire reason Ganondorf captures Zelda when she finally reveals herself is because he thinks she's the only threat to him and that Link is entirely beneath his consideration and once freed Zelda literally uses her power to create the opening Link needs to land the killing blow she really not a damsel in distress in that game at all... course then the gamergate backlash happened and the chuds went after her so hard they made legitimate critique of Sarkeesian exceedingly difficult because the well was so poisoned it feels that about way about lot of subjects these days honestly.
Not to mention, thanks to the way she frames several of the tropes involving sexualization (which, yes, sexualization can often be objectifying and demeaning but not always), she had a very *SWERF*y vibe to her; especially in how she refers to sex workers as “prostituted women”.
A thing that wasn't talked about in the vid was that in addition to her not liking stereotypically feminine signifiers like bows and pink, she also had a "Men with boobs" section for female characters that were written "like men".
There's something to be said about authenticity in fiction but that always bugged me. Like female charas can't be too fem but they can't be too masc, otherwise that means they're literally secret men in disguise?
I don't know if she realized how exclusionary and essentialist that was, oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I can attest to the final message of this video. I fell for Lily Orchard's Steven Universe takes way back when and took the show for granted. Then I saw someone point out she was actively lying about the events of the movie and went "oh, have I been lied to this whole time?" So I went to watch the show from front to back. I'm almost done with season 2 and safe to say, this show is NOT garbage, it's great
The show is indeed great. The ending is not. Season 5's ending is very rushed. Also their release schedule for episodes was laughable
@@SuperGoose42 eh, the scheduling complaints are bit moot now that the series is done and watchable in one go
Honestly, I liked Change Your Mind a lot. I do feel like there was meant to be a longer epilogue at the very least that was a victim of CN getting uppity over gay people existing.
@@SuperGoose42 Really tired of people complaining that 1 episode out of 160 is bad as if that matters anymore
@@GigaDonk99 I think complaining about the ending is fair though, because all the previous episodes were good in part for all the things they set up in term of conflict and worldbuilding (not exclusively but partially) and having a poor resolution does retroactively hurt the enjoyement of these things.
Imagine if lord of the ring ended with frodo using the ring to beat up sauron in a fistfight and then become a benevolent ruler loved by all I think anyone would agree that it'd be such a betrayal of the themes previously established that it would taint the whole story.
Of course steven universe doesn't do that, and the ending is actually pretty in line with the themes, so it's not anywhere near as bad as that hypothetical disaster, it's more that the story was very ambitious and the stakes really high so the ending undermines that a bit by being so simple (in another similar story with lower scales stakes it'd have actually worked perfectly fine)
Now if you want a show that actually murders it's own themes at the end making the whole thing feel very sour in retrospect I'd direct you to star vs the forces of evil because oh boy xD
I'mma be honest, I don't think I'll ever completely forgive LilyOrchard for making everyone think Steven Universe is a bad show because of boogeymen she made up. The Mandela Effect worked HARD in her favor with that one vid.
You don't think nostalgic fans will grow up to defend the show eventually?
While I fully admit that Steven Universe got hit really hard by her terrible videos, I think the most biased, unfair, whipping boy peice of media that's gotten more bad faith lies perpetrated against it more than a thousand Lily Orchard Steven Universe videos combined has been RWBY. It's absoutely nothing even close to what the many enraged delusional lunatics have tried to do to that wonderful series by nitpicking it to death and lying about every aspect of what it contains, by watching half of one volume and then literally never addressing anything that happens after the 3rd... out of 9.
@@thenightstar8312Indeed.
@@thenightstar8312i enjoy rwby so much, thank you for this
I think you should be more concerned about lily orchard r*ping their sister allegedly
"Social justice stories are about power over heroism." is genuinely such a wild line because redemption and the people who want to do good triumphing over corrupt people with power through strength gained by their virtues are like two of the first things that come to mind when I think about "woke" media. Like for example, Avatar (cartoon not blue). The climax is Aang defeating Ozai *and* his ideals by sticking to the pacifism he learned from back in the days of the air temple instead of just killing him and making him a martyr, and it's beloved.
“You’re a white man in power and I’m gonna stop you!”
Is VERY different to:
“You seek to commit genocide against innocent people, I will stop you, but I won’t stoop to your level”
That’s why AtLA is beloved: it gave us a hero, not a bigot cosplaying a hero.
That's a lie and you know it. Most 'Woke' Heroes are 'perfect', they don't struggle. Because if they struggled they wouldn't be 'pure' which would mean they're not Woke enough.
Woke is very easy to explain, if you took a second to realize what the term's use is in political discussion. Essentially, it's the agressive push for identity politics (although it could potentially be expanded to just leftist ideology) in media. Key word in aggressive, as the main argument is that you're forced to see it because it's in every piece of media nowadays produced in Hollywood or that has any connection with BlackRock and its subsidieries like Sweet Baby Inc. It's pretty much propaganda through conditioning; whether you hate it or love it, since it's everywhere, it is made so you get used to it and internalize it. And if you criticise it, the directors and other actors will try to make you look like any kind of -ism or -phobe there is known to man.
My apologies if I wrote something incorrectly by the way, as I'm not English.
15:16 id say a bad example considering he said WITHOUT super natural aid or divine intervention, as that’s exactly how luke made the shot he let a super natural force guide him instead of using the computer when he was told too
I don't like Anita for calling Mad Max Fury Road not feminist enough, that movie kicks ass FUIRIOSA KICKS ASS!!!!
She had a bit outdated, more radical view on feminism, even if she's still presenting in a traditionally feminine way, and otherwise her views are way more varied once someone takes a bit closer look to it, but that requires going through a lot of context (interviews, podcasts, etc.). In a nutshell, while she's not subscribed to the "traditionally feminine women are traitors" and the "women naturally have a lesser sex drive due to different hormones, those who say otherwise are succumbing to men" mentality some have in the same clique, she does overstate the effects of media.
In my limited experience, more one-sided representations are usually the ones that cause issues, and sometimes weird issues. Some wants most if not all autistic characters to be asexual, because writers often liked to combine the two (likely because it made good drama), and now any divergence from that often met with resistance. Sometimes from autism moms, but I've seen some weird radfems in the autism community that liked to claim women are less sexual than men, and that any form of sexuality from an autistic character will make people believe all autistic people are super horny (while in reality we get less likely to diagnosed that way, especially in more conservative countries).
@@ZILtoid1991 wait for my queer anarchist metal comic
The only movie I've ever seen fit into Anita's criteria of like, a good feminist crowdpleaser film was "The Martian." Which I think fits her strict definition of what conflict should be. The only criticism she had for it is that it should of have a woman of color as the lead.
I did not know that. I use to watch her CZcams channel off and on those so I might of missed it. The major thing that I notice from her was she was all sex negative specifically when it came to men and sex. Anytime female character looked sexual desirable she would say it was for men's viewing pleasure. It was like strange version of how Michael Bay treats female characters in his movie. Once your sexy that's it which is weird to me.
I’ve felt the burn about bad media criticism for a while now. Whether it’s Star Wars, Steven Universe, whatever, it’s always irritating seeing the same bad faith takes repeated over and over again. This goes beyond disagreeing about media. If that’s all this stuff was about, I wouldn’t be so weary whenever I see the same sentiments that could easily debunked (see my aforementioned examples) over and over again.
I’m a very experienced-driven person when it comes to media. The experience can be greater than the sum of its parts (see the Skywalker Saga of Star Wars for an example). I try to be laid back and constructive whenever I critique something because I feel too many critics these days are arrogant and pretentious.
RWBY has gotten hit with an extraordinarily ridiculous amount of bad faith criticism as well. Probably more than anything I've ever seen.
Its only bad faith because you disagree with it. ;)
@@thenightstar8312You just like the bad/poor writing of show. Most defactors/“haters”/ex-fans like the concept for show is going for. They just see the writing ruins for everyone, including me.
@@frogglen6350
Struck a nerve?
@@frogglen6350 no it's bad faith because of how it obviously doesn't make sense
I found a rather small channel the other week who covers YT drama, but they started to do book reviews as well. And for their first review, they did the one thing that annoys me the most about any reviewer of media: "I can't f*ing remember what happened... It was dumb... Don't expect me to get the names right... There was some plot about this character you don't need to know about because it was shit..."
It's an overplayed, annoying performance of "this media was so bad I couldn't remember it and you shouldn't either" which tells the audience nothing. Unfortunately, too many people soak these types of "reviews" up when they aren't being told anything of substance. For sure, the work absolutely COULD be that bad. But it never attempts to explain why.
I don't know, but I take claims like "This book is dumb" and "It's not worth remembering or reading" to be pretty worthwhile statements in a review.
