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.
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.
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.
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.
And a lot of times there's details that you'll only notice while rewatching the movie when you already know what happens and understand the significance.
The worst "plot holes" are probably the ones people make up for the Back to the Future series. I mean, first of all, the characters not thinking to use parts or gas from the original DeLorean that was _just_ sealed away for its 70 year nap, is _not_ a plot hole. Second, the movie shows us how concerned Doc is with paradoxes, there's no way he'd touch that DeLorean and risk Marty disappearing, or the fabric of reality unraveling. Admittedly, that is a worst case scenario, Doc says it could just be limited to our galaxy.
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.
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.
Its such a funny contrast when you finish the video with a very serious direct segment then the suggested video is "HOTTEST POKEMON ADULTS TIERLIST" like MAN thats great
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.
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.
@@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.
@@LaNoLaCola To my understanding she doubly fucked up going after Dungeon Meshi/Delicious in a dungeon [I'm personally enjoying it and ProZD's voice acting as Senshi]
As someone who watched her SU videos ad background noise, 1000% agree on this. I just absorbed all this without much critical thought, came across another video by someone and it just tore her shit to shreds. The Lily Orchard shit is way more personal imo because I spent so long hating it in the back of my mind because she lied about everything in that show, then when she got called out on the comments, she cried about people attacking her for those videos and tried to hide behind mental health excuses. Like, bitch shut the fuck up. She can talk shit about others but can't take people Givin 1% of it back. It's ungodly levels of being pathetic and whiny.
As one of the rare people who only actively watched her in her super early days where she did rapid-fire essays while ripping off the art style and presentation of Zero Punctuation, she's always had this toxic "I'm always right even when I'm wrong" attitude, like her numerous outright lies about how the American healthcare system works that she used to spout in those videos, which she only walked back after at least a year of people commenting over and over that she had no idea what she was talking about.
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.
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).
I guess It depends on how frequently the writers use "But they just made the wrong choice" if its bad writing or not. You may be able to get away with it one or two times, but if you are just making the protagonist make the most brain dead choices every time then yeah thats bad writing.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@primisimperator2189 Silver lining: other RUclipsrs made videos that debunked THAT And that's how I found Dungeon Meshi Explained (probably got the title wrong) to watch !
My general view in it all is that Stories are like a magician, they’re supposed to keep you distracted from all the little flaws with their magic. A good magician makes you have to watch the trick a million times before you see all the flaws, but a bad magician never quite captures your attention and so you begin to criticize all the tiny flaws that you notice. An example of this in a movie form is A New Hope, you can find millions of mistakes in that film like the stormtrooper bumping his head and Darth Vader’s helmet having hand prints on it, but you won’t notice that your first few times, because so much of the story is good that you miss the flaws.
I think this is an underrated take! While I think it's good for writers (and editors) to try and mitigate those little flaws or to recontextualize them into something cohesive, a work can not and will not be perfect, so part of the plan should be to have something interesting and engaging enough so that the viewer either doesn't notice or doesn't care.
You didn't think about this take for long enough. First question. How is, say, a car accidently ending up in frame the same as a narrative mistake? If I go watch a rendition of Hamlet and another audience member stands up in front of me, or I spot the lightning guy in the rafters, is that Shakespeare's fault? Can't we distinguish between accidents and intentional decisions? Second question. In regards to Vader's handprints. Were you under the impression that no one ever touches his helmet or takes it off his head? It would be bizzare if he never got prints on his shiny black helmet. And regarding that stormtrooper, do people just not bump their heads in real life in your experience? If not, I wonder why they wear helmets.
Someone else made a video essay about video essays IIRC that talked about this. There's a similar issue video games, where the saying is that players are good at IDing things they don't like, but really bad at IDing ways to fix it. Fundamentally, people are good at realizing "I don't like this movie", but when they try to figure out *why* they don't like it, they tend to get caught up on relatively superficial BS like plot holes.
@@captainmega6310 Sorry, I'm not sure. If I remembered more specifics than that I'd have given a name or something. It might have been wrt the Star Wars ST.
"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.
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).
@@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.
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.
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.
I fully agree with this take. Why? Because that's how I felt after watching The Last Jedi. I know that didn't truly like it, but I couldn't put my finger on why. I needed to watch a lot of different critiques before I kind of figured out why. Quite normal. And oh boy does some people critique things in a really bad way. They might sometimes have a point, then to blurt out the Mary Sue thing (at least with the SW movies). So hard to find people who can actually handle critique properly.
Which falls apart once you consider film critics are not credible. The Birth of a Nation 1915 having 100% is a serious red flag; Should be closer to 10 at most!
I think you're right. When we dislike something we don't know why. We never know the reason behind our emotions. We just make educated guesses. When we dislike a piece of media we look for reasons why. And there's always something to nitpick. It can be a feedback loop too. If you're not having a good time, or you're already primed to dislike a piece of media from being online, you're gonna look for things to nitpick. The more you nitpick, the more you get taken out of the movie, the more you're not having a good time. In the end you just resent the piece of media.
This is true, but something that bugs me in particular is that these "factual inaccuracies" are often made up. This is true not just for plot holes, but also a lot of comments about realism too which are either wrong or right that something is unrealistic but wrong about what more realistic approach would actually be.
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.
@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.
If you're doing a review and you have trouble keeping track of things, take notes! You can also use notes to track your frustration! If you own the book, highlight text and mark passages that you like/don't like! Seriously, it's not hard to critique media as long as you have evidence to back up your opinion! GAAAH!
@@pbjmochi8400 Exactly. People like that then double down with a defensive attitude of "it was shit, I didn't care about it." Like, dude, you cared enough to create a video ranting about the damn thing. It's a similar thing with CinemaSins. Act like you're doing a professional review until you're called out, then pretend it's just an opinion piece/skit and so taking the "review" seriously isn't the point.
Now I'm curious about which reviewer are you talking about, since i used to watch those yt reviewers who would tear into some shitty ya/booktok books, and they did similar things to this (but maybe not to the degree of forgetting constantly what happened).
In her “Pixar movie’s are only for kids” video. (It was actually called “Stop saying that Pixar movies aren’t 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.
@@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
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.
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 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.
@@mishynaofficial They probably got to the plot hole part, misunderstood it, and clicked off. I almost did because the way it was worded just can be misinterpreted I think
"Because nobody who watches Utena as an adult sees a revolutionary step forward for gay rep in anime, what they see is a fucking mess" is one of the first quotes I've ever heard from Lily Orchard (never seen her videos) and the only one I need to hear to know she's a moron. I didn't watch Utena until recently and I'm in my late 20s but I think it's one of the best anime I've ever seen. How could anyone walk away from that thinking it wasn't revolutionary?
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.
@@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.
😂 that's the funny thing, he's not a reviewer to begin with. He never was. People kept going to a nitpick channel expecting reviews like they would go to McDonald's expecting them to sell them a pizza. Then complaining that all they have is burgers.
@@zackanderson7440 For the life of me I can't understand why. I've been watching Cinema since the day he started his channel. I first discovered it when he only had five videos. And it was made very clear even then, he does not, never had, and probably never will do reviews. At least not in the cinema sins format. I think I remember watching one of their podcast episodes like a few years ago, and they said they did want to do reviews, but they would do them in the regular format of a review. Which just further proves even more that those videos never were supposed to be reviews or criticism in any way form or fashions. And I can't believe I'm about to say this unironically, but if those people were actually fans of CinemaSins that they would already know that instead of defending his non existent "reviews".
I often use a jigsaw puzzle metaphor for describing how YT essayists often operate. 1. Essayist conflates fiction with reality with no empirical connection explained in full. 2. Essayist presents the box in which the puzzle is packaged. 3. Essayist then puts interpretation before analysis. 4. Essayist combs through jigsaw pieces and complains about the straight edges enabling them to assemble the puzzle faster. Then complains about pieces not fitting together when the pieces clearly do not belong together. They belong with other pieces within the overall puzzle. 5. Essayist then tells you how each piece conveys a whole idea into itself when in fact it does not because the piece has only an incomplete picture. They then compare the puzzle pieces with those of a completely different puzzle during what is a very long tangent to prove their idea about the first puzzle by measuring it against the features of different puzzle picture instead of focusing on the merits and demerits of the first puzzle. 6. Essayist then assembles the puzzle in full and then presents it upside down to "prove" how the puzzle makers botched the puzzle because the puzzle is upside down. It is upside not because of a botch but because the essayist is intentionally presenting the finished picture upside down. 7. Lastly, the essayist will cover a portion of the assembled picture and then claim the puzzle makers have omitted that portion.
What I noticed is that many bad media critics didn’t start out that way. They either started off more as commentary channels (they may casually share their opinions, but they weren’t offering in-depth critiques or analysis), or they were genuinely attempting good-faith reviews/discussions. For whatever reason-be it due to hubris, money, echo chambers, or simple miscommunication-these channels became radicalized, uncritical, and abrasive. For some, the trajectory seemed inevitable. But for others, it was a more gradual downfall. For instance [this is a hypothetical], a channel may be concerned that the push for more diversity in media could result in the perpetuation of potentially harmful stereotypes and tokenism. They aren’t saying that there shouldn’t be more diversity in media; they’re saying that it needs to be done thoughtfully. But somehow their argument gets misconstrued and they are attacked for being racist. Actual racists then swoop in to support them and slowly poison their mind. Meanwhile, those that attacked them double-down, further alienating that channel for an opinion they never had. Until one day that channel, inadvertently or not, adopts the racist ideology they were wrongly accused of having. All because they were misunderstood by some and manipulated by others. Although atypical, when it happens it’s particularly tragic because the descent could have been avoided.
There was a channel that I used to love that posted long form analyses of videogames with no right wing slant whatsoever, but eventually his channel degraded to the point where all he does now is host 8 hour long streams with other fascist grifters masquerading as media critics. That wasn't because he was criticised from a left wing perspective, it's because he willingly let the rightoids in without challenging them and that resulted in an echo chamber
Personally I don't buy that, if you're a teen, sure, I could see that, but some of these people are full blown adults, how the hell are you going to be manipulated into becoming a racist??? It's honestly more likely that these people are so used to getting unabashed praise for all their videos from fans that they maybe connect a few things that weren't there, they get praised for it and so they continue to lean into it because "Hey, my audience loved when I did it last time and they backed up my thoughts," and it gets to the point where they become arrogant and conceited. I just don't get how you can be not racist, accused of being racist... then turn into that very thing that to protest against being called.
@@carcinogenetricist2993 "but some of these people are full blown adults, how the hell are you going to be manipulated into becoming a racist???" Just because someone is an adult, it doesn't mean that they can't be manipulated into or veer towards agreeing with stances that are, at their root, racist, misogynistic/misanderist and or homophobic. I've seen it happen first-hand with my father and a friend of mine (who I still contact from time to time). Both of them are certified adults, are older than me, and used to hold (mostly) neutral opinions regarding these topics...that was until they began listening to certain people who shared opinions that they strongly agreed with. That's honestly all it takes; finding someone who shares some opinions that you hold, and then staying tuned to hear what else they gotta say. From there, they can be influenced to think a certain way--usually unconsciously and over a period of time. There's a lot of other factors too that can lead someone down a radicalized path that I didn't mention--like how someone who isn't well-educated in these topics can be swayed to one side, be it left or right leaning; if someone is generally a lonely person then they are vulnerable to being easily manipulated so that they have a place to "belong"; etc--but I encourage you to do your own research and listen to people well-educated in these fields who can explain it better than I can. Also, seek out stories of people who used to be formerly racist/homophobic/sexist and hear how they were swayed to become so radicalized (and how they got out of it....*hint hint wink wink nudge nudge* go to Reddit for these accounts!) Hope this sort of helps and gets you interested into learning more about this topic!