@@Rotom0479 They're meaningless descriptors if the reviewer doesn't actually explain anything.
There's a movie/show reviewer that has over 1 million subs who often calls things he doesn't like "dumb" and "stupid" but rarely explains what he means. It's a worthless statement if the goal of the video is to _review_ the product for other people to form their own opinion. There's a lot of humour I find "dumb/stupid" that others enjoy, while there's some "dumb/stupid" things I enjoy that other people can't stand.
Reviewers who use descriptors like those along with "not worth remembering" or anything else that means "this is terrible" without telling us _why_ are just doing a version of the Cinema Sins formula. The same way that any reviewer (usually the same ones as before) who just constantly talks about how great something is without going into details on why they think so are just doing the Cinema Wins' inverse.
Unless you're watching these reviews for the reviewers' personality rather than any actual solid review - or you've decided to let the reviewer think for you and so never question anything they say - then such vague comments about a movie/show/book are meaningless to help those watching the review make up their own minds.
@@morlath4767 More often than not they do, so it really goes without saying.
I always say that the biggest mistake these critics make is judging media based on what it didn't do when it should be made based on how well it accomplishes its goal.
Which critics are you talking about?
Not famiar with everyone he shows but all the ones I am do exactly what you said, judge the media based on how well it accomplishes its goal. For instance he shows a MauLer video that goes over in detail what the goals were of tlj and all the ways in which it fails to do so.
@@redbearington3345 I mainly see it in amateur critics that got popular out of talking about superhero movies. They come from a very specific environment where half of what they do is speculate on what's gonna happen in the next movie. They were conditioned to expect a lot from movies and they would constantly be upset that their theories didn't pay off. When the MCU lost popularity and they had to start talking about other kinds of movies, that mentality bleeds into this other movies they're covering.
@Rafael-2105 so again no names.
@@redbearington3345 why do you want names? I thought the point was to not watch this kind of people
@Rafael-2105 because without names don't know who you're talking about, or that you're not just making shit up.
Typically the claims made about "CZcams critics" don't come with names attached but when they do they're wrong. This video being a key example. Don't know ripper or LD, but he throws out mauler and drinker too and lies about both of them
Lily Orchard has done irreversible damage to media literacy for childrens cartoons
It's very recent that people like Hiding in Private and SaiScribbles are tearing down all of her falsehoods about SU
Lily Orchard has done irreversible damage to children.
Oh, come on, you can't just ask me to not take media criticism at face value but then say so many things I critically disagree with.
My critical thinking hurts
Hey, one of my favorite MST3K clips!
"...There. Sure glad I don't look stupid in this."
Especially with kids films the past year. I watch a movie and think to myself: "Hmm, I liked it. Pretty decent! Wonder what people on the internet say..." and then on CZcams I just see "Worst film to ever be produced"/"I can't believe they actually published that"/"Why xyz is going downhill". And these videos come out after every. single. movie.
I get that people have different opinions on so on but there HAS to be at some point a movie they like, right? And then talking about the "oh generational trauma is so overhyped by now". If I had to sit through millions of romance comedies and "In the end they happily married!", then you can let me enjoy my generational trauma in peace. If they only produce that genre for multiple decades, THEN you can complain. Honestly critics are sometimes so spoiled and it annoys me so much
Overly Sarcastic Production (OSP) is a great channel if you want a nuance/deep dive approach to certain tropes, especially “Mary Sue” and “Fridging” (Women in Refrigerator), with “Trope Talk” by Red . For example Lily’s video about Mary Sue and Red’s video are as different as night and day since Red actually talks the history, provides good and bad examples, and addresses problems involve with said trope while Lily just complains in her first video “Mary Mary Quite Contrary” and in her latest she voiced “Mary Sue Are Actually Fun” to defend her Star War: Sith Resurgence fan-fiction.
OSP is fantastic and i have nothing but positive things to say about their work.
Deep? They say such obvious information. Liberal nonsense. Try some mauler
@@agramuglia Of course you will like OSP.
They are equally hypocritical and horrible at making arguments as you are.
@@agramuglia Hooray! OSP is my favourite CZcams channel! 😄
@@agramugliaOSP is a crap channel, and Red is a filthy socialist.
I am probably gonna be that person, but... The Man of Steel and the clip you've used aren't really a good example of the argument you're making (can't beleive I am technically defending a Zack Snyder movie).
That is Zod boasting, but the scene itself is showing how each character tops the other in different aspects. Zod, who couldn't even breath earth air when he arrived on earth and only now started absorbing yellow sun light and developing powers, can catch up to Superman so fast due to his military training and combat experience. Meanwhile, in this version, Supes has more raw power and more skill using Kyrptonian powers under a yellow sun (except flight) because he has been on earth basking on yellow sun his entire life. Putting of this together, it means the gap in the areas Supes was then superior to Zod was closing fast, and soon he would no longer be able to compensate Zod's skill and experience with raw power alone, and then it would be pretty much game over. This also informs Supes decision to break his neck, because at the time saw no other way to stop Zod from getting to the point that, as far as Clark could tell, no one would nbe able to stop Zod, certainly not himself. He had to do it right then and there while he was still physically superior.
Which was, for all intents and purposes, a dramatic deviation from the man of tomorrow that most people know and love.
@@zacharybosley1935 No-one is suggesting it isn't, simply that it's a terrible example as an argument against mary sues.
What's wrong with defending Zack Snyder?
@@nope5657
I'm sure you could defend him as a *person* from all kinds of awful accusations. The man hasn't committed any *war crimes* to my knowledge...
But as a WRITER... well... there isn't really any way TO defend him as such. He's literally NEVER written a good film outside of MAYBE Watchmen, but even then, I only say that because I haven't seen Watchmen in a *very* long time. I've seen LITERALLY EVERY OTHER FILM he's written *very* recently, all in the span of about two years, including his ultimate showcase of his incompetence as a writer; Rebel Moon 1 and 2. When he was given EVERYTHING he could ask for by the studios and production companies, with ZERO restrictions and an INSANE budget... and yet they were actually the WORST written films he's ever made thus far.
He sounds like a semi-chill guy to talk to (despite his 15-year-old-level edgy-pretentiousness and cringe), but I don't think it's even remotely reasonable to attempt to defend his "skill" as a writer. He's terrible at that craft.
That "Star Wars the Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since" joke still gets me
Star Wars review content has become the most predictable thing since my son. I mean how could they possibly say they didn't like The Last Jedi in a new way. It's like reinventing mashed potatoes
yeah that had me giggling for a good few minutes LOL
@redjirachi1 for real, it absolutely drained Me, I was the biggest star wars fan, now I only watch the stuff and don't engage with reviewers and the fandom 😭
I had flashbacks of my mid-twenties when I heard Mr. Plunkett say those words😂
Remember when the Prequels were the Sequels of their day?
I hate historical revisionism.
On the Mary Sue point, most of the characters I remember thinking as Mary Sue are male characters... Usually Isekai protagonists.
In fact the only female character I can think of that I applied that term to was partially as a joke over discovery having "Spock's secret sister" as a character (which I vaguely remembered being an actual element of the original Mary Sue character, though I may be misremembering who she was secretly related to).
One minor quibble, the bit about _2001: A Space Odyssey_ and "My God, it's Full of Stars". This is not a fan-created quote. It's actually from the sequel, _2010: The Year We Make Contact_ ; where it's "quoted" as the last transmission made by Dave Bowen, and actually is the first line spoken in _that_ film. So it's an understandable mistake to associate it with the first film.
It's also in the original novel.
@@agramuglia Oh right, it's been so long since I've read it, I completely forgot that part. (Used to be a big fan of Clarke, but it's very hard to go back and re-read him now.) I still think it's mainly because of the sequel, since I doubt a majority of the audience for the film would have read the book.
@@agramugliaso you know you messed up and didnt fix it....
@@emuman09The video says it was in the original novel.
I find intellectual honesty and curiosity tends to scare tribalism, and usually from my experience, makes you a target regardless of which sides they are on.
So many people think "criticism" means "saying negative things". Negative opinions are great, but everyone already has one of those. Criticism is about analysing a piece of art to see how it works (or possibly how it doesn't work). That requires a base of knowledge about how the art works. Most of these people have no clue what they're talking about, and just have kneejerk emotional reactions to art that they justify post hoc. "I didn't like it, therefore there must be something technically wrong with it".
I've literally had someone tell me that. When I told someone "all you do is focus on negative shit and whine and complain without trying to even acknowledge anything good" they flat out told me "I'm a critic, that's what i'm supposed to do." That's a 12 year old's understanding of what a critic is. I just about cringed into another dimension.