Nowadays that youtube is more or less stable we see the growth of people wanting youtube as a career; but that wasn't always the case. When most of those channels started, they had opinion pieces on their favorite things that they had a lot of time to think through and construct, and it usually was about something they liked, so it came with passion and benefit of the doubt. Those that stuck around and tried then to make a career out of it, bastardized and flanderized their own content in order to mass produce more of the same, and losing the soul in the process, because they had less time to tackle new things they weren't passionate about. Look at the AVGN as an example. Though his content never really saw that much of a dip in quality because James Rolfe is a competent writer, you can clearly tell which videos have a "I have bills to pay" energy to them and which don't. Season 1 is nothing but him talking about thinks that had been simmering in him since childhood and the realization that came with adulthood. Those things couldn't be present when he tackled games he never head of before. Now, for the second part, I've seen it described in a couple of ways. One of them is the "coil effect". As humans tend to care for bad criticism more than good, there's only so much pushback they can take on something before the coil springs back. If toughtful videos made by intelligent people can sometimes easily misunderstand what they are reviewing, imagine what the comment section of that video is like, where there's now an extra step to a proportionally less inteligent audience. I don't know if the other one has a name, but it's some variation of poisoning the well, I've also seen it being refered to as "birth of a homophobe". Imagine you are gay and you have to defend yourself 1000 times to 1000 different people. Once you've run out of patience with that, you can become aggressive with the 1001st person that might just genuinely have a question or not understand something. The reaction of the gay person might have a complete adverse effect from then onwards because it will treat anyone that comes afterwards as someone that has bad faith, which in turn traumatizes newcomers. This effect is amplified on content creators. Every day thousands of "new" pre-traumatized people are making moral judgements on your stances without actually knowing your stances, that might already be compromised because you have had to explain it a thousand times. The truth is that criticism can only be a valid career if you have a lot of very specialized knowledge on the thing (and watching/reading/playing a lot isn't always very specialized knowledge). The fact that now average Joes think they can do that kind of criticism with their average Joe world perspective and basic knowledge often gets in the way. There's one example that always comes to mind to me of how often people are completely unprepared to be critics even if they are mostly competent all the time. A lot of people that criticize animation will often call Art Direction or Art Style simply "animation". It can be the most fluid sequence of 30 drawings you've ever seen, or a magnificent 3D render, but if the character is "ugly" or the world itself feels unappealing, they will blame "animation" as a whole. While yes, most people can understand what you're trying to say, no one that has actually dealt with animation would make that mistake. You'd say design, direction, or anything else, to let people know what the specific issue is, and not generalize it like that. But you'd be surprised on how many succesful cartoon critics get away with that blanket statement. And that happens in 3D too. Take some movies like Jurassic World. There are entire scenes where the jungle, buildings, floor, lighting, absolutely everything in the scene is CGI and indistinguishable from real life to most people. The dinosaur models are absolute works of art. But there's some slight inconsistency with the lighting on the dinosaur on the render. "Wow this movie has terrible CGI". I've actually have seen people complain about absolute works of art as "bad" because there's a visible 1% that is off. It's like complaining about an entire orchestra because one guy on the trumpets held his finger for too long on a note. Take it from me when I say, most people are incapable of knowing when there is CGI on a screen anymore. Misinformed criticism and death of a passion can quickly poison the well not only for audiences but for creators too.
Chris Ray Gun has talked about being offered money to do right ring grifting, and that he knows a LOT of people on his sphere were offered the same and accepted.
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 RUclips 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.
@@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.
What you are describing is a Critique, not Criticism. There is a difference. Critique is providing constructive feedback and an opportunity to improve. Criticism is, by definition, focusing specifically on the bad things.
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
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
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.
@@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 remember watching Lily Orchard when I was younger, more susceptible to "angry critic shit talks things" as a form of entertainment, and in the early stages of questioning my own gender, and latching onto her a bit because "funny trans woman who feels smarter than everyone else, so cool." Idk when I grew out of finding that tone fun to listen to, but I'm glad I did.
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.
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.
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.
Bad media criticism seems to follow this type of workflow; 1. Have bad faith dislike of said media, give theory of why 2. Cherry-pick the media to support theory for said dislike 3. Reiterate theory of said dislike of media
I don't think dislike can be bad faith in and of itself because that's just a feeling. The bad faith comes in from linking the dislike to some kind of purported objective failing in the work when it's clearly much more about a personal response that is not being interrogated
@@shai2121 if you come into something deciding to dislike it for ideological reasons before you've watched/read it, uh, that's pretty bad faith. people that aren't dishonest know that art with politics they might disagree with can have some redeeming value. the hucksters never look for value, which is also why they get so many basic facts wrong.
"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.
i think killing him would have totally worked, the fire nation would most likely have respected it because it's kinda their way of doing things. Respect only power and all that jazz. I bet aang could have just knocked him out and put him in a cage or something and that would have worked, it's not like their aren't ways of containing fire benders
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
@@helenwrong6363 Seriously though I rarely ever meet anybody (online) with their own opinions on anything. Especially about media, or art. It's always a cultural ultimatum to adopt one of two extreme positions. When you say you won't adopt one, it never leads to an interesting discussion, only a fight. When people realize they can't win that fight, because your opinion is valid and therefore subjective, the whole conversation ends. And I'm left wondering why everybody thinks they're such critical thinkers when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I guess what I'm saying is Helen Wrong... you're right. But it's only overrated, because it's all about peer pressure. Don't bend!
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.
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.
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.
There are so many critically loved movies that are just bad besides the time and place the camera is at each moment, and it's so funny and sad at the same time
@@netriosilver And meanwhile absolute masterpieces like Mo No No Ke get relegated to niche anime-lover circles. (If the people reading this haven't seen it yet, go check out "Ayakashi: Classic Ghost Stories - Story 3: Bakeneko"/"Ayakashi Classic Samurai Tales - Story 3: Goblin Cat". you should get the first/pilot OVA that would continue on in Mo No No Ke. It's gorgeous, the tale itself is going to do what it can to squeeze your heart out, but the end is sweetened somewhat. Warnings for violence and death though)
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.
@@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 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 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 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 "RUclips 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
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
Ok but I have to be fair here, If I ever manage to release a videogame project I've been messing around with, putting a bunch of queer characters in it just to piss off these kinds of people is ABSOLUTELY something I would do. Dont get me wrong, I love me some good ol' representation, but I also think its very funny to piss off these people. Also, if thats all it takes to filter their types out of the game's community, all the better, I wouldnt want em there.
Tbf, in a lot of cases, it's true. It's a calculated move to bring in "others" who may have ignored the IP or simply been more casual in viewing, it baits bigoted people to hate-watch the IP they might well have dismissed too, and normies outside of the Us v. Them battle get wrapped up wonder wtf is going on. The trio of groups all come together and give the IP money and attention it probably wouldn't have gotten. All this while said characters as women, LGBTQ, etc. are either inconsequential or straw people. And sometimes, it's done in a way where these characters can be altered or erased for international markets. And that's only from a soul-less corporate view, that's forgetting that writers have their own opinions too.
I find it hilarious that, and the other replies have stated, those narratives of it “being calculated” and the “creators hating you” aren’t necessarily inaccurate, but bigots don’t have the self awareness to realize they are disliked because they are so sensitive/emotional or that them lashing out and hate-watching/playing something is what the studio wants. They frame their petty tantrums as “criticism” when it is the exact opposite, and offers no deeper insight into anything and even gives the studio more incentive to have more representation. They live in a cage of their own creation.
@@TheSpeep That reminds me of how surprisingly rare fascist Touhou fans are. It turns out that when every character is a woman, who is not sexualized, and the only possible ships are not straight, fascists tend to not be particularly interested.
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.
@@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?
Also "off the shoulder of Orion" could mean anything, not literally that someone is right next to one of the stars of Orion. It could just be that the constellation Orion was visible behind the ships that he witnessed. I get that the point of the video is that it doesn't matter if it's a plot hole because it's about the theme of the value of life and memory and experience, but I don't think it's really a plot hole myself.
Hah, and there's Shad crying about Princess Peach's pants - based on the *_trailer_* ... after watching the movie, he had to make a cringey take-back video after discovering it was her racing gear! Imagine a grown man getting upset about a woman wearing trousers, let alone a fictional character.
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu I used to enjoy some of his medieval weapons videos - but when I saw him appearing in some of those groups of whinging man-children wanking on about the "woke agenda", I unsubbed from his channel.
There is literally zero reason for anyone-let alone a grown man with a daughter-to be offended over Peach’s outfit. If it wasn’t obvious that he was a misogynistic moron before, it was made undeniably apparent after his crazy tantrum. And he doesn’t get a pass for admitting he was wrong either. Yes, the movie did “justify” her wearing pants, but it didn’t need to. There’s no scenario where Peach sporting trousers could ever warrant such an insane reaction.
Boy am I glad that that Steven Universe video that I got in my recommended a whole bunch is one of the most universally despised pieces of media criticism across the modern internet. Nothing anyone says about any of the shows I watched as a kid will change the fact that I adored them then and I will continue to do so now, because the reasons that I enjoyed them as a kid still exist in my heart.
Honestly, this also comes part and parcel with the fact that people have lost the ability to just honestly say "I didn't like it" and just leave it at that. Sometimes, something just doesn't vibe with you and that's OK, that also doesn't necessarily make the media in question necessarily bad. It's the algorithm and the whole "I need to turn whatever I don't personally like into this societal problem in order to justify my hatred for it and make others hate it" mentality just leads to this crap.
And on the flip side it is totally ok to enjoy something bad. “H20 just add water,” is a show I used to watch since my sisters loved it and I fell in love with it too. Despite it being a campy disaster with bad special effects and cliche tropes. Some media is enjoyable despite its lack of quality. A lot of the time talent and time investment can be overshadowed by simply passionate people working on a goofy show. There is a problem of people being overly defensive of poor quality media in the same propensity as people being overly offensive toward good media. It all boils down to the quality hierarchies people have. However, a unique issue in modern media is that with the ubiquitous profit incentives, a lot of soul can be stripped from projects. I personally love watching movies from smaller studios because they often necessitate passion.
I got bored halfway through One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I just stopped watching. Am I going to claim it's a bad movie? Absolutely not. But I have a feeling that these same "critics" would throw a fit over my opinion, even if I admit it's just my personal opinion.
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.
@@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
I've said this for a long time, a great deal of film "critique" and review, on the internet is not people critiquing films based on their own metrics, but rather someone criticizing the films for not being the films they would have made, or wanted to see.
I really dislike Lily Orchard but I would not call her a grifter. She's just someone who's consistently, passionately, verbosely wrong about things. Calling her a grifter is implying she's just playing up an ignorant and petulant character for views, but I think she's just genuinely that much of an unpleasant person in reality.
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’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.
@@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.
Your criticism of Anita Sarkeesian resonates very well with me. I've been a long time listener of Feminist Frequency Radio and over the years I got the distinct impression that Anita Sarkeesian and erstwhile co-host Carolyn Petit subscribe to a weird conservative/puritanical brand of feminism. While there is of course a genuine conversation to be had about over-sexualization of female characters in video games, Anita has essentially regressed to the idea that anything which can remotely be construed as sexual is bad, a position I vehemently disagree with. I simply do not believe sexualization is inherently bad and I believe every form of media should be able to explore sexual characters in overtly sexual ways. Indeed, a lot of feminist art is incredibly sexual in nature; see the works of Anita Steckel or Cosey Fanni Tutti, for example. However, each time we see a female-coded character wearing anything other than full-body chainmail armor with chonky iron boots, Anita will almost certainly complain about it. Similarly, any time Feminist Frequency Radio discusses a video game that has any sort of combat system, Carolyn Petit will go on a rant about how the game "glorifies violence." This sort of polemic is eerily reminiscent of Christian conservatives trying to get video games banned because they contain violence. Here too we see how the FemFreq cast confuses *depiction* of something in a video game with the video game actively *encouraging* or *endorsing* it. These two things are clearly not the same, and it speaks to their limited media literacy that they confuse them so often and so profoundly. As a gay AMAB enby I've often found myself screaming internally when Anita criticized iconic characters like Bayonetta, who absolutely slay the house down and whose outfits I've been dying to cosplay. Like, it's pretty clear to me that Anita is either asexual or exclusively attracted to stone butch aesthetic, which is totally valid of course but it should not be an industry standard in character design for video games. I'm sincerely hoping Anita never goes to see a drag show because good lord would that woman have a hard time.
Did you ever heard about horseshoe theory? It says that two opposite sides of the political spectrum due to the radicalisation are closer to eachother than to the center like in horseshoe.
Yeah. I no longer remember her specific critique about it, but her opinions about Dragon Age: Origins based on a scene where the main female character can be threatened with SA (there are also other ways to play out that scene depending on your character's gender) was...flawed, to say the least. Everything she seemed to hate do seem very puritanical.
those "bad media critics" usually start to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist... it's like watching angry rants about why the world is flat... not even touching on the desperate alt-right pipeline they try to pull...
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
@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 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.
Dude, Ryan Hollinger is legit. Been watching him for a few years now, love his stuff, even when he sometimes has an opinion I don’t agree with. And when he does have an opinion he thinks some people might disagree with, he goes out of his way to say “and this is just my thought, you can make up your own mind about this and you’d probably be more right”. Even if it’s a movie he doesn’t like, he often points out good parts of it or things he liked that stood out to him.
Ryan seems like a cool guy who just likes movies. Even the stuff he doesn't enjoy, he still gives a fair shot. He doesn't go right into it with 'this movie sucks. I hate it and you should too now let me waste just enough time ranting about woke bad so I qualify for adsense' but 'OK I didn't like it, it's not a bad movie and definitely has a few good bits. Here's what I think let's have a discussion'. With some critics it almost feels like they don't even like the medium they've made a career out of criticising. Film Joy I also love to watch. Mikey genuinely just loves movies and listening to people talk about what they love is far more entertaining.