Isn't the opposite true as well? Everything you said about negative things and opinions can equally be applied to positive things. People can have predisposed ideas around going into a piece of media positively because of one thing or another. They can have kneejerk emotional reactions that go either positive or negative, then justify their feelings post hoc. "I felt good when seeing it, therefore it must be technically good."
I do think a balanced approach is important. Though most media critics that I've seen on CZcams do tend to spell out their reasoning for both good and bad criticism of various media works. By following their stated train of thoughts, you can then find out if those are their true feelings, or if they're being influenced one way or the other by some external force.
@@Kryto_Gaming It's not about balance, it's about going beyond mere opinion and cracking the code to how the art works.
@@PlatinumAltaria I suppose that's true. It's difficult to analyze your criticism without more specific examples, but the basic idea seems to make sense. Critics do need to be beyond toxic negativity or toxic positivity.
It’s insane how personal I’ve seen people take something as innocuous as fictional characters who happen to be women or non-white or gay or whatever. I’ve seen so many “they do this as a calculated attack” “they do this because they hate you” etc. it’s ridiculous
6:19 Jay Exci actually did an excellent job criticizing Willems's video here. Even Willems himself said that he probably wouldn't have presented himself quite as smug if he had made that plot hole video today iirc.
Jay Exci also did an excellent job criticizing this video, calling it "not good" ;)
@@musichere3287 indeed. Jay is pretty good at making spot on critiques
Jay Exci hangs out with bigots.
@@nope5657unfortunately… their videos are too good to be surrounded by slop makers
@@nope5657 Was not aware that Jay is friends with Mauler when I made this comment tbh.
I still agree that Jay's video was great but yeah... Disappointing to hear...
It just hit me. The reason cinemasins sucks so bad is *because* they analyze frame by frame. They take one chunk of the movie and analyze it… without any thought to the chunks before and after it. Thus, context is a completely alien concept to them.
I never thought of cinemasins as a media criticism channel. I always thought of their videos as mostly jokes.
Not only that, but they get a LOT of stuff flatly wrong as a result. A problem they fully admit to, but have openly said they are fine with, since it generates comments, which generates engagement, which ultimately generates more money for them. They don't actually care about anything related to film criticism, they're just gaming the algorithm.
@@user-ny1wo1vp9rbad jokes
Another reason why CinemaWins is such a superior channel
He not only takes the time to attribute moment to moment praise for a film's acheivements (often showing some knowledge of the film beyond the screen), but also ending the video with a retrospection of the film as a whole :)
@@user-ny1wo1vp9r that's literally what I thought too. I think he's just a parody channel and exaggerates everything to get as many points as possible.
Bad movie critisism is about lokking smart to your audience
Good movie critisism ist about making your audience smarter
Edit: media critisism
Criticism.
@@dngillikin*looking
You know why you had to edit your comment?
Because this video has no common thread uniting the subjects of the video.
What is "smart" about pointing out that a Steak is burned, the Veggies frozen and there are Insects in the Salad ?
According to White Soy Knight over here, you cant be "mean" and a Critic at the same time.
This whole video is a cry for everyone to critize Movies and Series only like Chris Stuckman,
neuterd, non offensive, the flavorless oatmeal of Critics way, because whoever help us,
if you get angry at a bad product.
The irony is this definitions makes this a bad video, it an mostly incoherent ramble where he accuses other you tubers of being lairs how "trick people into thinking they have fun" wile misunderstanding and devaluing plot and plot analysis
What is a Mary Sue? It's a way a character is written. There‘re 2 criteria for Mary Sue writing:
1: The character can never not be virtuous.
2: Showing the virtue of said character must be the number one priority at all times.
Note of the use of the word “virtue”, because it’s an x factor that changes from writer to writer. In My Immortal, it’s emphasized how mush sex the main character is constantly having, while in Empress Theresea, it’s the character’s modest that’s emphasized. Both are Mary Sue writing, but opposite virtues. The only reason why “character that never struggle” is so often sighted as the main trait of the Sue is because it’s because Power Fantasy tends to be the main virtue. And most of the list of Sue Traits are just common Protagonist Traits.
Edit: If you look at the “traditional” definition of Mary Sue, there is a major problem: It’s the same thing over and over again. The character is flawless, everyone likes them, they always have the right answers, they get overly praised. It all services the same purpose: The Sue can never look bad. Which is another wording of my 1st criteria. The reason I reject that wording is simple, it easily becomes paradoxical. Because to falter is human, and showing a character’s humanity is a good thing, so making the Sue (let’s say) clumsy makes them more human because they falter, therefore, the bad trait of clumsiness becomes the positive trait of humanity. Which is the kind of bad faith argument I actually expect from some people.
"Mary Sue" is code for "Teenage Girls Are Stupid And Have No Place In Geek-Culture."
The term comes from a fanfic written in the 1970s by a young woman still in her teens. By your metric, Every Mythic Hero Ever is a "Mary Sue."
Thank god someone still knows what a Mary Sue is supposed to be.
I swear that half the people I hear use the world "Mary Sue" think it just means "perfect character", and the other half just thinks it's a sexist buzzword and means nothing.
A Mary Sue isn't an issue with the writing of a single character, it's an issue of story structure, it's a writer trying way too hard and too clumsily to make you like something and obtaining the opposite effect.
@@X-Vidar It IS a sexist buzzword, and Japan isn't your monocultural safe-space "Where Woke Goes To Die."
You cowards never say what you mean.
I feel like even this could be an over-simplification. It helps to know where the term started, which if I remember right, was a parody of female self-insert characters often seen in Star Trek fan fiction submitted to fan magazines.
These fanfics would usually star a self-insert character who was loved by the canon cast of characters, everywhere she went no matter what she did.
So the elements you mentioned definitely apply. But I feel there’s usually a focus on the character being forced into a place they don’t belong, only for everything to revolve around them. So it was usually used to criticize certain fanfiction and online role players, who would force everything to revolve around themselves, godmod and metagame, and just not respect other characters.
So there is truth to the fact that “Mary Sue” has been misappropriated by misogynists to mean something it never did, and describe any female character they don’t like. It was never meant to attack OP female characters, power fantasies for women, or protagonists who don’t change in the main story, (which do exist- like Paddington Bear!) But chuds will use it to describe Captain Marvel, Rey, even Avatar Korra, and other such characters it clearly doesn’t apply to.
None of these characters were forced into canons they don’t belong in, are constantly virtuous, or are liked by all other characters no matter what they do. They tried to make a connection with Captain Marvel- that she was being forced into Endgame only to steal the spotlight from the original six Avengers and defeat Thanos- and of course that never happened. Korra is a hilarious example, given she’s obviously not liked by all characters all the time, or constantly praised by the narrative, or always winning- the fact that she loses a lot, but always gets up again and again, is one of the things I like about her so much.
@@X-Vidar The best description of a Mary Sue that I've seen is that it's a character that distorts the world of the story to serve the character, rather than the character serving the story.
The Force Awakens (and its sequels) was such a missed opportunity for all the characters involved.
It was a tragedy beyond comprehension. One might even say it was horror beyond imagination for SW fans of all ages.
@@russellharrell2747I actually thought that about the Star Wars Prequels. But Dave Filoni made it work through the various television series. Now, I'm just looking for something that's neither that, nor GoTcha or the Witcher. Maybe something closer to The Count of Monte Cristo.
also the hole kylo had in his stomach was from a weapon that usually one shots people and sends them flying across the room, he was also currently going threw a mental brekadown from killing his dad, like im an out of shape dipshit, but i could probably beat bruce lee if he just had to put down his son and also immediately before the fight he was shot in the gut with a 12 gauge, and ALSO had to fight off ANOTHER guy in that state
Killed your own argument when you point out he beat the shit out of finn despite his handicaps.
And then gets beaten by rey.
@@braydoxastora5584 except not,
1.this isent a fighting game, you dont get a reset between each match, your going to be weaker and more exhausted(especially when again you have been bleeding to death threw out the entire fight, so your in worse shape even if you dident take a single hit)
2. Finn mainly uses blasters, rey uses a melee weapon, even without any other factors it really shouldent be a surprise she does slightly better in a melee fight
3. he was actively trying to recruit her threwout the fight, meaning he was holding back since he dident want her dead, Finn got no such luxury
4. Rey never beat him, she was on the defensive the entire fight, got one glancing hit in, then they got separated, thats not a win by literally any measure
actually watch the damn movie yall
@@seelcudoom1 1. He's a dark side user who get more powerful the more angry and in pain they are. He has over a decade of training and experience
2. Fighting with a staff isn't anywhere near the same as fighting with a sword, never mind a laser sword that can cut through almost anything. All she had going for her there is maybe understanding timing and footwork. But only on a basic instinctual level as SHE HAS NO TRAINING
3. Him holding back only goes so far and does not justify her getting a nearly fatal cut on him that knocks him on his ass and scars him for life
4. She LITERALY DID you numbskull. DID YOU watch the movie?! How does him being vulnerable on the ground one strike away from being killed not count as losing?
But Siths profit from pain. That is pretty much their thing
@@justadude3789
1. where did this idea dark siders get stronger from being injured comes from? , palpatine frying himself dident make him stronger it left him half conscious on the ground begging for his life and needing anakin to step in, pain and hatred are part of the dark side but its not just being in pain that gives you the power, and its hard to tap into the darkside if say, your currently having a mental breakdown doubting yourself over killing your dad, also even if it made him stronger in the darkside, hes still got a hole in his gut and loosing a lot of blood, like the dark side let maul survive getting cut in half but he very much was weaker both physically and mentally afterwards
2.its closer to it then fighting with a gun, also lightsabers arent swords, stick fighting would in fact be the closest real life fighting styles to how one would fight with a saber, the double lightsaber is literally based on a bostaff dude(and was also a huge missed opportunity not to give rey one)
3. "near fatal" my ass, its literally as minor a wound as a lightsaber can give since even minor wounds end in lost limbs, also yes on its own it wouldent, hence why this is a multi part list talking about the many other factors giving rey the worlds biggest handicap and how she still dident get a win
4. because people can get back up, "your opponents on the ground" is certainly an advantageous position but its not victory, all threwout the series we see examples of characters getting knocked down but getting back up, including IN THIS VERY FIGHT, finn gets knocked down but still gets back up and keeps fighting, kylo had rey on the ground(and unconscious) at the very start of the fight, the only difference is they got separated immediately after kylo was downed so their was no chance for him to get back up like the other two
You just made me realize that Lilly Orchard’s rants remind me of when I read Mein Kampf in college (I read it out of morbid curiosity, it was one of the worst books I’ve ever read), and her videos are just as disorganized and incoherent.
Calling someone else mustache man scatterbrain under this video is rich af. This video has atrocious lack of structure, the worst I've ever seen.
Mein Kampf is as if the most annoying and self important person at a party does some coke, starts blurting out their takes (which aren't even coherent), and doesn't shut up for 23 hrs. Bc the goddamn book is 23hr and 12 min.
I'd recommend Zabiba and the King over it. Christ. Like I really needed another reason to hate Hitler.
@@TheDrLeviathan Though I just ragged on Lilly for her long winded videos in which she says nothing of substance, apparently Mauler and his goons made a response to this video that was SEVEN GOD DAMN HOURS LONG. Like how can you even do that?
The irony of that last statement
@@Grf1556 I have no idea why it became taboo to make 7 different videos if it needed to be that long. Like... Limited run podcasts are smart enough to do that, and will update later episodes as new info comes to light.
20:20 I haven't even seen Force Awakenings since it released and I still remember she isn't the only scavenger, it's a whole community that trades salvage for food. And she understands ships cause she's been picking them apart her entire life. Say what you will about the next two movies but the first one did set up all of Rey's skills.
Your videos exposing Lily Orchard's stupidity/dishonesty are instant classics for me!
Disassembling derelict starships is an activity whose transferable skills are COMPLETELY separate from the task of actually piloting.
EXACTLY!
@@realistic_delinquentfunny thing considering when they show her flying it's not even graceful, her flying skills come off as amateur where she does many dangerous maneuvers during that chase, also I'm sure considering her boss owned most of those ships, he made her have to fly some of them, hell it's even implied and somewhat outright stated that she legit has been inside and maybe flew the falcon before, she's not an ace at flying, but CAN fly
Hahaha
Where was the set up for her force and lightsaber skills lmao?
I think an unsung issue with these wave of bad faith media criticisms is that its causing a lot of creatives and would be writers to not want to pursue their craft in fear of being featured by any number of these grifters or be the subject of a twitter hatemob. As someone who runs a discord all about writing kaiju stories, it is a regular issue amongst a lot of our members that they are hesitant, scared or paranoid of putting their soul out there only for it to be dismantled by any number of bad-faith-reviewers. One hand its good to be aware and educated on how to properly 'do story good' but with this constant wave after wave of negativity, that becomes difficult as all you ever see is the algorithm feeding you an endless wall of why something sucks, even if it is a thing you never cared for. Like, I didn't see Disney's Wish, nor looked up anything on it, or what have you. But even to this day my CZcams recommendations is filled to the brim with wave after wave of Video ripping into the movie like its the next Manos the Hands of Fate. For one of my friends who is a former industry story board artist, the constant wave of negativity has caused them to seek therapy and has negatively impacted his ability to enjoy anything in a field he once was so passionate because no matter what, be it twitter, youtube, instagram, etc. the algorithm just kept feeding him nonestop bad faith criticism and negativity that has made him resent movies like Puss in Boots the Last Wish or Across the Spiderverse because of how bad-faith-reviewers used those otherwise amazing movies as a bludgeoning stick to bash anything and everything that doesn't meet their standards be it anything from Pixar's Elemental to even James Cameron's avatar. And to harken back to another video of yours, I have another friend who now resents and despises Godzilla Minus One for how its been use to bludgeon and push down every other Godzilla movie or the Monsterverse by proxy.
Now, these people understand this is an irrational feeling, know its not healthy to view it this was. Its not the movies fault how their "fans" are using them as weapons to further their own agenda or to provoke engagement, but its hard not to associate even an otherwise masterpiece with pain and negativity when all you see no matter where you go is that thing being used as the bludgeon to say everything else you like is atrocious in comparison. And I see this happening time and time again, wherein a big famous or amazing piece of art is used to bludgeon other movies to justify someone's position. Some examples include Puss in Boots the Last Wish being pushed as a sort of 'antidote' to James Cameron's avatar, or how Sonic (I think it was Sonic?) was used to bludgeon the 'woke" Harley Quinn Birds of Prey. Which is really sad honestly to see works of art weaponized by by bad faith actors in such a way. Like, 2019's Godzilla King of the Monsters is my favorite Godzilla movie, despite being a Godzilla fan since the early 90's, it hit a childhood sweet spot that made me tear up no less than three times. But its a movie that I don't like to bring up as I feel like I'm constantly having to defend it or saying I like it is like a magic invitation for others to come out and say "UMM ACTUALLY IT SUCKED ACTUALLY" and listing all the myriad of reasons I have shit taste.
So between all this, I find it incredibly hard to be outwardly sincere in what I love on the internet, so watching this video was such a catharsis for me seeing the grift laid out bare after being inundated by it for so, so long.
I know exactly what you and your friend had to experience.
Luckily, I managed get over those experiences by treating people who are doing those type of media takes as wannabe Hitlers.
I come to realize this is the reason i didn't create anything until 6th grade, people like lily made me so fucking anxious about posting anything or making anything because i had the lingering fear I'd be made the critic's target of the day
I'm so fucking glad i stopped watching lily and made an account, started to write and draw without caring what other people think about it
this may sound harsh but if you're too afraid of critic wether its good fath or bad faith you probably should pursue a diffren career/hobby
@@revolversnake126 "If the current critical climate is too hostile and bad faith, instead of trying to change it, you just shouldn't create."
There aren't enough hours in the day to express how terrible a take that is.
OK but the problem of watching movies and creating my own opinions about them is it when I talk about my opinions people who haven't watched the movie and instead watch these grifters make fun of me and when I call them out for not having a honest opinion they make fun of me for actually caring about media criticism :(
It's almost like having your own opinion is out of fashion and being an individual is overrated
You know we’re in for a good time when we open with bobvids.
For the "tears in the rain" part, you can argue that THOSE memories were implanted into Roy's mind, but he still feels those just as if they actually happened to him.
Did you miss the point of the video?
The point is it doesn't matter if they're real or not.
@@vxicepickxvno, it doesn’t seem like Tom here was missing any point. He was just giving an example of a fan speculation that actually underlines the “why” of the scene rather than discarding it. After all, wouldn’t the memories of being on Orion technically being fake but still being real to him personally just add to the whole point of what it means to be a living person with lived experience and stuff?
"The thing's hollow -- it goes on forever -- and -- oh my God! -- it's full of stars!" is quoted from the novelisation of 2001: A Space Odyssey rather than the film.
Wait… Some people didn’t watch Cinemasins as pure comedy, never meant to be an opinion of film?
The comments section of Cinemasins is full of people debating the accuracy of Jeremy's arguments.
So was this a tutorial on how to create bad media criticism?
without the self awarness
@@pakornwattanavrangkul2550 bingo
Least obvious mauler sycophant
You guys have the IQ of a salad bar.