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.
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?
@@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.
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.
@@serpent3800 I dont see how. Luke in the first movie was willing to join the empire just to get some exitement in his life. His desire was to do something important and adventurous and Obi-Wan guided him into becoming a force of good, by telling him about his father. Luke became part of the rebellion more for the adventure than doing the right thing. And he wanted to become a Jedi, because his father was one and he thinks that they are great warriors. He is very superficial, judging things by how they appear, but overcomes it by the end. His goal at the start is to become a powerful hero, but it changes to becoming a noble jedi. Luke at most, might be generic, but he absolutely does not lack goals, desires nor opinions
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.
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.
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 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 RUclips 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
@@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.
@@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.
@@B.B.Digital_Forest Hey. I don't know if this counts as Monte Cristo enough, but I just read a book called The Will of the Many and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Don't look too much into it before giving it a shot if you haven't read it. I think the second book is also coming out at the end of 2024, so that's cool, too. It's a 28 hour audiobook, but you just have to keep listening to see what happens next!! Awesome plot, interesting world, very grounded magical system, and tons of political intrigue.
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).
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 RUclips 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.
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.
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.
That's easy: he's a snobby big-city land developer who wants to turn a quaint little New England town into a gaudy tourist attaction. I figrured lefties would notice that right away.
It's hilarious how blatant the hipocrisy is at 19:38 "Luke Skywalker has a set of skills, but the movie doesn't need to explain how he got them because... it's a movie." "Rey has a set of skills. How tf does know how to do this stuff? bEcAuSe ShE's AwEsOmE!!!?!" *proceeds to blatantly ignore explanations as to why she would know how to do stuff* Let me clear that I don't think Rey is a perfect character by any means (perfect as in well written and stuff, not perfect as in is good at everything). I do think that she is still a bit too quick in learning the force, being able to mind trick and levitate with virtually no training, although I suppose her being a Palpatine explains that. I still think Luke is a far better protagonist that Rey, but that's moreso down to his actual impact and personal stakes in the story.
Luke's skills are explained, though. He talks about going to the Imperial academy. He's got that spacecraft thing he's fiddling with while complaining at home, something that's used for demonstrating maneuvers, rather than being a toy. He mentioned the Beggar's Canyon bit. He says they could just buy a spaceship and he'll fly it, when they are negotiating with Han. And we have a scene with Kenobi specifically training him about using the force to sense things, the only ability he uses in the first movie. And when he goes into combat, he nearly gets fried on his first attack run, needs to be bailed out by fellow rebels when the tie-fighters show up, and his genius plan of "go fast" doesn't work, as it doesn't keep the tie-fighters off their tail. He knows the basics, but he's a rookie, and it shows. When a character has something that isn't something you'd expect a person of that background to have, the movie sets it up. Rey, conversely, talks about how she doesn't want to leave the planet, yet somehow has excellent spaceship flying skills. She also gets to use advanced force stuff without any training, and no, being a Palptatine doesn't explain that, as the Choosen One doesn't get that, nor do either of his children. She understands wookie, because? Also, Leia will hug the complete stranger over her husband's best friend after her husband's death. Now, that isn't to say she's always handled poorly. She knows tech stuff, because scavenger, and she uses this skill on Han's ship to hotwire a door. And it doesn't turn out quite right. That's one situation where something is established, but she's fallible. But for a lot of other stuff, she's poorly written, because the writers want to get to all the cool stuff of flying spaceships, using laser swords, and force powers and so use her to do that stuff. Oh, and someone needs to understand Chewie. A lot of that stuff could have been addressed. For example, say during initial scavenging, she navigates/notices a particular terrain feature (and the audience is made aware of it) she uses to escape the enemy fighters, a hail mary move that works because of her (pre-establish) "homefield advantage". Then, when back at the camp, the payment guy tries to recruit her as his co-pilot, which she refuses. Perhaps he's underpaying her just to try and force her into that. Afterwards, she briefly talks to a wookie at the camp, who brings it up that it'd be easier/smarter if she took the pilot job, but she brings up her desire to stay on planet. Then she goes to her living quarters, has her food while fiddling with a closed holocron, in a way that makes it clear she's drawn to it. When she falls asleep, the holocrom activates, with red tints. Just a few minor things to put the gun on the mantelpiece (though the last thing would require having planned her arc, so...). But bad writers... Worth noting, though, that bad writers are bad regardless of the gender they're writing for. Finn is equally poorly written. They excuse him knowing stuff the plot wants him to know because "space janitor". The First Order is determined to recover this random no rank storm trooper because? He's super obviously not cut out to be a trooper, yet somehow made it to his current age while always being a trooper without any trouble. He also isn't capable enough as a trooper to be someone trained his entire life for this... and this guy brought up in this strict military setting is somehow the goofy/cowardly comic relief. Had they set him up as the aide of Phasma, now doing an obligatory tour of front line duty, he'd make a lot more sense... why he knows stuff, that they know he knows stuff and therefore he's a priority to get back, why he's able to hide the fact that he's cowardly (skilled aide, so has value, while avoiding the combat situations which would out him), why he's bad at fighting stuff, and so on, all while also increasing the stakes/emotional impact of him vs Phasma. And this is important for people to cover. You can't just say, "Mary Sue!" and call it a day, because typically, it is far more than that. If you look at a bunch of generic Isekai trash, for example, the male lead is a Gary Stu, but beyond that, the female characters are usually not characters. They just have two traits... they simp for the protagonist and they check a box in the anime stock personality roster (older sister type, younger sister type, tsundere, yandere, etc.). The bad guys are usually so overly bad and evil that it is laughable. The main character will still be a focal point of criticism, because, well, main character, but it goes beyond that. And that said, it is okay to like things that are flawed. Western audiences have lost the ability to be nuanced. It is either thumbs up and love it or thumbs down and hate it. Nothing in between. You can enjoy watching some Isekai power fantasy trash, but is it really a 5 out of 5? No, no it is not, yet plenty of that stuff will have a 4/5 or higher rating on Crunchyroll despite being nowhere near that level. Me, I enjoy The Force Awakens, despite its many flaws. Also quite like the movie Tank Girl. Meanwhile, there are a lot of movies that I can see the quality of that I do not like. Bladerunner 2049? Do not care for it, but it is beautifully shot. This video blames critics, but audiences are every bit as much to blame, because they want everything to be love/hate, with no nuance, no accepting of the flaws of something they like, or admitting that something they don't like does some things very well.
If they actually said in the movie that she was insanely powerful and no one knew why and she actually had to deal with the emotions of that, it would have been far more interesting to watch
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).
Yes most isekai protagonists are Mary sues, it's why I have never really been a fan of the genre. Though I will say I have always thought if the term as gender neutral. Like jack ass. It's not a term just for women. It is a term coined from an infamous character that crystalized the trope, it just happened to be a female.
@Circurose no it wouldn't, and you know it. Beatrix Kiddo has never, not once ever been referred to as a Mary Sue. Neither has Ripley, Sarah Connor, Daenerys, Arya, Leia or Black Widow. I could list more, but come on, you are arguing in such bad faith. It isn't the gender that's the issue, it's the writing and character. Rey never fails at anything she tries, and the few times it appears she does, that ends up being the only way things would work out. Everyone loves her upon meeting her, the universe bends to make sure she is alright and unhurt or victorious. Captain Marvel is ludicrously tragically lacking any personality. It's not that the character is female, it's that the character doesn't exist, there is no person there. Resulting in no struggles or growth which in turns means there is no connection from the audience. Rose Tico was a contradiction from the moment she started. She attacked Finn for desserting but he wasn't a member. She stopped Finn from "saving the one's he loved". She did the opposite of what she said all the time. There are just as many poorly written male characters, if not more, the problem is they are so forgettable, well, people forgot about them.
@@Demon_Necromaster to be fair to captain marvel l, its better to have no personality than whatever the fuck she had going in the comics I also dont think her or rose qualify as mary sue As for Rey... yeah, the moment that tioped her over into being a mary sue fornme was when Leia went to confort her over Han's death, instead of chewbacca.
@Maioly that's my point, these are female characters some beloved some despised only one example was a Mary Sue to draw comparison. Rose and Marvel are not Mary Sues, they are horribly written characters that have no growth, development, through put. All the beloved characters have struggles, failures, fears, desires, wishes, learn lessons and change through out their stories, true some for the worse. But that's just it Deanerys, Arya, and Sarah Coonor were loved characters arguably more than the male counterparts of their media. But in the end the characters were written in a way that destroyed who audiences loved or betrayed all character logic/character story. Did you expect the slave freeing innocent protecting Daenerys to go on a rage induced genocide and then became She-Hitler? Did you expect Arya to completely abandone her sole drive and ambition for 10 seasons, literal feet from her goal? Did you expect Sarah Conner to become a bitter hateful women who was resentful of being a mother, after spending years prepping and protecting John and getting him and herself ready fir a war no one knew was coming? Did you expect Rey to ever lose or make a mistake, struggle, learn, doubt? Sure you did, did it ever happen? Not once, at least not once that was inevitably the needed path to take for victory regardless. These are examples of BAD CHARACTER AND PLOT WRITING Sure each one could have happened, Arya slowly see the repercussions of her obsessive revenge drive in others or how she is hurting thise she loves. Do we see that? Nope, she is the savior of mankind and then just thinks, Nah Daenerys doesn't slowly become more and more ruthless and eventually become this blood frenzied monster. She is fine, then hungry, then psychotic apparently. Luke is naive, optimistic, maybe a luttle arrogant at the end of Return of the Jedi, cut to TLJ and nope he is a bitter old man that gave up on the Jedi, the Force, and tried to kill his nephew because of bad dreams. Dispite having spent years trying to redeem a literal mass murderer. You see it's not gender or skin color or any of that crap. It's these characters are horribly written and the stories are a string of contrivances and what luck coincidences just so yhe "hero" can be where the plot needs them when the plot needs them And what's worse is evey single one of them would have been fine to end up where they were with just a little more thought and detail to show WHY Even Rey, make her no one specials daughter, but trained by a former jedi or a force sensitive that rejected the ways of the jedi that maybe fought the Empire Create reasons the jedi didn't come back, show repeated failures from Luke trying to train Jedi and the fail or fall to the Parkside or are manipulated by the new republic. Give us anything that shows WHY THESE CHARACTERS ARE WHO THEY ARE
i think the reason people aren't drawn to nuanced/"fence-sitting" thinking is because, despite being most often a truer and more complete picture, it's usually really hard and complicated and maybe even depressing lol
It does provide a more broad perspective that would definitely change minds or, at least, help people understand their opposition's views. I can understand that some would avoid fence sitting so as not to give the impression that they're indecisive or whatever. But then there's always the crowd who purposefully thrive in ignorance.
@@AnakinSkywakka one thing I've noticed is that, when it comes down to it, most arguments are between people who mostly agree on the things they're arguing about, but they're just both saying it wrong
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
Many famous people get villinized by these idiots, it makes me a but uncomfortable when people do that to people with no evidence on wether they are actually bad.
I'd just like to mention Luke was already established to be a good pilot. That ship model he was messing with was a ship he actually owned. He just crashed it before the events of the movie. He even mentions that he could easily shoot wamp rats easily in it. The force just allowed him the edge to get the shot when other trained pilots couldn't.
Something i never understood tho is if that pilot experience is transferable like it sounds like he has the skill equivalent of a farm boy who takes his truck out frequently rather than a soldier used to combative flight, but i wont claim one way or another its been actual decades since ive seen the film
@@loganalvarez2985 I think it's transferable enough for him to join a fight that's meant to be a last-ditch effort. He was also just uniquely talented. It doesn't really establish if he was already better than the average fighter pilot at that time though. He could have possibly been less skilled on average compared to his peers. But his use of the force to align just one crucial shot is what first gave him fame. But later on, he was certainly one of, if not the best. But unclear on exactly how good he was in that movie.
@@loganalvarez2985 Well, yes, he is not a trained combat pilot, but what he had to do in A New Hope was not normal combat piloting- it was flying down a canyon and shooting a tiny target, which he had lots of practice with from shooting womp rats in a canyon. It's been a week or so since I last watched the movie, but I feel like I remember him not actually being too useful at fighting other fighters, and getting a lot of support from the other pilots.
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 👍.
It really is weird how "Guy Represented By Illustrated (Sometimes Furry) Avatar With Various Poses Who Complains About Minorities and Calls It Film Criticism" evolved into an entire, wildly successful genre of RUclips video. Like, it seems way too specific, but there are *so* many of them.
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
Is there anybody who actually thinks Roy talking about Orion is a plot hole in Bladerunner? Like... they canonically have space colonies in that movie, and the details arent specified. So why wouldn't it just be natural to assume they have interstellar FTL travel of some kind? There's nothing contradicting it. I think that was sort of a weird example to give of a "plot hole that doesnt matter" because it isnt even a plot hole.
It’s worse than that: Orion isn’t a star system, it’s a constellation, and one of the main places where that constellation is visible with its distinctive shape is our own solar system. Going to any of the stars in that constellation would make the line absolute nonsense - there’s no “shoulder” anymore, Orion’s shoulders are a shape created by our perspective here in our solar system. The line only makes sense if Roy did NOT leave our system, which is the polar opposite of what Anthony said - Roy would have to be here in our solar system, looking in the direction of Orion, watching ships burn near him with Orion far off in the distance. It’s not a plot hole and actually makes perfect sense.
I think the point really is that with either of these explanations, or any supposed way it's a plot hole, whether it is or isn't doesn't matter it's the emotion and what the scene is saying that matters, while the exact interpretation of his words may be interesting, it isn't useful in a thematic understanding
@@thewingedporpoise The problem is Ant is trying to use it as an example to support the idea of plot holes not really mattering. My explanation indicates that it’s not a plot hole at all, and so if I’m right it’s not even an example of the point he’s trying to make, as it can’t damage the scene because it does in fact make sense, but even if I’m wrong and it is a plot hole, plot holes are not all created equal, and none of the people Ant is attacking have ever argued that they are. They need to be assessed on their impact on the plot and the characters. It DOES in fact matter what Roy says in this scene - if there’s some minor astronomical error, that’s one thing, but he could have said any number of other things in this scene instead and many of those possibilities would have also been plot holes and could have significantly undercut the emotional impact of the scene, such as if he said something obviously bizarre or stupid. The emotion of the scene is created, supported, and sustained by the filmmakers paying close attention to the details they’re putting into their story to make sure everything actually works together. Plot holes, especially very damaging ones, speak to a lack of attention on the filmmaker’s part and can completely undermine the impact of the scene or even the whole film. For example, the final battle of The Rise of Skywalker doesn’t work on hardly ANY level, because the rules are changing every second - the insane runaround with the navigation signal makes the space battle little more than senseless noise, because the stakes can just change on a dime and it’s almost mysterious that the First Order is able to lose when they could just redirect the signal to seemingly any ship after Pryde’s is taken out, while Rey’s fight with Palpatine goes from “kill me and I’ll possess you” to “wait I can be super powerful now, then I’ll chuck Kylo down this hole but not you for no clear reason” to “ENOUGH LIGHTNING TO BLOW UP THE RESISTANCE FLEET DAHAHAHAHA” to “oh no I can’t shoot enough lightning to overcome TWO lightsabers oh noooo you’re killing me and I’m not going to possess you even though I said I would :(“. The battle can’t maintain a focus or a throughline, the stakes are changing every few minutes and so tension is almost impossible to maintain, it’s just trying to rush so much shit past you that you don’t think about it. Compare that to Return of the Jedi, where all three segments of the battle have clear rules, clear objectives, and clear stakes, resulting in a much more satisfying battle that carries Luke’s character journey through to an emotionally cathartic conclusion.
She was still fighting with no training against someone who had plenty by luke skywalker himself. Also, it set up that fin was force sensitive, and just suddenly dropped that it was another thing that seemed to come out of nowhere . I think it'd be cool if they both fought him and actually fought him not fin getting taken out
But Kylo also defeated Finn right before Rey. This is also a point many forget. You would assume a trained soldier (especially when they are way better trained than the old stormtroopers) would do better than a scavenger. But the main reason it feels dumb is because it wasn't presented well. It was just very unsatisfying to see a girl use the force to defeat a powerful villain even though she doesn't know what it is. They presented her winning because of using the force, not because of him being too injured to fight. It's all about presentation.
@@christiannoriega428But she doesn't defeat him... She backs up for the entire duration of the fight, gets like one or two non-fatal hits, and when Kylo could easily have beaten her when getting up, they get separated by a ravine and the fight ends. And Kylo also had a totally different interested in both characters, he just saw Finn as a traitor to get rid off, when he didn't want to kill Rey, and only make her join them.
@InestimableFlorivore If they wanted to present that, she should have just been able to get a away for a moment so the earth could separate them. Or could have nicked him to cause him to back up so the earth can separate them. But when he gets slashed to the ground and barely gets up after the earth has already separated, he communicates that she would have won if the earth hadn't separated them. It may not be intentional, but that's what is suggested to the audience. They could have even shown Kylo succumbing to his injuries. Just have him wince and stumble from pain and exhaustion right before Rey takes advantage. How it's presented is what ruins the fight.
When Anita's talking about Sheik/Zelda because Sheik kept the world from being totally consumed by Gannon's influence while Link slept in the spirit realm. Sheik was an active heroine and when she revealed herself to be Zelda Gannon immediately found out and captured her 1/3 of the artifact that can control reality that she had in her possession. And when She's freed from Gannon's control she gives link the Light arrows which are essential to defeating beast Gannon in every game. It's something only she can do. And in a lot of Zelda games Zelda shoots the arrows too. She's just flat out wrong.
Bad faith criticism has always been an issue. The toxic spill we have now where reaction videos, click bait, fan wikis and conspiracy theories have turned all film discussion into an exercise in pulling teeth really is something else though. I don't think Siskle and Ebert were particularly good movie critics, but good god seeing people list wookiepedia articles as reasons the Acolyte hates white men almost makes me nostalgic for their condescending tone.
They were certainly better than whatever passes for "critics" on RUclips. Hell, they'd even vouch for films that most other contemporary critics were trashing that have since become more acclaimed and beloved years or decades after the fact than on release. They had some measure of _integrity,_ something these rage-baiters lack almost entirely.
even if you look back to Ebert he would sometimes give reviews that were completely off the mark by either not actually understanding the point of the film or misjudging the public response to it and then later going and issuing replacement reviews more in line with public opinion while trying to scrub the originals from public view
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
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.
Negative reviews don’t always miss the allegory, but when they do, it's often for political reasons. There's a difference between understanding why the author missed the point of their own scene, and you nitpicking a film and just saying yes or no to a story.
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.
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.
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 RUclipsrs. 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.
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.
@@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...
The thing people needs to understand about Anita is that she doesn't speak for all women/feminists. As a black woman, Theres a lot of things about her criticisms i find to be hella problematic. It's the same when it comes to black activism, we're not all monolithic. For example; black people who support black people like Nina Turner, Cori Bush, and Jamal Bowman are not the same as the black people who support Shontel Brown, James Clyburn, and Hakeem Jeffries. We're just not the same. Feminists have different beliefs and a lot of times are in conflict with each other. Anita specifically, always came across as very sex negative SWERFy to me.
Totally agree about black liberals and leftists not being the same. Stands to reason that feminists aren't the same. I think Anita represents a very bitter vocal contingent of feminism.
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.
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…
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.
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.
While my main form of entertainment is video games over more passive entertainment, I've noticed the same loss of media literacy there, too. There are so many voices who just regurgitate the most popular opinions from Reddit because playing, paying attention, and finishing the game is too much work. You can't get your review and impressions out the first day the game came out when it takes 40+ hours to finish. So they just copypasta. I'm not even a public figure, but someone threatened me in a comments section for saying I love Resident Evil 6 and thought it was better than 7. I asked, "Have you ever played 6?" And he responded, "No, but I didn't play it because it was shit anyway." The dude was threatening violence over a game he never played, and I'm guessing he never touched 7 either. Our tribalism has evolved for the worse with the internet, as everyone wants to be with the in-crowd of their little bubble.
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
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 line "My God, it's full of stars," was not actually made up by the audience. It's from the book, but was never spoken in the movie. The sequel, though, does include a recording of Dave Bowman saying it, which is played multiple times.
Lily Orchard drives me up the wall, even as a progressive feminist. Her takes are the absolute worst. For example, the Adolescence of Utena isn't a remake of the series. It's a true sequel. Anthy is released at the end of the TV series, but in the movie she goes back for Utena herself and they escape together, and set everyone else free also. Like...*girl*, it's okay that you have zero media literacy or comprehension, but don't make that all of our problem. The fact that she riled up the Tumblrinas against Steven Universe so hard with bad takes and slapdash criticism based on the worst read of the content as possible still ruffles my feathers to this day.
42:00: Using the word "Nazi" to refer to any evil ruler is pretty gross and does trivialize the holocaust. Childrens media with Nazi allegories does exist but looking at a character who's a combination of the Borg Queen from Star Trek and the general idea of a wrathful goddess and referring to that as being a Nazi is kind of gross.
Not to mention the Gem home world is more a criticism of colonialism and how it often leads to genocide as a result of wanting resources and regarding the people who live there as lesser beings, than it is about a state doing ethnic cleansing.
@@Scarybug I think Homeworld was mostly a critique of social conservatism in general. The rebellion was fought to stop them from colonizing earth but the main focus is on the idea that while Homeworld forces gems into specific roles and expects perfect conformity to them, gems are unique individuals and should be able to live how they want.
yeah it's a wildly inaccurate criticism which is done in bad faith, but not necessarily because the core idea is wrong. it's just...they're NOT Nazis. that's not what they are. they're monarchical imperialists! they're like the rulers of the British Empire! calling them Nazis undermines the actual criticism of how they're handled in the narrative, for the sheer calculated purpose of sensationalism. to be clear, Rebecca Sugar is a weakwilled liberal who wants us to forgive colonial oppressors and let them go without a choppy-chop. it's a shame that someone so stupid and dishonest has become the poster child for what is at its core a correct take. but that's my bias as a leftist and ardent critic of imperialism (and ESPECIALLY someone that kind of considers America an evil empire that needs to withdraw its troops from everywhere, stop selling arms to everyone, and stop trying to control everything).
@@dvillines26 "to be clear, Rebecca Sugar is a weakwilled liberal who wants us to forgive colonial oppressors and let them go without a choppy-chop" Steven uses his identity as the fourth member of the Diamond authority to dismantle their entire system, force the Diamonds to undo everything they did and even replace their monarchy with democratic elections. This happens off screen which isn't good at all, but it's definitely better than nothing and I don't think a "weak willed liberal" would bother to imagine the radical transformation of society at all. I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the stereotype of a neoliberal is.
@@dvillines26 The British Empire were no better than Nazis tho. It's not downplaying Nazis. If anything making a fuss over it downplays the evil of colonialism. The US was founded on the same grounds as Nazi superiority style BS.
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 RUclips 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
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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.
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.
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!
And a lot of times there's details that you'll only notice while rewatching the movie when you already know what happens and understand the significance.
The worst "plot holes" are probably the ones people make up for the Back to the Future series. I mean, first of all, the characters not thinking to use parts or gas from the original DeLorean that was _just_ sealed away for its 70 year nap, is _not_ a plot hole. Second, the movie shows us how concerned Doc is with paradoxes, there's no way he'd touch that DeLorean and risk Marty disappearing, or the fabric of reality unraveling. Admittedly, that is a worst case scenario, Doc says it could just be limited to our galaxy.
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.
Its such a funny contrast when you finish the video with a very serious direct segment then the suggested video is "HOTTEST POKEMON ADULTS TIERLIST" like MAN thats great
everyone who does it has bad taste bc they cant consider older or fatter men to be hot
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.
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.
@@LaNoLaCola To my understanding she doubly fucked up going after Dungeon Meshi/Delicious in a dungeon [I'm personally enjoying it and ProZD's voice acting as Senshi]
As someone who watched her SU videos ad background noise, 1000% agree on this. I just absorbed all this without much critical thought, came across another video by someone and it just tore her shit to shreds. The Lily Orchard shit is way more personal imo because I spent so long hating it in the back of my mind because she lied about everything in that show, then when she got called out on the comments, she cried about people attacking her for those videos and tried to hide behind mental health excuses.
Like, bitch shut the fuck up. She can talk shit about others but can't take people Givin 1% of it back. It's ungodly levels of being pathetic and whiny.
As one of the rare people who only actively watched her in her super early days where she did rapid-fire essays while ripping off the art style and presentation of Zero Punctuation, she's always had this toxic "I'm always right even when I'm wrong" attitude, like her numerous outright lies about how the American healthcare system works that she used to spout in those videos, which she only walked back after at least a year of people commenting over and over that she had no idea what she was talking about.
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).
That's because Cinema Sins is double talking.
Something that bugs me is people will say a choice that isnt optimal is a plot hole. Sometimes people dont make optimal choices.
Me pressing an unsafe jumping NAIR on a shielding opponent is a plothole lol.
I guess It depends on how frequently the writers use "But they just made the wrong choice" if its bad writing or not. You may be able to get away with it one or two times, but if you are just making the protagonist make the most brain dead choices every time then yeah thats bad writing.
@@miimiiandcogets shined oos one time and all of a sudden the storytelling is subpar and it's all woke
Yes, and mistakes add characterization. How characters arrive at wrong decisions is compelling and adds depth.