Yes
Might just be my obsession with Sonic the Hedgehog coming through, but the topic of the video makes me think of The Escapist’s video on tone in video game stories.
In the video, he complains that Sonic Frontiers’ story is hard to take seriously because the main characters are cartoon animals. Despite clearly being their opinion and them not putting effort to be invested in the work, it’s presented as a fact and that trying to tell serious stories with Sonic the Hedgehog is a pre-destined defeat.
Sonic The Hedgehog. The franchise where one of its most popular stories covers the government and its military’s corruption, being blinded by fury after losing a loved one and choosing what to believe in even if you believe in a lie.
This seems like the common criticism that certain people for the lore in sonic games in the 2000s which led to sega being scared to do something serious with the franchise in the 2010s and having this Saturday morning-ish plots from colors to forced till frontiers came out and broke this trend
It’s especially jarring when you factor in all the other games and franchises that follow similar trends. I don’t see them criticizing Kingdom Hearts for featuring Mickey Mouse partaking in a existentialist JRPG multiverse plot, or Batman or the TMNT for being inherently goofy concepts despite their more dramatic interpretations.
wasn't that idiot the same guy that went on some whiny rant about Super Smash Bros franchise because "crossovers are lame" or something?
I've always found that complaint werid mostly cause I've never seen an explanation on how replacing the characters with humans would make it less silly. And when thinking about it, the only real conclusion I could come to is that people are trying to blame a concepts (precived) failure on anything but poor execution.
Jay Exci (the person who did the 5 hour Doctor Who critique) has a great response to Patrick's plot hole video. Basically, he takes Patrick to task for sweeping claims and lack of nuance. Big recommend.
Pretty sure Jay identifies as female now.
He also doesn’t care what pronouns people use for him, chill out.
Is Jay still close with Mauler? I mean that group is toxic AF, I don't care how many people say Jay is the rational one or is different from them.
@@MayorOfEarth79 Jay isn't different from them. He uses similar criteria for his critiques and videos. They are all pretty reasonable.
@rainspectre3153 so?
What is it with these long video essays making bizarre arguments about what counts as story and just not defining what they mean? We're not in your head, mate, we don't know what you mean when you just drop things like 'this is outside of the story', you need to explain your terms and how you're using them or you're just drawing lines for subs who don't question anything.
Will never forget when I watched a video comparing Korra to Vi from Arcane and they called Arcane pro-cop.
I just…wow. WOOOOOOOW.
Man, how to intentionally miswatch a series. Arcane as pro-cop? It makes you wonder if they even watched it lol
Who did?
Even with Korra, that's a stretch. It's more of a "police are good in a generalized concept but not always since they will be made to enforce some ill-intended laws" sort of thing in animation overall since it doesn't have to adhere to how live action cop shows need to make cops good overall to get proper funds.
Had an argument with some dude on twitter about Beetlejuice claiming Charles Deetz was an awful person that the audience is supposed to despise, never could give me any examples of the film showing this or even in a subtextual way just that I needed to watch the film again.
I mean to be fair, if we're also counting the actor as part of the character then I'd agree with their statement lol
Deetz what
Lydia's dad wants to buy up the entire town, redevelop it, then sell it to yuppies from New York. Legal? Sure. Moral? That's a more complicated question. If he makes people an offer to buy their land, and the people accept that offer, or they end up negotiating an agreement, then maybe it's okay. But maybe want to stay in the town but accept the money cause they really need it, even if they really want to stay. They have debt from medical bills, taxes, downturn in the economy, jobs disappearing from rural areas. So Deetz and his realestate buddies could be seen as taking advantage of people stuck between a rock and a hard place. This also assumes that he and his business partners won't engage in any underhanded tactics to force holdouts to sell.
I can't follow critics who seem to be more invested in shitting on media, than genuinely interacting with and analyzing it; the good and the bad.
The channels I've stuck with over the years are Ryan Hollinger and Elvis the Alien. But that's also because horror is my favorite genre.
It's quite ironic that despite the abundance of media in the modern age media literacy is fairly low, isn't it? As one of my favorite books of all time "How to Read a Book" states, reading any given book is always an active engagement and can never be a passive one, and if you use an analogy of playing-ball with books then a reader must be just as skilled at catching a ball as the writer is skilled in delivering it to you. I believe it holds true even in media outside of books, where ideas are likely to be "missed" in both scenarios, whether a director of a movie is able to convey it well or the viewer is unable to "get it" even if the director conveys it well. Your analogy of Blade Runner's theatrical cut spells out the fear of a director knowing that some audiences may be unwilling to truly and properly engage with a movie on its own terms (or even understand the language of movies, which can be communicated even if one can't articulate it), and thus must be spoonfed. But that's the thing, isn't it? You spoonfeed when you assume your viewer or reader is a passive audience, which was never the point of art to begin with.
Interestingly, bad media criticism is precisely the opposite of this: They love spoonfeeding the ideas of a movie (even if the idea is misrepresentation) to a passive audience that they know may not engage with the video actively, robbing the criticism itself of its constructiveness. So often times it's worth pausing for a moment and asking one's self: What is the director trying to communicate? What language are they using to do so? What are the parts and elements of the theme and story that function as the "how" and "why" they're attempting to communicate that? Have they communicated that well, and if so, have I understood it correctly?
As the aforementioned book in the first paragraph states, if you understand a book 100% then you're probably two pees in a pod with the same book and you haven't been enlightened... because you already knew what you read. But if some aspects of the book confuse you, that may point to a huge knowledge gap, and crossing that gap is what leads to enlightenment. That said... of course a critic would want to pretend he already knows everything to appear authoritative, even if he knows nothing about the subject of discussion. After all, "I didn't understand, can someone explain this to me" doesn't really make for a clickable video, does it? This is also why I end up appreciating videos that go into the details of a scene or show or its themes to dissect and interpret them in many different ways much more because it may show me what I've missed on my own viewing, things like how cinematography and lighting may have communicated something that I felt but wasn't able to articulate.
"MeDiA lItErAcY!"
I love CinemaWins for this reason. That channel always enlightens me further on things I might’ve missed in a movie. I also love Dead Meat too for that reason, giving more context to help understand something and appreciate it even further…
@@thelingeringartist CinemaWins is no better than CinemaSins. What Sins is to critiquing, Wins is to praising.
9:36 "some of these replicants don't even realize that they're human" ....................................
I see you are a man of culture as well.
Ya I heard that part on EFAP and had a good laugh with them as well.
@@MalignforVideos I'll admit I didn't register the issue with the sentence when i watched the vid and not til MauLer was pointing it out.
@@defrostedrobot77way to think for yourself
@@carson5090 because everyone is thinking for themselves 100% of the time...
also in 2010 the year we make contact theres an audio of bowman saying "my god its full of stars" so often that it gets burned into your memory retroactively
I like that Lily Orchard’s icon looks like an NFT.
Even otherwise good, or interesting critics can produce bad critique that fundamentally misinterpret the piece of media. That's why it's important to be critical of criticism.
Unfortunately, it seems this video attributes those misinterpretations or misunderstandings towards malice rather than ignorance or difference of opinion.
I’ve been saying this about Lily for YEARS. Lily misrepresents the subject she covers and it shows to anyone who’s more attentive or knows the subject she covers and it causes so much damage to discussions on the subjects. The Steven universe video caused so much damage to discussions on the show that for a time you could not have a public discussions without someone parroting one of Lily’s points to justify why Steven universe was “bad”. Lily is a very narrow minded person who needs everything spoon fed to her immediately or she’s going to start calling it bad. Worst of all when people actually have the knowledge to correct her and do she blocks, calls the opposing side idiots and dehumanizes them. Her recent dungeon meshi review is an example of this where she attempted to misrepresent the show and failed because the dungeon meshi community knew what they were talking about and cooked her for it. In response all Lily had to say was to double down and call the people who criticized her idiots.
I’m also subscribed to the belief that she’s only really in this for the money that comes with pissing people off by misrepresenting media rather than forming actual criticisms or opinions.
Mini addendum but this is something i noticed. Lily hardly covers adult media or really indulges in it and zeros in on media aimed at a younger audience or media whos communities arent that assertive. My little pony as a community were very passive and allowed her behavior to grow and fester instead of correcting her, meaning its easy for her to pull up, say whatever she wants and then rake in views from rage watches. If someone does comment who happens to know their shit she will either A delete the comment and block the person or B fight them to make them look like an idiot. She doesnt engage in actual discussions without the debate turning into mudslinging on her end or her heckling the other party for being stupid. Im glad the dungeon meshi community was so quick in debunking her because it prevented some pretty gross rhetoric she was spewing in her review from breaching containment and being parroted until that becomes the perceived truth on the series.