Sometimes? More like many times; we are an irrational species by heart.
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.
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.
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 RUclipsrs made videos that debunked THAT
And that's how I found Dungeon Meshi Explained (probably got the title wrong) to watch !
@@Ramsey276one🥔
My general view in it all is that Stories are like a magician, they’re supposed to keep you distracted from all the little flaws with their magic. A good magician makes you have to watch the trick a million times before you see all the flaws, but a bad magician never quite captures your attention and so you begin to criticize all the tiny flaws that you notice. An example of this in a movie form is A New Hope, you can find millions of mistakes in that film like the stormtrooper bumping his head and Darth Vader’s helmet having hand prints on it, but you won’t notice that your first few times, because so much of the story is good that you miss the flaws.
I think this is an underrated take! While I think it's good for writers (and editors) to try and mitigate those little flaws or to recontextualize them into something cohesive, a work can not and will not be perfect, so part of the plan should be to have something interesting and engaging enough so that the viewer either doesn't notice or doesn't care.
You didn't think about this take for long enough.
First question. How is, say, a car accidently ending up in frame the same as a narrative mistake?
If I go watch a rendition of Hamlet and another audience member stands up in front of me, or I spot the lightning guy in the rafters, is that Shakespeare's fault?
Can't we distinguish between accidents and intentional decisions?
Second question. In regards to Vader's handprints. Were you under the impression that no one ever touches his helmet or takes it off his head? It would be bizzare if he never got prints on his shiny black helmet.
And regarding that stormtrooper, do people just not bump their heads in real life in your experience? If not, I wonder why they wear helmets.
Someone else made a video essay about video essays IIRC that talked about this. There's a similar issue video games, where the saying is that players are good at IDing things they don't like, but really bad at IDing ways to fix it.
Fundamentally, people are good at realizing "I don't like this movie", but when they try to figure out *why* they don't like it, they tend to get caught up on relatively superficial BS like plot holes.
@@nlb137 what's the name of the essay?
@@captainmega6310 Sorry, I'm not sure. If I remembered more specifics than that I'd have given a name or something. It might have been wrt the Star Wars ST.
"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.
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.
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.
Severely underappreciated comment. I think you may be grossly overestimating your noobiness.
I fully agree with this take. Why? Because that's how I felt after watching The Last Jedi. I know that didn't truly like it, but I couldn't put my finger on why. I needed to watch a lot of different critiques before I kind of figured out why. Quite normal.
And oh boy does some people critique things in a really bad way. They might sometimes have a point, then to blurt out the Mary Sue thing (at least with the SW movies). So hard to find people who can actually handle critique properly.
Which falls apart once you consider film critics are not credible. The Birth of a Nation 1915 having 100% is a serious red flag; Should be closer to 10 at most!
I think you're right. When we dislike something we don't know why. We never know the reason behind our emotions. We just make educated guesses. When we dislike a piece of media we look for reasons why. And there's always something to nitpick.
It can be a feedback loop too. If you're not having a good time, or you're already primed to dislike a piece of media from being online, you're gonna look for things to nitpick. The more you nitpick, the more you get taken out of the movie, the more you're not having a good time. In the end you just resent the piece of media.
This is true, but something that bugs me in particular is that these "factual inaccuracies" are often made up.
This is true not just for plot holes, but also a lot of comments about realism too which are either wrong or right that something is unrealistic but wrong about what more realistic approach would actually be.
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.
@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.
If you're doing a review and you have trouble keeping track of things, take notes! You can also use notes to track your frustration! If you own the book, highlight text and mark passages that you like/don't like! Seriously, it's not hard to critique media as long as you have evidence to back up your opinion! GAAAH!
@@pbjmochi8400 Exactly. People like that then double down with a defensive attitude of "it was shit, I didn't care about it." Like, dude, you cared enough to create a video ranting about the damn thing.
It's a similar thing with CinemaSins. Act like you're doing a professional review until you're called out, then pretend it's just an opinion piece/skit and so taking the "review" seriously isn't the point.
Now I'm curious about which reviewer are you talking about, since i used to watch those yt reviewers who would tear into some shitty ya/booktok books, and they did similar things to this (but maybe not to the degree of forgetting constantly what happened).
I always feel like if you can’t remember relevant/important bits of the media, you really shouldn’t be qualified to review it…
In her “Pixar movie’s are only for kids” video. (It was actually called “Stop saying that Pixar movies aren’t 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 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.
THIS
Nailed it. Hence dislikes on this video.
@@mishynaofficial They probably got to the plot hole part, misunderstood it, and clicked off. I almost did because the way it was worded just can be misinterpreted I think
@@mishynaofficial what dislikes? How do you see dislikes on videos these days?
@@weedongding Return Dislike extension or ReVanced.
"Because nobody who watches Utena as an adult sees a revolutionary step forward for gay rep in anime, what they see is a fucking mess" is one of the first quotes I've ever heard from Lily Orchard (never seen her videos) and the only one I need to hear to know she's a moron. I didn't watch Utena until recently and I'm in my late 20s but I think it's one of the best anime I've ever seen. How could anyone walk away from that thinking it wasn't revolutionary?
Utena most definitely is not perfect and I would even agree that it *is* a mess. But it's a revolutionary experimental mess. There is value in it.
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.
@emuman09 43 comments and you've looked absolutely unhinged in every single one of them. Congrats.
Its 2024 people still dont know cinemasins isnt a real reliable reviewer
😂 that's the funny thing, he's not a reviewer to begin with. He never was. People kept going to a nitpick channel expecting reviews like they would go to McDonald's expecting them to sell them a pizza. Then complaining that all they have is burgers.
I think the first Cinema Sins video I ever watched was the Avengers one and I thought after watching it "wow, that was an awful video."
@@HK47_115 the issue is whenever someone brings this stuff up to them they cope and seethe and say they are genuinely reviewing it.
@@zackanderson7440 For the life of me I can't understand why. I've been watching Cinema since the day he started his channel. I first discovered it when he only had five videos. And it was made very clear even then, he does not, never had, and probably never will do reviews. At least not in the cinema sins format. I think I remember watching one of their podcast episodes like a few years ago, and they said they did want to do reviews, but they would do them in the regular format of a review.
Which just further proves even more that those videos never were supposed to be reviews or criticism in any way form or fashions. And I can't believe I'm about to say this unironically, but if those people were actually fans of CinemaSins that they would already know that instead of defending his non existent "reviews".
No people understand that perfectly
I often use a jigsaw puzzle metaphor for describing how YT essayists often operate.
1. Essayist conflates fiction with reality with no empirical connection explained in full.
2. Essayist presents the box in which the puzzle is packaged.
3. Essayist then puts interpretation before analysis.
4. Essayist combs through jigsaw pieces and complains about the straight edges enabling them to assemble the puzzle faster. Then complains about pieces not fitting together when the pieces clearly do not belong together. They belong with other pieces within the overall puzzle.
5. Essayist then tells you how each piece conveys a whole idea into itself when in fact it does not because the piece has only an incomplete picture. They then compare the puzzle pieces with those of a completely different puzzle during what is a very long tangent to prove their idea about the first puzzle by measuring it against the features of different puzzle picture instead of focusing on the merits and demerits of the first puzzle.
6. Essayist then assembles the puzzle in full and then presents it upside down to "prove" how the puzzle makers botched the puzzle because the puzzle is upside down. It is upside not because of a botch but because the essayist is intentionally presenting the finished picture upside down.
7. Lastly, the essayist will cover a portion of the assembled picture and then claim the puzzle makers have omitted that portion.
What I noticed is that many bad media critics didn’t start out that way. They either started off more as commentary channels (they may casually share their opinions, but they weren’t offering in-depth critiques or analysis), or they were genuinely attempting good-faith reviews/discussions.
For whatever reason-be it due to hubris, money, echo chambers, or simple miscommunication-these channels became radicalized, uncritical, and abrasive.
For some, the trajectory seemed inevitable. But for others, it was a more gradual downfall.
For instance [this is a hypothetical], a channel may be concerned that the push for more diversity in media could result in the perpetuation of potentially harmful stereotypes and tokenism. They aren’t saying that there shouldn’t be more diversity in media; they’re saying that it needs to be done thoughtfully.
But somehow their argument gets misconstrued and they are attacked for being racist. Actual racists then swoop in to support them and slowly poison their mind.
Meanwhile, those that attacked them double-down, further alienating that channel for an opinion they never had. Until one day that channel, inadvertently or not, adopts the racist ideology they were wrongly accused of having. All because they were misunderstood by some and manipulated by others.
Although atypical, when it happens it’s particularly tragic because the descent could have been avoided.
There was a channel that I used to love that posted long form analyses of videogames with no right wing slant whatsoever, but eventually his channel degraded to the point where all he does now is host 8 hour long streams with other fascist grifters masquerading as media critics. That wasn't because he was criticised from a left wing perspective, it's because he willingly let the rightoids in without challenging them and that resulted in an echo chamber
Personally I don't buy that, if you're a teen, sure, I could see that, but some of these people are full blown adults, how the hell are you going to be manipulated into becoming a racist???
It's honestly more likely that these people are so used to getting unabashed praise for all their videos from fans that they maybe connect a few things that weren't there, they get praised for it and so they continue to lean into it because "Hey, my audience loved when I did it last time and they backed up my thoughts," and it gets to the point where they become arrogant and conceited.
I just don't get how you can be not racist, accused of being racist... then turn into that very thing that to protest against being called.
@@carcinogenetricist2993 "but some of these people are full blown adults, how the hell are you going to be manipulated into becoming a racist???"
Just because someone is an adult, it doesn't mean that they can't be manipulated into or veer towards agreeing with stances that are, at their root, racist, misogynistic/misanderist and or homophobic. I've seen it happen first-hand with my father and a friend of mine (who I still contact from time to time). Both of them are certified adults, are older than me, and used to hold (mostly) neutral opinions regarding these topics...that was until they began listening to certain people who shared opinions that they strongly agreed with. That's honestly all it takes; finding someone who shares some opinions that you hold, and then staying tuned to hear what else they gotta say. From there, they can be influenced to think a certain way--usually unconsciously and over a period of time.
There's a lot of other factors too that can lead someone down a radicalized path that I didn't mention--like how someone who isn't well-educated in these topics can be swayed to one side, be it left or right leaning; if someone is generally a lonely person then they are vulnerable to being easily manipulated so that they have a place to "belong"; etc--but I encourage you to do your own research and listen to people well-educated in these fields who can explain it better than I can. Also, seek out stories of people who used to be formerly racist/homophobic/sexist and hear how they were swayed to become so radicalized (and how they got out of it....*hint hint wink wink nudge nudge* go to Reddit for these accounts!)
Hope this sort of helps and gets you interested into learning more about this topic!
Nowadays that youtube is more or less stable we see the growth of people wanting youtube as a career; but that wasn't always the case. When most of those channels started, they had opinion pieces on their favorite things that they had a lot of time to think through and construct, and it usually was about something they liked, so it came with passion and benefit of the doubt.
Those that stuck around and tried then to make a career out of it, bastardized and flanderized their own content in order to mass produce more of the same, and losing the soul in the process, because they had less time to tackle new things they weren't passionate about.
Look at the AVGN as an example. Though his content never really saw that much of a dip in quality because James Rolfe is a competent writer, you can clearly tell which videos have a "I have bills to pay" energy to them and which don't. Season 1 is nothing but him talking about thinks that had been simmering in him since childhood and the realization that came with adulthood. Those things couldn't be present when he tackled games he never head of before.
Now, for the second part, I've seen it described in a couple of ways. One of them is the "coil effect". As humans tend to care for bad criticism more than good, there's only so much pushback they can take on something before the coil springs back. If toughtful videos made by intelligent people can sometimes easily misunderstand what they are reviewing, imagine what the comment section of that video is like, where there's now an extra step to a proportionally less inteligent audience.
I don't know if the other one has a name, but it's some variation of poisoning the well, I've also seen it being refered to as "birth of a homophobe". Imagine you are gay and you have to defend yourself 1000 times to 1000 different people. Once you've run out of patience with that, you can become aggressive with the 1001st person that might just genuinely have a question or not understand something. The reaction of the gay person might have a complete adverse effect from then onwards because it will treat anyone that comes afterwards as someone that has bad faith, which in turn traumatizes newcomers. This effect is amplified on content creators. Every day thousands of "new" pre-traumatized people are making moral judgements on your stances without actually knowing your stances, that might already be compromised because you have had to explain it a thousand times.
The truth is that criticism can only be a valid career if you have a lot of very specialized knowledge on the thing (and watching/reading/playing a lot isn't always very specialized knowledge). The fact that now average Joes think they can do that kind of criticism with their average Joe world perspective and basic knowledge often gets in the way.
There's one example that always comes to mind to me of how often people are completely unprepared to be critics even if they are mostly competent all the time. A lot of people that criticize animation will often call Art Direction or Art Style simply "animation". It can be the most fluid sequence of 30 drawings you've ever seen, or a magnificent 3D render, but if the character is "ugly" or the world itself feels unappealing, they will blame "animation" as a whole. While yes, most people can understand what you're trying to say, no one that has actually dealt with animation would make that mistake. You'd say design, direction, or anything else, to let people know what the specific issue is, and not generalize it like that. But you'd be surprised on how many succesful cartoon critics get away with that blanket statement.
And that happens in 3D too. Take some movies like Jurassic World. There are entire scenes where the jungle, buildings, floor, lighting, absolutely everything in the scene is CGI and indistinguishable from real life to most people. The dinosaur models are absolute works of art. But there's some slight inconsistency with the lighting on the dinosaur on the render. "Wow this movie has terrible CGI". I've actually have seen people complain about absolute works of art as "bad" because there's a visible 1% that is off. It's like complaining about an entire orchestra because one guy on the trumpets held his finger for too long on a note. Take it from me when I say, most people are incapable of knowing when there is CGI on a screen anymore.
Misinformed criticism and death of a passion can quickly poison the well not only for audiences but for creators too.
Chris Ray Gun has talked about being offered money to do right ring grifting, and that he knows a LOT of people on his sphere were offered the same and accepted.
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 RUclips 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.
What you are describing is a Critique, not Criticism. There is a difference.
Critique is providing constructive feedback and an opportunity to improve.
Criticism is, by definition, focusing specifically on the bad things.
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
Yooo if i may ask who was that other channel that helped you out
@@darkcat6530 Probably some cringe shit like ContraPoints, who, despite what you think about Lily, just absolutely stomped by her
@@ChangedMyNameFinally69 bro lily is unsufferable
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 remember watching Lily Orchard when I was younger, more susceptible to "angry critic shit talks things" as a form of entertainment, and in the early stages of questioning my own gender, and latching onto her a bit because "funny trans woman who feels smarter than everyone else, so cool." Idk when I grew out of finding that tone fun to listen to, but I'm glad I did.
You graduated to listening to this putz
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
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 RUclips channel! 😄
@@hatemongerofthetoxicbrood6561you want some cheese to go with that whine?
Hey, one of my favorite MST3K clips!
"...There. Sure glad I don't look stupid in this."
Bad media criticism seems to follow this type of workflow;
1. Have bad faith dislike of said media, give theory of why
2. Cherry-pick the media to support theory for said dislike
3. Reiterate theory of said dislike of media
I don't think dislike can be bad faith in and of itself because that's just a feeling. The bad faith comes in from linking the dislike to some kind of purported objective failing in the work when it's clearly much more about a personal response that is not being interrogated
@@shai2121 if you come into something deciding to dislike it for ideological reasons before you've watched/read it, uh, that's pretty bad faith. people that aren't dishonest know that art with politics they might disagree with can have some redeeming value. the hucksters never look for value, which is also why they get so many basic facts wrong.
"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.
i think killing him would have totally worked, the fire nation would most likely have respected it because it's kinda their way of doing things. Respect only power and all that jazz. I bet aang could have just knocked him out and put him in a cage or something and that would have worked, it's not like their aren't ways of containing fire benders
The ending is actually one of the most heavily criticized parts of Avatar.
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're wrong Helen.
@@futurestoryteller Wrong. I'm Helen Wrong
@@helenwrong6363 Seriously though I rarely ever meet anybody (online) with their own opinions on anything. Especially about media, or art. It's always a cultural ultimatum to adopt one of two extreme positions. When you say you won't adopt one, it never leads to an interesting discussion, only a fight.
When people realize they can't win that fight, because your opinion is valid and therefore subjective, the whole conversation ends. And I'm left wondering why everybody thinks they're such critical thinkers when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
I guess what I'm saying is Helen Wrong... you're right. But it's only overrated, because it's all about peer pressure. Don't bend!
Opinions and Individualism are overrated
Said no one ever
I think it's worth trying anyway
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.
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.
This is a fantastic comment.
There are so many critically loved movies that are just bad besides the time and place the camera is at each moment, and it's so funny and sad at the same time
@@netriosilver And meanwhile absolute masterpieces like Mo No No Ke get relegated to niche anime-lover circles.
(If the people reading this haven't seen it yet, go check out "Ayakashi: Classic Ghost Stories - Story 3: Bakeneko"/"Ayakashi Classic Samurai Tales - Story 3: Goblin Cat". you should get the first/pilot OVA that would continue on in Mo No No Ke. It's gorgeous, the tale itself is going to do what it can to squeeze your heart out, but the end is sweetened somewhat. Warnings for violence and death though)
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.
It doesn't matter if he actually was, 'bored Ford' is just a really good descriptor of the performance itself.
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 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 "RUclips 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
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
Ok but I have to be fair here, If I ever manage to release a videogame project I've been messing around with, putting a bunch of queer characters in it just to piss off these kinds of people is ABSOLUTELY something I would do.
Dont get me wrong, I love me some good ol' representation, but I also think its very funny to piss off these people.
Also, if thats all it takes to filter their types out of the game's community, all the better, I wouldnt want em there.
Tbf, in a lot of cases, it's true. It's a calculated move to bring in "others" who may have ignored the IP or simply been more casual in viewing, it baits bigoted people to hate-watch the IP they might well have dismissed too, and normies outside of the Us v. Them battle get wrapped up wonder wtf is going on.
The trio of groups all come together and give the IP money and attention it probably wouldn't have gotten. All this while said characters as women, LGBTQ, etc. are either inconsequential or straw people. And sometimes, it's done in a way where these characters can be altered or erased for international markets.
And that's only from a soul-less corporate view, that's forgetting that writers have their own opinions too.
I find it hilarious that, and the other replies have stated, those narratives of it “being calculated” and the “creators hating you” aren’t necessarily inaccurate, but bigots don’t have the self awareness to realize they are disliked because they are so sensitive/emotional or that them lashing out and hate-watching/playing something is what the studio wants. They frame their petty tantrums as “criticism” when it is the exact opposite, and offers no deeper insight into anything and even gives the studio more incentive to have more representation. They live in a cage of their own creation.
@@TheSpeep That reminds me of how surprisingly rare fascist Touhou fans are. It turns out that when every character is a woman, who is not sexualized, and the only possible ships are not straight, fascists tend to not be particularly interested.
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?
Also "off the shoulder of Orion" could mean anything, not literally that someone is right next to one of the stars of Orion. It could just be that the constellation Orion was visible behind the ships that he witnessed.
I get that the point of the video is that it doesn't matter if it's a plot hole because it's about the theme of the value of life and memory and experience, but I don't think it's really a plot hole myself.
Hah, and there's Shad crying about Princess Peach's pants - based on the *_trailer_* ... after watching the movie, he had to make a cringey take-back video after discovering it was her racing gear! Imagine a grown man getting upset about a woman wearing trousers, let alone a fictional character.
Imagine someone born after WW2 complaining about a woman wearing pants. That was a hot button issue during Prohibition.
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu To be fair, he's a Mormon, which means he's stuck in *_eighteen_* forty-four.
@@wolf1066 He's an Australian Mormon? This keeps getting better and better
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu I used to enjoy some of his medieval weapons videos - but when I saw him appearing in some of those groups of whinging man-children wanking on about the "woke agenda", I unsubbed from his channel.
There is literally zero reason for anyone-let alone a grown man with a daughter-to be offended over Peach’s outfit.
If it wasn’t obvious that he was a misogynistic moron before, it was made undeniably apparent after his crazy tantrum.
And he doesn’t get a pass for admitting he was wrong either. Yes, the movie did “justify” her wearing pants, but it didn’t need to. There’s no scenario where Peach sporting trousers could ever warrant such an insane reaction.
Boy am I glad that that Steven Universe video that I got in my recommended a whole bunch is one of the most universally despised pieces of media criticism across the modern internet. Nothing anyone says about any of the shows I watched as a kid will change the fact that I adored them then and I will continue to do so now, because the reasons that I enjoyed them as a kid still exist in my heart.
Honestly, this also comes part and parcel with the fact that people have lost the ability to just honestly say "I didn't like it" and just leave it at that. Sometimes, something just doesn't vibe with you and that's OK, that also doesn't necessarily make the media in question necessarily bad.
It's the algorithm and the whole "I need to turn whatever I don't personally like into this societal problem in order to justify my hatred for it and make others hate it" mentality just leads to this crap.
And on the flip side it is totally ok to enjoy something bad. “H20 just add water,” is a show I used to watch since my sisters loved it and I fell in love with it too. Despite it being a campy disaster with bad special effects and cliche tropes. Some media is enjoyable despite its lack of quality. A lot of the time talent and time investment can be overshadowed by simply passionate people working on a goofy show.
There is a problem of people being overly defensive of poor quality media in the same propensity as people being overly offensive toward good media. It all boils down to the quality hierarchies people have.
However, a unique issue in modern media is that with the ubiquitous profit incentives, a lot of soul can be stripped from projects. I personally love watching movies from smaller studios because they often necessitate passion.
I got bored halfway through One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I just stopped watching. Am I going to claim it's a bad movie? Absolutely not.
But I have a feeling that these same "critics" would throw a fit over my opinion, even if I admit it's just my personal opinion.
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 like that Lily Orchard’s icon looks like an NFT.
I've said this for a long time, a great deal of film "critique" and review, on the internet is not people critiquing films based on their own metrics, but rather someone criticizing the films for not being the films they would have made, or wanted to see.
I really dislike Lily Orchard but I would not call her a grifter. She's just someone who's consistently, passionately, verbosely wrong about things. Calling her a grifter is implying she's just playing up an ignorant and petulant character for views, but I think she's just genuinely that much of an unpleasant person in reality.
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’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
Your criticism of Anita Sarkeesian resonates very well with me. I've been a long time listener of Feminist Frequency Radio and over the years I got the distinct impression that Anita Sarkeesian and erstwhile co-host Carolyn Petit subscribe to a weird conservative/puritanical brand of feminism. While there is of course a genuine conversation to be had about over-sexualization of female characters in video games, Anita has essentially regressed to the idea that anything which can remotely be construed as sexual is bad, a position I vehemently disagree with. I simply do not believe sexualization is inherently bad and I believe every form of media should be able to explore sexual characters in overtly sexual ways. Indeed, a lot of feminist art is incredibly sexual in nature; see the works of Anita Steckel or Cosey Fanni Tutti, for example. However, each time we see a female-coded character wearing anything other than full-body chainmail armor with chonky iron boots, Anita will almost certainly complain about it.
Similarly, any time Feminist Frequency Radio discusses a video game that has any sort of combat system, Carolyn Petit will go on a rant about how the game "glorifies violence." This sort of polemic is eerily reminiscent of Christian conservatives trying to get video games banned because they contain violence. Here too we see how the FemFreq cast confuses *depiction* of something in a video game with the video game actively *encouraging* or *endorsing* it. These two things are clearly not the same, and it speaks to their limited media literacy that they confuse them so often and so profoundly.
As a gay AMAB enby I've often found myself screaming internally when Anita criticized iconic characters like Bayonetta, who absolutely slay the house down and whose outfits I've been dying to cosplay. Like, it's pretty clear to me that Anita is either asexual or exclusively attracted to stone butch aesthetic, which is totally valid of course but it should not be an industry standard in character design for video games. I'm sincerely hoping Anita never goes to see a drag show because good lord would that woman have a hard time.
Did you ever heard about horseshoe theory? It says that two opposite sides of the political spectrum due to the radicalisation are closer to eachother than to the center like in horseshoe.
Yeah. I no longer remember her specific critique about it, but her opinions about Dragon Age: Origins based on a scene where the main female character can be threatened with SA (there are also other ways to play out that scene depending on your character's gender) was...flawed, to say the least. Everything she seemed to hate do seem very puritanical.
those "bad media critics" usually start to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist... it's like watching angry rants about why the world is flat... not even touching on the desperate alt-right pipeline they try to pull...
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.
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.
Dude, Ryan Hollinger is legit. Been watching him for a few years now, love his stuff, even when he sometimes has an opinion I don’t agree with. And when he does have an opinion he thinks some people might disagree with, he goes out of his way to say “and this is just my thought, you can make up your own mind about this and you’d probably be more right”. Even if it’s a movie he doesn’t like, he often points out good parts of it or things he liked that stood out to him.
Ryan seems like a cool guy who just likes movies. Even the stuff he doesn't enjoy, he still gives a fair shot. He doesn't go right into it with 'this movie sucks. I hate it and you should too now let me waste just enough time ranting about woke bad so I qualify for adsense' but 'OK I didn't like it, it's not a bad movie and definitely has a few good bits. Here's what I think let's have a discussion'. With some critics it almost feels like they don't even like the medium they've made a career out of criticising.