People have been trashing on lily for years. You're late and not special
@@CrappellaCap You're never to late to dump on Lilly, especially with the big reveal that she sexually assaulted her own sister for years.
Especially in the recent year where multiple people have come forward about how Lilly groomed them, took advantage of their vulnerability by using them for sex, and her own sister coming forward and explaining that Lilly sexually molested her for years as a kid.
I will never forgive her for korra
Really disagree with the assertion that the Brony community 'allowed her behaviour to grow and fester'. Anybody who followed Lily whilst she was making MLP content knows that most Bronies were extremely hostile and transphobic towards her. She was also beefing pretty much constantly with other MLP CZcamsrs. I'm no longer a fan of Lily's work and I mostly agree with the criticism of her in this video, but let's not rewrite history - the Brony community was extremely unpleasant towards her, and treated her like some sort of cartoon bogeyman.
Way too many yt "critics" lay their foundation on ignorance and blatant and often misplaced disdain towards creative works. Im just glad that others are putting the lid on vile "critics" like orchard.
Read that as "white critics" and was very confused.
@@Tamlinearthly not inaccurate, tho. Most of these outrage merchants are straight white guys.
Bored Harrison Ford narration doesn't matter, they STILL won't get it even if the movie does spell itself out word for word.
(I don’t think the bad-faith complainers know how to read.)
It's a shame because... the narration MIGHT have worked in a sci-fi noir story if it wasn't so painfully studio mandated. Ford could've even made it work with a more in-character performance as opposed to what was obviously him being like, "Ugh..." but with more words. XD
I have noticed that whenever something isn't explained in a movie critics will call it a plot hole, while at the same time whenever something is explained in any capacity they label it exposition dumping
There is just no winning.
@@Sarez____-it4ks Yeah, "Exposition" and "Pacing" are often go-to criticism that many put out without doing the leg work to explain their stance.
Largely because what makes for good pacing or exposition can be veeeeeeeery dependent on the sort of story you're making.
I said this years back on BobVid's video on CinemaSins, but you really can't Idiot-Proof something when the person is *willingly* being an idiot.
Zaid Magenta formerly known as MisAnthroPony did something similar for his videos in that he would ramble on and on to pad out his videos. He's also one of those who says that he can't be a sexist because he likes these female characters.
Bottom tier levels of criticism
He basically tried to be Batman but end up becoming Homelander and Stormfront.
His Steven Universe video was actually good and brought up points I didn't even consider. The biggest issue is that he's a horrible person due to the stalking thing.
I think the key thing that you mentioned early in the video is that “it’s easy.” It’s easy to comment on plot and basic understanding of the three act structure. You don’t *need* to know directing, cinematography, editing, acting, etc and the work that goes into those skills. You just need to be loud and remember middle school English lessons.
It’s probably the reason why critics with an actual film school background takes so long for one video and the rest pump out a 1-2 hour video every other day
Kyle Kallgren made an excellent video about Cinema Sins. Unlike other people who make videos criticizing them he doesn't go "they say they are joking but they're not" but instead "they say they are joking, they have a joke in their basic concept (that the "sins" don't really matter at the end for the quality of the movie) but it isn't a very good one, it isn't crafted extremely well and it mostly reveals their own biases in the process." Also, it shows why the logic of "sins" in art, specifically cinema are flawd in general and why cinema sins aren't very good at satirizing it.
I can’t believe people still believe that CinemaSins is serious movie criticism. It’s very obviously a joke. Just look at his “scene does not contain a lap dance” scene
7:01 Yeah, but what you're forgetting is that if a plot hole is bad enough it can completely detach the viewer from the film, making everything else moot.
For example if the conflict of the movie has an easy and obvious solution that nobody in film seems to acknowledge, then it's going to be hard to be emotionally invested in whatever drama said conflict brings.
While that is true, that is just one aspect of the overall film experience. And some films don't follow logical processes. Like, find a plot hole in Alice in Wonderland? Easy. Find a plot hole that matters? Harder, because the film flows on dream logic.
I'd hate to see CinemaSins review Eraserhead.
@@agramuglia You probably should clarify which version of Alice in Wonderland you are referring to given there's definitely more plot issues with the 2010 film for instance (tho that is definitely less dream logic than the main versions). Also, I wouldn't necessarily describe the bizarre stuff in the book as "plot holes" given they are internally consistent in their inconsistency by the nature of the Wonderland world and the dream logic going on.
@@agramugliaPlot holes are not about logical process.
Plot holes are about internal consistency. If the film makes up or implies rules and then breaks stated rules, it is a plothole. You absolutely can make a film with absolutely wild physics/dream world, as long as it follows through on that, it is fine from that standpoint.
The Mandela effect might also explain why there’s a weird disconnect between the text of Guilty Gear XX and the narrative of “Bridget was always a femboy who was forced to dress like a girl and wants to be a man”; because XX has her going out to please her parents as part of her backstory (since they felt the dressing and socialization as a girl was making Bridget living a lie) and more implications of her being trans than not. She even only corrects one character explicitly on her gender; and that’s because he surrenders because of her femininity.
Not only that, vanilla XX's translation also kinda just sucks as well. It's not HORRIBLE, but it's extremely dry and barren compared to the later games, so certain other nuances of characters are lost, like Venom's loyalty to Zato being romantic in nature. (not to mention the game literally mistranslated Raven as Axl's alternate counterpart despite the fact he cannot even travel through time)
Bridget is not trans.
@@Rotom0479 Bridget is trans. Cope, seethe, mald even.
@@Rotom0479Strive literally shows she is, she says she is, and Daisuke explicitly designed her in such a way that it reflects a transwoman hiding dysphoric features (even doubling down on it in Strive).
Cope.
@@RockmariomkiZX If we were to believe all that, then that means Daisuke wrote a story about a boy who was brainwashed into believing he's a girl and continues to believe he is. How is this a happy story? Bridget's story is eerily similar to the story of David Reimar, if you think about it.
You know allot of these bad faith criticisms is yes ignoring dialog allot of the time but also in a theater experience sound mixing especially with dialog in non premium formats has gotten absolutely atrocious. It's why many people at home actually use subtitles for everything. But obviously this is another problem that's compounding on the bad faith in general. As always love your work here and I'm glad the algorithm somehow sent you my way.
While I don't think it's the main cause of the problem, I do think some degree of blame needs to be put on trends in what I'll call, for want of a better term, traditional criticism. I distinctly remember being frustrated in the early 2010s (when I was a film studies student and therefore reading/watching a lot of different reviews) with a trend among critics to increasingly focus on the technical elements of film-making to the exclusion of all else, barely mentioning plot, characterisation, or overall script. If you were lucky, you might get a passing reference to costuming or music, but it was not uncommon to read reviews that basically just talked about editting and cinematography. So much so that even I, as a pretentious film nerd kid who absolutely loved any chance to sound smart by talking about editting and cinematography in movies, was annoyed with it, and felt that it was failing at its core job of helping me make decisions about what to watch.
I really think that played a big part in the growing feeling online that traditional critics were massively out of touch with audiences (combined with the shift in what movies won high profile awards away from successful/popular movies towards "oscar-bait" and arthouse movies). And that belief, that existing professional critics don't reflect audiences, left space for channels like CinemaSins and all the Doug Walker imitators to flourish.
Man I just love how the smoke looks in Blade Runner, it's so gorgeous and dusty. Scott knows how to make a pretty and atmospheric movie doesn't he
My only real criticism with this… criticism would be the Rey and Luke comparisons. Rey and Luke start at the same point, but only at the beginning of their movies. Rey grows quickly over the course of TFA to the point where she’s having an entire lightsaber duel against Kylo Ren by the end and defeating him. She’s able to use every force ability intuitively as well. She’s also not given time to actually grow as the movies take place back to back in one case and with a brief gap and training montage between the others. Luke meanwhile never actually uses his lightsaber or the force in the first movie. He briefly trains with Obi-Wan but even the big, climactic moment where he destroys the Death Star is the culmination of him finally learning to use the force after struggling to understand it for most of the movie. By the time Empire finally rolls around, Luke has been fighting the empire for years while being mentored by Obi-Wan’s ghost. He can use the force, but struggles at the beginning even just to telekinetically grab his lightsaber. The conflict this time is Luke needs to train under Yoda to become a real Jedi padawan, but he has too much emotional turmoil and attachment. He doesn’t have patience or focus. This is why Yoda humbling him is so important to his growth. Even the battle with Vader happens because Luke abandoned his training to go save his friends, got into a fight he wasn’t ready for, and lost. The victory against Vader doesn’t happen until the third movie, 4 years in-universe after ANH. Luke earned that victory by growing as a character and growing in experience over 4 years under two Jedi council masters giving him a crash course, as well as trial by fire in actual war. Vader was also shown to be emotionally distraught as he didn’t want to kill his son - he wanted to recruit him. He’s defeated in a surprise attack by a rage-driven Luke who he was holding back some against. The victory is both earned but also makes sense in-universe. Meanwhile Rey was very much untrained and her victories felt unearned. She’s also the same character at the end of the movie that she was at the beginning. She only really has any kind of growth or turmoil in RoS - ironically despite it being the worst written film.