Film Joy I also love to watch. Mikey genuinely just loves movies and listening to people talk about what they love is far more entertaining.
How? The horror monsters all fold easily once nobody's afraid of them. Want scary? Look at Southern cassowaries!
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.
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.
..because she has no goals, desires or opinions..
Oh so like Luke.
@@serpent3800 I dont see how.
Luke in the first movie was willing to join the empire just to get some exitement in his life. His desire was to do something important and adventurous and Obi-Wan guided him into becoming a force of good, by telling him about his father. Luke became part of the rebellion more for the adventure than doing the right thing. And he wanted to become a Jedi, because his father was one and he thinks that they are great warriors. He is very superficial, judging things by how they appear, but overcomes it by the end. His goal at the start is to become a powerful hero, but it changes to becoming a noble jedi.
Luke at most, might be generic, but he absolutely does not lack goals, desires nor opinions
@@mareklonestar7053 ..Luke in the first movie was willing to join the empire just to get some exitement in his life..
Bullshit xd.
@@serpent3800 And now you just proved, that you either didnt watch the movie or didnt pay attention
@@serpent3800 He talked with his aunt and uncle about joining the academy, which is imperial
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.
But shadow had gun that one time! That means sonic should stay away from ever being serious /s
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 wish marvel comics was run by a lesbian illuminati, that sounds sick
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 RUclips 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 faith or bad faith you probably should pursue a diffrent 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.
just ban/hit don't recommend them, its not hard.
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.
I still think that the sequel trilogy would be a lot better received today if Colin Trevorrow hadn’t been taken off Episode 9.
@@Road_to_Dawn They just needed a 3-movie plan. Going into it without having an arc decided on was an absolutely insane way to try to work.
@@B.B.Digital_Forest Hey. I don't know if this counts as Monte Cristo enough, but I just read a book called The Will of the Many and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Don't look too much into it before giving it a shot if you haven't read it. I think the second book is also coming out at the end of 2024, so that's cool, too. It's a 28 hour audiobook, but you just have to keep listening to see what happens next!! Awesome plot, interesting world, very grounded magical system, and tons of political intrigue.
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 RUclips 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 notice a lot in the marvel/star wars fanbases. When a youtuber "criticizes" something, they only say what their fanbase wants to hear
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.
That's easy: he's a snobby big-city land developer who wants to turn a quaint little New England town into a gaudy tourist attaction. I figrured lefties would notice that right away.
@@PaceFilmsProductions They were probably talking about the actor not the character
It's hilarious how blatant the hipocrisy is at 19:38
"Luke Skywalker has a set of skills, but the movie doesn't need to explain how he got them because... it's a movie."
"Rey has a set of skills. How tf does know how to do this stuff? bEcAuSe ShE's AwEsOmE!!!?!" *proceeds to blatantly ignore explanations as to why she would know how to do stuff*
Let me clear that I don't think Rey is a perfect character by any means (perfect as in well written and stuff, not perfect as in is good at everything). I do think that she is still a bit too quick in learning the force, being able to mind trick and levitate with virtually no training, although I suppose her being a Palpatine explains that. I still think Luke is a far better protagonist that Rey, but that's moreso down to his actual impact and personal stakes in the story.
"proceeds to blatantly ignore explanations as to why she would know how to do stuff" Pray tell those explanations.
Luke's skills are explained, though. He talks about going to the Imperial academy. He's got that spacecraft thing he's fiddling with while complaining at home, something that's used for demonstrating maneuvers, rather than being a toy. He mentioned the Beggar's Canyon bit. He says they could just buy a spaceship and he'll fly it, when they are negotiating with Han. And we have a scene with Kenobi specifically training him about using the force to sense things, the only ability he uses in the first movie. And when he goes into combat, he nearly gets fried on his first attack run, needs to be bailed out by fellow rebels when the tie-fighters show up, and his genius plan of "go fast" doesn't work, as it doesn't keep the tie-fighters off their tail. He knows the basics, but he's a rookie, and it shows. When a character has something that isn't something you'd expect a person of that background to have, the movie sets it up.
Rey, conversely, talks about how she doesn't want to leave the planet, yet somehow has excellent spaceship flying skills. She also gets to use advanced force stuff without any training, and no, being a Palptatine doesn't explain that, as the Choosen One doesn't get that, nor do either of his children. She understands wookie, because? Also, Leia will hug the complete stranger over her husband's best friend after her husband's death. Now, that isn't to say she's always handled poorly. She knows tech stuff, because scavenger, and she uses this skill on Han's ship to hotwire a door. And it doesn't turn out quite right. That's one situation where something is established, but she's fallible. But for a lot of other stuff, she's poorly written, because the writers want to get to all the cool stuff of flying spaceships, using laser swords, and force powers and so use her to do that stuff. Oh, and someone needs to understand Chewie.
A lot of that stuff could have been addressed. For example, say during initial scavenging, she navigates/notices a particular terrain feature (and the audience is made aware of it) she uses to escape the enemy fighters, a hail mary move that works because of her (pre-establish) "homefield advantage". Then, when back at the camp, the payment guy tries to recruit her as his co-pilot, which she refuses. Perhaps he's underpaying her just to try and force her into that. Afterwards, she briefly talks to a wookie at the camp, who brings it up that it'd be easier/smarter if she took the pilot job, but she brings up her desire to stay on planet. Then she goes to her living quarters, has her food while fiddling with a closed holocron, in a way that makes it clear she's drawn to it. When she falls asleep, the holocrom activates, with red tints. Just a few minor things to put the gun on the mantelpiece (though the last thing would require having planned her arc, so...). But bad writers...
Worth noting, though, that bad writers are bad regardless of the gender they're writing for. Finn is equally poorly written. They excuse him knowing stuff the plot wants him to know because "space janitor". The First Order is determined to recover this random no rank storm trooper because? He's super obviously not cut out to be a trooper, yet somehow made it to his current age while always being a trooper without any trouble. He also isn't capable enough as a trooper to be someone trained his entire life for this... and this guy brought up in this strict military setting is somehow the goofy/cowardly comic relief. Had they set him up as the aide of Phasma, now doing an obligatory tour of front line duty, he'd make a lot more sense... why he knows stuff, that they know he knows stuff and therefore he's a priority to get back, why he's able to hide the fact that he's cowardly (skilled aide, so has value, while avoiding the combat situations which would out him), why he's bad at fighting stuff, and so on, all while also increasing the stakes/emotional impact of him vs Phasma.
And this is important for people to cover. You can't just say, "Mary Sue!" and call it a day, because typically, it is far more than that. If you look at a bunch of generic Isekai trash, for example, the male lead is a Gary Stu, but beyond that, the female characters are usually not characters. They just have two traits... they simp for the protagonist and they check a box in the anime stock personality roster (older sister type, younger sister type, tsundere, yandere, etc.). The bad guys are usually so overly bad and evil that it is laughable. The main character will still be a focal point of criticism, because, well, main character, but it goes beyond that.
And that said, it is okay to like things that are flawed. Western audiences have lost the ability to be nuanced. It is either thumbs up and love it or thumbs down and hate it. Nothing in between. You can enjoy watching some Isekai power fantasy trash, but is it really a 5 out of 5? No, no it is not, yet plenty of that stuff will have a 4/5 or higher rating on Crunchyroll despite being nowhere near that level. Me, I enjoy The Force Awakens, despite its many flaws. Also quite like the movie Tank Girl. Meanwhile, there are a lot of movies that I can see the quality of that I do not like. Bladerunner 2049? Do not care for it, but it is beautifully shot. This video blames critics, but audiences are every bit as much to blame, because they want everything to be love/hate, with no nuance, no accepting of the flaws of something they like, or admitting that something they don't like does some things very well.
If they actually said in the movie that she was insanely powerful and no one knew why and she actually had to deal with the emotions of that, it would have been far more interesting to watch
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).
Yes most isekai protagonists are Mary sues, it's why I have never really been a fan of the genre.
Though I will say I have always thought if the term as gender neutral. Like jack ass. It's not a term just for women. It is a term coined from an infamous character that crystalized the trope, it just happened to be a female.
John Wick mowing down 100+ guys is ok. If it was a female character it would be called Mary Sue.
@Circurose no it wouldn't, and you know it. Beatrix Kiddo has never, not once ever been referred to as a Mary Sue. Neither has Ripley, Sarah Connor, Daenerys, Arya, Leia or Black Widow.
I could list more, but come on, you are arguing in such bad faith. It isn't the gender that's the issue, it's the writing and character.
Rey never fails at anything she tries, and the few times it appears she does, that ends up being the only way things would work out. Everyone loves her upon meeting her, the universe bends to make sure she is alright and unhurt or victorious.
Captain Marvel is ludicrously tragically lacking any personality. It's not that the character is female, it's that the character doesn't exist, there is no person there. Resulting in no struggles or growth which in turns means there is no connection from the audience.
Rose Tico was a contradiction from the moment she started. She attacked Finn for desserting but he wasn't a member. She stopped Finn from "saving the one's he loved". She did the opposite of what she said all the time.
There are just as many poorly written male characters, if not more, the problem is they are so forgettable, well, people forgot about them.
@@Demon_Necromaster to be fair to captain marvel l, its better to have no personality than whatever the fuck she had going in the comics
I also dont think her or rose qualify as mary sue
As for Rey... yeah, the moment that tioped her over into being a mary sue fornme was when Leia went to confort her over Han's death, instead of chewbacca.
@Maioly that's my point, these are female characters some beloved some despised only one example was a Mary Sue to draw comparison.
Rose and Marvel are not Mary Sues, they are horribly written characters that have no growth, development, through put.
All the beloved characters have struggles, failures, fears, desires, wishes, learn lessons and change through out their stories, true some for the worse.
But that's just it Deanerys, Arya, and Sarah Coonor were loved characters arguably more than the male counterparts of their media. But in the end the characters were written in a way that destroyed who audiences loved or betrayed all character logic/character story.
Did you expect the slave freeing innocent protecting Daenerys to go on a rage induced genocide and then became She-Hitler?
Did you expect Arya to completely abandone her sole drive and ambition for 10 seasons, literal feet from her goal?
Did you expect Sarah Conner to become a bitter hateful women who was resentful of being a mother, after spending years prepping and protecting John and getting him and herself ready fir a war no one knew was coming?
Did you expect Rey to ever lose or make a mistake, struggle, learn, doubt? Sure you did, did it ever happen? Not once, at least not once that was inevitably the needed path to take for victory regardless.
These are examples of BAD CHARACTER AND PLOT WRITING
Sure each one could have happened, Arya slowly see the repercussions of her obsessive revenge drive in others or how she is hurting thise she loves. Do we see that? Nope, she is the savior of mankind and then just thinks, Nah
Daenerys doesn't slowly become more and more ruthless and eventually become this blood frenzied monster. She is fine, then hungry, then psychotic apparently.
Luke is naive, optimistic, maybe a luttle arrogant at the end of Return of the Jedi, cut to TLJ and nope he is a bitter old man that gave up on the Jedi, the Force, and tried to kill his nephew because of bad dreams. Dispite having spent years trying to redeem a literal mass murderer.
You see it's not gender or skin color or any of that crap. It's these characters are horribly written and the stories are a string of contrivances and what luck coincidences just so yhe "hero" can be where the plot needs them when the plot needs them
And what's worse is evey single one of them would have been fine to end up where they were with just a little more thought and detail to show WHY
Even Rey, make her no one specials daughter, but trained by a former jedi or a force sensitive that rejected the ways of the jedi that maybe fought the Empire
Create reasons the jedi didn't come back, show repeated failures from Luke trying to train Jedi and the fail or fall to the Parkside or are manipulated by the new republic.
Give us anything that shows WHY THESE CHARACTERS ARE WHO THEY ARE
i think the reason people aren't drawn to nuanced/"fence-sitting" thinking is because, despite being most often a truer and more complete picture, it's usually really hard and complicated and maybe even depressing lol
It does provide a more broad perspective that would definitely change minds or, at least, help people understand their opposition's views.
I can understand that some would avoid fence sitting so as not to give the impression that they're indecisive or whatever. But then there's always the crowd who purposefully thrive in ignorance.
@@AnakinSkywakka one thing I've noticed is that, when it comes down to it, most arguments are between people who mostly agree on the things they're arguing about, but they're just both saying it wrong
@@netriosilver Just a slight misunderstanding, I reckon. I guess some folks just take things too personally or are too prideful to say so otherwise.
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
Many famous people get villinized by these idiots, it makes me a but uncomfortable when people do that to people with no evidence on wether they are actually bad.
I'd just like to mention Luke was already established to be a good pilot. That ship model he was messing with was a ship he actually owned. He just crashed it before the events of the movie. He even mentions that he could easily shoot wamp rats easily in it. The force just allowed him the edge to get the shot when other trained pilots couldn't.