I don’t mind Rey, but she doesn’t really develop in a way that’s fair to compare to Luke. You can say that of anyone in the sequels really. They’re not bad characters, but any potential growth they might have to become more interesting is wasted.
Wait but if I’m remembering correctly, Luke never used a lightsaber until Empire Strikes Back; which is some time after Obi Wan shows him the ropes before his death. Moreover, he probably would still have that training dummy thing to work on his skills, right?
Unless he’s in a fighter or a millenium falcon turret, he uses a blaster.
Ah, Anthony. I can always trust you to lie your ass off and do the very thing you are criticizing as you criticize it. And hold on to a grudge for years after someone demolished your argument like Just Some Guy did by taking a clip out of context, also I love how you just dropped him in the "Right-wing grifters" section. Even though he's left-wing to the point he's basically burned bridges with half of these people for their bullshit. But then again anyone who does not agree with you are all right-wing. It's very telling only in the last 2 sections when you went of your "own side" did you get honest and have legit criticism.
I take a very un-nuanced approach to watching movies, as my rating comes down to a single question: did I have fun? That's it. That's the only thing that matters. It's why bad movies can be just as enjoyable as good ones, and why I stopped taking movie critics seriously years ago. I'd rather just watch the movie myself and judge if I like it, rather than be told to like/not like it. More people should rate movies based on personal enjoyment rather than how smart they think the writing is, the music, the cinematography, etc. Sure those things can contribute to enjoyment, but the point of watching a movie is to have fun, not to have a wine-tasting contest. The worst kind of media is boring media. Boring media wastes your time in a way that doesn't even feel good. You can say it's "avant garde" and "artistic" all you want, but at the end of the day, if it's not enjoyable, it's not enjoyable, and that's completely subjective. My rating scale is just as subjective. It's a 5 point scale, but the points have names: hated, bad, meh, good and great. The only movies that get a great rating for me are movies that I WANT to go out of my way to see a second time. Good movies I'll re-watch if there's incentive. Meh movies I might side-watch if I'm at a gathering and there's nothing better to do, but if you say "hey let's go see this movie" I'll more than likely say "eh, I didn't care for it". Bad and Hated are at the point where I'll actually walk out of the room and find something else to do rather than watch it. It's annoying to me, like an advertisement. And I'll usually start noticing this stuff and nitpicking if I'm not enjoying myself. Something generally only gets hated if I don't even finish it, which could happen because I get frustrated and quit or because I get distracted by something else and when I come back to it I'm over it and decide to just turn it off. I have done this for very few movies, so most of the movies I dislike have a rating of meh or bad. Actually MOST of them have a rating of meh. It takes a whole lot of bullshit to make me rate a movie lower than that, in my personal spreadsheet that only I refer to and I don't share with anyone else.
Let's use an example: Mr Popper's Penguins is a very boring movie, so I couldn't help but notice things like how unrealistic the characters were acting, or the fact that the movie didn't remotely follow the plot of the book it's supposed to be based on. The boss at one point fucking trespasses into the guy's house to fire him. I also vaguely remember the guy making a completely reasonable and sane decision and the kids and wife hate him for it, and he's being made out to be the bad guy. I don't remember all the details, but I think it was, he realized he didn't have the resources to take care of the penguins and so made the decision to give the penguins over to the zoo, you know, people whose job it is to take care of exotic animals like penguins, and the kids are acting like he's a monster for acting in the best interests of these wild animals that he didn't even have food for, and then the movie bends over backwards warping reality to make it so actually the zoo is the twist villain and they're going to sell the penguins to some black market or something to justify the kids getting angry at him even though this wouldn't happen in real life and even if it does, that's not remotely the protagonist's problem or responsibility, because he didn't ask to have wild penguins shipped to his non-animal-trained ass. And again, none of this happens in the book. None of it. Some screenwriter just made all this shit up to insert artificial drama into the movie, and in the process, they made the movie super boring and unenjoyable to watch. And then while I'm thinking of all that, I start to wonder who the movie is even made for, cause it's sure not going to please fans of the book, and kids are just going to be bored by the city setting since they're only there to see penguins, adults who aren't fans of the book are maybe going to expect these city people to act in a way that is, like, realistic. So when the boss waltzes into the protagonist's private property and he's treated like a villain for making a decision any sane adult would make, that's just annoying. It should be no surprise, then, that I have Mr Popper's Penguins marked "Bad" on my list while Troll 2 is marked "Great". I would watch Troll 2 again without hesitation. But if I'm at your house and you put Mr Popper's on, my phone's coming out of my pocket. That's not to say that I'm telling you to hate this movie. If you like it, that's great. I disagree with you, but I also gave the hunt for red october a rating of 'hated', because I was so bored by it that I dropped it less than an hour in, so what do I know. On a more serious note, it's a war movie, which is a genre I can't stand. I also think the orc army battle scenes in lord of the rings are boring as shit and activision isn't the only reason I refuse to give CoD a chance. You know what full metal jacket does right that other war movies don't? Getting R Lee Ermy to do the boot camp parts and be hilarious at it, and then the movie gets serious and hits you with its anti war themes. First blood is another good example. I avoided watching that movie for years cause I thought it was going to be a boring action movie where the guy goes in guns blazing. I mean, it's rambo! But when I actually gave it a chance it turned out to be a really good movie. It's a guy having a PTSD freakout and using guerrilla tactics against a small police department. It ends with him having a meltdown. It's nothing like the sequel. Usually I need to hear something interesting about a movie to give it a chance to begin with, so I'm generally pro-spoilers. But yeah if you put up with that rambling mess long enough to get here, I'm so sorry.
I guess my point is that while I recognize that there are exceptions to my dislike for certain genres, I am less inclined to watch them, and need to be convinced. For example, if I heard something really interesting about red october that piqued my interest, I might actually give it a second chance. Oh no here I go again I should honestly just stop typi
Reject film school analysis. Return to "my favorite part is when the guy said its morbin time and morbed all over those guys"
I am not reading all that shit
@@Fauwkes Understandable. Have a great day.
@@Fauwkesmost literate Mauler fan
Do you not like to have meaningful conversations about movies?
Denigrating this art form to "I like/I dislike" is not going to yield any interesting points.
Why not go deeper? Explaining why you like/dislike something is 99% of the fun. Because that leads to insights. Some might say you could even learn a thing or two by analyzing a film in a deeper way than like/dislike.
I recently watched Band of Brothers. I would hate to have watched this with your mindset.
A thing I tend to notice with a lot of Bad Media Criticism is an over romanticized version of the past films of a franchise that they try to get through to their audience. While it’s prevalent in a lot of Star Wars talk, you can still see it some discussions on stuff like Prey for the Predator Franchise or even Furiosa for the Mad Max Franchise. The reason why for this is really simple: It’s to play into nostalgia and the “The Original is always better.” Crowd you see with some legacy franchises.
This play into nostalgia kinda acts as a Trojan horse (for lack of a better word) for a lot of disinformation and lies just to make the product look worse and add their rhetoric that the “woke” is to blame for the stuff they made up. It’s extremely easy to do because the audience won’t do research or fact check to see if it’s true because they won’t let their nostalgia for the old stuff be tainted by watching the modern stuff.
It's not about nostalgia, it's about comparing the past with the present, and more often than not, the older one is better.
I’m kind of a literal person so I miss a lot of the deeper meaning of media because I don’t make the connections between the themes/message with what’s being done or shown. I don’t need someone to tell me if they liked a piece of media or why, I can make my own mind about that, what I need is a person who can tell me what I may have missed in my first experience of the media and show me how to find the hidden meanings within it so I can better understand the next media I consume. Thank you for your work in accomplishing those 2 things for me, hope to keep learning more and more from this channel 👍.
I always thought Cinema sins were supposed to be taking as a joke, which is how i watched them 10 yearsago, then my brother said "no they take themselves serioualy."
My favourite red flag of moie critics is "they wrote the story backwards!" Which is usually thrown at star wars sequels and used along side the word convenience. Like do you not think Luke was not going to blow up the death star? All the stories the 'critics' like (GoT, LoTR, Alien) were all written backwards: a set of events to support a theme.