Something i never understood tho is if that pilot experience is transferable like it sounds like he has the skill equivalent of a farm boy who takes his truck out frequently rather than a soldier used to combative flight, but i wont claim one way or another its been actual decades since ive seen the film
@@loganalvarez2985 I think it's transferable enough for him to join a fight that's meant to be a last-ditch effort. He was also just uniquely talented. It doesn't really establish if he was already better than the average fighter pilot at that time though. He could have possibly been less skilled on average compared to his peers. But his use of the force to align just one crucial shot is what first gave him fame. But later on, he was certainly one of, if not the best. But unclear on exactly how good he was in that movie.
@@loganalvarez2985 Well, yes, he is not a trained combat pilot, but what he had to do in A New Hope was not normal combat piloting- it was flying down a canyon and shooting a tiny target, which he had lots of practice with from shooting womp rats in a canyon. It's been a week or so since I last watched the movie, but I feel like I remember him not actually being too useful at fighting other fighters, and getting a lot of support from the other pilots.
People stating that Luke blowing up the Death Star makes him a Gary Stu completely miss the point of the movie.
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 👍.
It really is weird how "Guy Represented By Illustrated (Sometimes Furry) Avatar With Various Poses Who Complains About Minorities and Calls It Film Criticism" evolved into an entire, wildly successful genre of RUclips video. Like, it seems way too specific, but there are *so* many of them.
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
Is there anybody who actually thinks Roy talking about Orion is a plot hole in Bladerunner? Like... they canonically have space colonies in that movie, and the details arent specified. So why wouldn't it just be natural to assume they have interstellar FTL travel of some kind? There's nothing contradicting it. I think that was sort of a weird example to give of a "plot hole that doesnt matter" because it isnt even a plot hole.
It’s worse than that: Orion isn’t a star system, it’s a constellation, and one of the main places where that constellation is visible with its distinctive shape is our own solar system. Going to any of the stars in that constellation would make the line absolute nonsense - there’s no “shoulder” anymore, Orion’s shoulders are a shape created by our perspective here in our solar system.
The line only makes sense if Roy did NOT leave our system, which is the polar opposite of what Anthony said - Roy would have to be here in our solar system, looking in the direction of Orion, watching ships burn near him with Orion far off in the distance. It’s not a plot hole and actually makes perfect sense.
I think the point really is that with either of these explanations, or any supposed way it's a plot hole, whether it is or isn't doesn't matter
it's the emotion and what the scene is saying that matters, while the exact interpretation of his words may be interesting, it isn't useful in a thematic understanding
@@thewingedporpoise The problem is Ant is trying to use it as an example to support the idea of plot holes not really mattering.
My explanation indicates that it’s not a plot hole at all, and so if I’m right it’s not even an example of the point he’s trying to make, as it can’t damage the scene because it does in fact make sense, but even if I’m wrong and it is a plot hole, plot holes are not all created equal, and none of the people Ant is attacking have ever argued that they are. They need to be assessed on their impact on the plot and the characters. It DOES in fact matter what Roy says in this scene - if there’s some minor astronomical error, that’s one thing, but he could have said any number of other things in this scene instead and many of those possibilities would have also been plot holes and could have significantly undercut the emotional impact of the scene, such as if he said something obviously bizarre or stupid.
The emotion of the scene is created, supported, and sustained by the filmmakers paying close attention to the details they’re putting into their story to make sure everything actually works together. Plot holes, especially very damaging ones, speak to a lack of attention on the filmmaker’s part and can completely undermine the impact of the scene or even the whole film.
For example, the final battle of The Rise of Skywalker doesn’t work on hardly ANY level, because the rules are changing every second - the insane runaround with the navigation signal makes the space battle little more than senseless noise, because the stakes can just change on a dime and it’s almost mysterious that the First Order is able to lose when they could just redirect the signal to seemingly any ship after Pryde’s is taken out, while Rey’s fight with Palpatine goes from “kill me and I’ll possess you” to “wait I can be super powerful now, then I’ll chuck Kylo down this hole but not you for no clear reason” to “ENOUGH LIGHTNING TO BLOW UP THE RESISTANCE FLEET DAHAHAHAHA” to “oh no I can’t shoot enough lightning to overcome TWO lightsabers oh noooo you’re killing me and I’m not going to possess you even though I said I would :(“. The battle can’t maintain a focus or a throughline, the stakes are changing every few minutes and so tension is almost impossible to maintain, it’s just trying to rush so much shit past you that you don’t think about it. Compare that to Return of the Jedi, where all three segments of the battle have clear rules, clear objectives, and clear stakes, resulting in a much more satisfying battle that carries Luke’s character journey through to an emotionally cathartic conclusion.
i can't believe any of the Rey critics at the time cared to mention that Kylo Ren had been SHOT BY A LASER before he fought Rey.
She was still fighting with no training against someone who had plenty by luke skywalker himself. Also, it set up that fin was force sensitive, and just suddenly dropped that it was another thing that seemed to come out of nowhere . I think it'd be cool if they both fought him and actually fought him not fin getting taken out
But Kylo also defeated Finn right before Rey. This is also a point many forget. You would assume a trained soldier (especially when they are way better trained than the old stormtroopers) would do better than a scavenger. But the main reason it feels dumb is because it wasn't presented well. It was just very unsatisfying to see a girl use the force to defeat a powerful villain even though she doesn't know what it is. They presented her winning because of using the force, not because of him being too injured to fight. It's all about presentation.
@@christiannoriega428But she doesn't defeat him... She backs up for the entire duration of the fight, gets like one or two non-fatal hits, and when Kylo could easily have beaten her when getting up, they get separated by a ravine and the fight ends. And Kylo also had a totally different interested in both characters, he just saw Finn as a traitor to get rid off, when he didn't want to kill Rey, and only make her join them.
@InestimableFlorivore If they wanted to present that, she should have just been able to get a away for a moment so the earth could separate them. Or could have nicked him to cause him to back up so the earth can separate them. But when he gets slashed to the ground and barely gets up after the earth has already separated, he communicates that she would have won if the earth hadn't separated them. It may not be intentional, but that's what is suggested to the audience. They could have even shown Kylo succumbing to his injuries. Just have him wince and stumble from pain and exhaustion right before Rey takes advantage. How it's presented is what ruins the fight.
Yeah but those movies characters are all horrible so there’s that
When Anita's talking about Sheik/Zelda because Sheik kept the world from being totally consumed by Gannon's influence while Link slept in the spirit realm. Sheik was an active heroine and when she revealed herself to be Zelda Gannon immediately found out and captured her 1/3 of the artifact that can control reality that she had in her possession. And when She's freed from Gannon's control she gives link the Light arrows which are essential to defeating beast Gannon in every game. It's something only she can do. And in a lot of Zelda games Zelda shoots the arrows too. She's just flat out wrong.
Bad faith criticism has always been an issue. The toxic spill we have now where reaction videos, click bait, fan wikis and conspiracy theories have turned all film discussion into an exercise in pulling teeth really is something else though.
I don't think Siskle and Ebert were particularly good movie critics, but good god seeing people list wookiepedia articles as reasons the Acolyte hates white men almost makes me nostalgic for their condescending tone.
They were certainly better than whatever passes for "critics" on RUclips. Hell, they'd even vouch for films that most other contemporary critics were trashing that have since become more acclaimed and beloved years or decades after the fact than on release. They had some measure of _integrity,_ something these rage-baiters lack almost entirely.
even if you look back to Ebert he would sometimes give reviews that were completely off the mark by either not actually understanding the point of the film or misjudging the public response to it and then later going and issuing replacement reviews more in line with public opinion while trying to scrub the originals from public view
@@EPWillard Ebert's review of Blue Velvet, especially considering he wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, is particularly damning.
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
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?
Negative reviews don’t always miss the allegory, but when they do, it's often for political reasons. There's a difference between understanding why the author missed the point of their own scene, and you nitpicking a film and just saying yes or no to a story.
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
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 RUclipsrs. 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.
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...
The thing people needs to understand about Anita is that she doesn't speak for all women/feminists. As a black woman, Theres a lot of things about her criticisms i find to be hella problematic. It's the same when it comes to black activism, we're not all monolithic. For example; black people who support black people like Nina Turner, Cori Bush, and Jamal Bowman are not the same as the black people who support Shontel Brown, James Clyburn, and Hakeem Jeffries. We're just not the same. Feminists have different beliefs and a lot of times are in conflict with each other. Anita specifically, always came across as very sex negative SWERFy to me.
Totally agree about black liberals and leftists not being the same. Stands to reason that feminists aren't the same. I think Anita represents a very bitter vocal contingent of feminism.
If feminism doesn't dissociate from her, then yes, she does speak for all of them. This is how movements work
...what's the issue with sex-negativity?
It’s scary how much authority people give to someone screaming into a microphone
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.
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…
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.
Misinterpreting the media they are critsizing describes every nostalgia critic video
While my main form of entertainment is video games over more passive entertainment, I've noticed the same loss of media literacy there, too.
There are so many voices who just regurgitate the most popular opinions from Reddit because playing, paying attention, and finishing the game is too much work.
You can't get your review and impressions out the first day the game came out when it takes 40+ hours to finish. So they just copypasta. I'm not even a public figure, but someone threatened me in a comments section for saying I love Resident Evil 6 and thought it was better than 7. I asked, "Have you ever played 6?" And he responded, "No, but I didn't play it because it was shit anyway."
The dude was threatening violence over a game he never played, and I'm guessing he never touched 7 either. Our tribalism has evolved for the worse with the internet, as everyone wants to be with the in-crowd of their little bubble.
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
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 line "My God, it's full of stars," was not actually made up by the audience. It's from the book, but was never spoken in the movie. The sequel, though, does include a recording of Dave Bowman saying it, which is played multiple times.
Lily Orchard drives me up the wall, even as a progressive feminist. Her takes are the absolute worst. For example, the Adolescence of Utena isn't a remake of the series. It's a true sequel. Anthy is released at the end of the TV series, but in the movie she goes back for Utena herself and they escape together, and set everyone else free also. Like...*girl*, it's okay that you have zero media literacy or comprehension, but don't make that all of our problem. The fact that she riled up the Tumblrinas against Steven Universe so hard with bad takes and slapdash criticism based on the worst read of the content as possible still ruffles my feathers to this day.
42:00: Using the word "Nazi" to refer to any evil ruler is pretty gross and does trivialize the holocaust. Childrens media with Nazi allegories does exist but looking at a character who's a combination of the Borg Queen from Star Trek and the general idea of a wrathful goddess and referring to that as being a Nazi is kind of gross.
Not to mention the Gem home world is more a criticism of colonialism and how it often leads to genocide as a result of wanting resources and regarding the people who live there as lesser beings, than it is about a state doing ethnic cleansing.
@@Scarybug I think Homeworld was mostly a critique of social conservatism in general. The rebellion was fought to stop them from colonizing earth but the main focus is on the idea that while Homeworld forces gems into specific roles and expects perfect conformity to them, gems are unique individuals and should be able to live how they want.
yeah it's a wildly inaccurate criticism which is done in bad faith, but not necessarily because the core idea is wrong. it's just...they're NOT Nazis. that's not what they are. they're monarchical imperialists! they're like the rulers of the British Empire! calling them Nazis undermines the actual criticism of how they're handled in the narrative, for the sheer calculated purpose of sensationalism.
to be clear, Rebecca Sugar is a weakwilled liberal who wants us to forgive colonial oppressors and let them go without a choppy-chop. it's a shame that someone so stupid and dishonest has become the poster child for what is at its core a correct take. but that's my bias as a leftist and ardent critic of imperialism (and ESPECIALLY someone that kind of considers America an evil empire that needs to withdraw its troops from everywhere, stop selling arms to everyone, and stop trying to control everything).
@@dvillines26 "to be clear, Rebecca Sugar is a weakwilled liberal who wants us to forgive colonial oppressors and let them go without a choppy-chop" Steven uses his identity as the fourth member of the Diamond authority to dismantle their entire system, force the Diamonds to undo everything they did and even replace their monarchy with democratic elections. This happens off screen which isn't good at all, but it's definitely better than nothing and I don't think a "weak willed liberal" would bother to imagine the radical transformation of society at all. I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what the stereotype of a neoliberal is.
@@dvillines26 The British Empire were no better than Nazis tho. It's not downplaying Nazis. If anything making a fuss over it downplays the evil of colonialism. The US was founded on the same grounds as Nazi superiority style BS.
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 RUclips 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
I will never stop feeling guilty for taking Lily Orchards' Steven universe video seriously and absorbing it without a second thought
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.
You know we’re in for a good time when we open with bobvids.
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 seem to remember that there was an entire MOVIE where the entire Han Solo side of the plot was that he COULDN'T fix his ship's hyperdrive easily.
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.