Just a reminder: CZcams Critics doy get paid to make good videos, but to get you to click on another oneof theres and selling intelligence to people who have 0 expertise in a field is the easiest way
Something I want to point out is that, in my opinion, a lot of CinemaSins style critique is driven by...people not knowing how to articulate what they actually didn't like about a story.
Most people are not film critics. Most people are not writers. Most people do not, in other words, _practice_ figuring out what makes a scene work or not. Most people _do_ have the ability to notice when a scene doesn't work, but they aren't going to be able to pinpoint why, especially because the problem may actually be rooted in things that were set up in earlier scenes.
Critique is hard. You know what isn't hard? Pointing out a factual inaccuracy. And you can't possibly be wrong about a factual inaccuracy--the whole point is that it's _factually incorrect._ There's no interpretation to be done, therefore you can be absolutely certain of your statements.
My issue wit Last Jedi is simply that while the ideas it plays with are interesting, the film itself is boring, unsatisfying and at one specific point breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's the same problem I have with Attack of the Clones.
Honestly, I think the Last Jedi has wrapped around to being my favourite sequel just because it at least TRIED to do something beyond a rehash.
@@MattJDave fair enough I don't remember enough from Force Awakenes to compare it and I lost interest by the time Last Skywalker came out, so I never watched.
omg nobody cares dude. get over it already
@@nope5657
What a petty and insecure response to what was such a chill and reasonable comment...
Did you notice how the two people before you were having a completely civil disagreement on the film, and were calm and understanding of the subjective preferences of each other?
Did you *realize* that YOU are the one nobody cares about in this conversation? Did you figure out that *YOU* are the one who needs to "get over it" when people have different opinions than you?
My problem with The Last Jedi is that Star Wars KOTOR II executed the theme better.
I tend to view CinemaSins more as (snark) comedy rather than criticism. Snark is quite tricky to pull off well and while CS doesn't always hit the mark it does often enough to make it entertaining. Possibly their greatest moment was when Fast and Furious 8 killed the sin counter.
that's the excuse fans use to defend any criticism of cs
@@Feasco I'm not defending ANY criticism of CS, as I say it doesn't always hit the mark! I'm not sure I count as a fan either, CS isn't on my must watch list but if it pops up I may or may not watch it.
What I'm saying is that CS shouldn't be seen as a serious attempt at cinema criticism.
@@Para2normalPoe’s law will always continue to befuddle the internet.
I'm afraid you are still guilty of what Literature Devil did regarding Rey, leaving out key details of characterization to Rather than playing with toys all day, Luke mentions hitting small targets while he "used to bullseye womp rats with (his) T-16 back home." This demonstrates his acumen for shooting. Otherwise, I think this addresses something that has been brewing online for a while. I think that the script should be as airtight as possible to avoid undermining the themes of a movie, but it's not the only thing that matters in any way.
True, but that doesn't change that Luke's never been in an active war zone before. The real point should be that Star Wars is incredibly silly and always has been.
@@agramugliaThat part is absolutely fair. Star Wars always has been inherently whimsical.
Yeah you took the Sarkeesian quote completely out of context. If you watch the whole video she even talks about the game disincentivising the actions in the strip club and to what degree that is or isn't relevant to the overall problem. Your understanding of feminism is kinda woeful buddy. You completely misunderstood her ideas about signifiers. You are completely wrong about her ignoring the voices of other women; her ideas are quite nuanced and fairly standard in the literature. Almost nothing she says is orignal and on any womens studies course bo one would bat an eye to her academic statements about how media and gender interact.
Why are you even talking about these videos at this point in history?
It's next to impossible to find a critic of Anita who actually gets her points, which is really sad because they're excessively easy to understand. I thankfully completely skipped over that GG crap and years later watched a couple of her "controversial" videos and... her takes were so mild and harmless i seriously can't believe the entirety of internet history was irrevocably changed because of them
The thing about Eric July taking the writers of X-Men out of context is that they said that the intent was not to directly symbolize Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X but it does work as a metaphor, Eric July tried to spin that as the writers never had any intention of associated the X-Men with them, and they don't fit at all with the X-Men, even though the writers said that MLK and Malcolm X's stories were very similar to the X-Men's and that interrupting Professor X and Magneto and symbols for those figures does work, proving that X-Men has always been about symbolism for the marginalized, but Eric July being the grifter that he is took the writers statements out of context and flat-up lied about them (and to some extent said the opposite of what they said), to try and sell his grift.
What you said about real people being affected really hits hard. I know someone who's worked with Brie Larson, and he said that she was actually really nice, so it makes me sad to see the way people vilify her for their content.
I remember vividly someone's falsified anecdote trying to paint her in a negative light, and it wouldn't be until years later that I would learn that actually level-headed people think she's a good person
CZcams critics are very frustrating
Especially when they’re accurate and enjoyable…
Most critics are frustrating
Yes. @@Linklex7
Big time
Sucks when people dont like the same thing you do, eh ?
i used to watch so many of those channels, but ended up stopping to watch them after realizing i kept feeling like i was just listening to someone trying to tell me i should hate everything, and i just dont need that in my life
Some of those bad media critics would go on to create their own stuff as a response to the bad stuff they review, and they turned out to be just as bad, if not worse, than the media they criticize. Nostalgia Critic's anniversary movies need no introduction, the same goes for Mr. Enter's Growing Around, and the less said about Eric July's Rippaverse comics, and Linkara's Lightbringer series, the better.
In fairness to Linkara, I believe that Lightbringer series was done when he was a young critic. The same can't be said for the Rippaverse.
@@agramuglia He has said that. He's even noted Lightbringer stopped being updated when over time he just realized it was awful.
There's also Critical Drinker's books and soon to be movie that are just discount Jack Ryan, but somehow even worse than that.
@@agramuglia
Yeah, at least Linkara is aware of his own shortcomings.
Lightbringer was just an average lousy comic that trolls don’t shut up about.
(Trolls are desperate for something that confirms their bias.)
And when they want to do something new and creative outside their formula...
Remember the wall?
"My god, It's full of stars" was in the sequel 2010. Whenever I quote it I was always quoting 2010. I guess less people saw that film.
Actually… I think it might have made snyder’s point better if Superman *didn’t* kill zod. Think about it. He tries desperately to stop his enemy, but he’s not willing to go that far and the civilians get killed. Or nearly killed only to be saved by something out of his control. Doesn’t that hammer home the bleakness way better? If you want to argue that Superman has to kill, doesn’t that drive it home way more effectively? And then you get him in the proper emotional place for next film’s arc where he really has to grapple with that. That way, he doesn’t immediately break typical characterization and if he does in the future you’ve made a pretty solid case for why he changed.
Zack just wanted to make Superman kill. Because the character as he stood wasn’t “serious” enough for zack, so he subbed in the “serious” version with a half-assed justification because he felt that a killing Superman was inherently more sensical.
I don't know people can watch hours of them, they always have such a contesending, smug tone, plus making their voice deeper.
So basically "anyone who disagrees with me is lying also consume product and get excited for next product" very Nuanced.
Not once did he say that
@@eldrideinherjar6711its the implication
You're not a real CZcams Critic™ until you have a snooty British/Aussie accent that adds +5 charisma to your bull.
Shame I'm from New Jersey.
And a huge novelty Smirnoff bottle so you can say"I'm gonna need a bigger bottle" for particular egregious movies
There are some of those creators whose entire existence can reasonably be attributed to the accent carrying all the load of their presumed intellectual rigor. Sounding Mid-Atlantic while spewing verbal garbage? The OG classic.
@@mosquitopyjamas9048 see, i don't like vodka. If I am drinking a clear liquor, it's gin, rum, or sambuca. And even sambuca i am less big on.
*Stares at Carl Benjamin*
at 21:59 you show a clip of Luke playing with a toy ship, but it's a miniature model of the actual ship he owns, you can see it through the doorway in the background in that shot you used to show he just plays with toys. Luke's holding the toy in almost the same orientation at the end of the clip. It's a ship he flies often and very well, as can be deduced from his dialogue in the briefing scene in the rebel base. Wedge says hitting a 2-meter hole is impossible even with a computer, Luke responds "Pfthh I do that shit all the time in my T-16". That's his "lived experience".
Im not sure if youve seen it or how you feel about it if you have but, id be really curious to see/hear your thoughts on Codex Entry's video on End of Eva, i personally was not a big fan of it.
Ngl it does kinda feel like rey has a chosen one thing since the start.
I dunno maybe if finn also became a jedi it would make rey feel like less of a chosen one, thats kinda the thing with the last jedi, the last jedi idea feels like the super chosen one