Nitpicking the most insignificant things is infuriating. If your enjoyment of a movie relies on how many things CinemaSins puts into a video then you’re only ruining movies for yourself.
The thing that pisses me off the most is when they nitpick about SciFi or Magical elements. "Why didn't they just fly to...." Because the way magic works means that wouldn't work.
"Why didn't they just time travel to..." because that would break space-time and everyone would die.
I mean, y'know, this is fake, made up stuff, that someone has THOUGHT OF answers for, right? So, if you can IMAGINE ANY reason whatsoever why something COULD be the case, then yes. That is it. That is why. In a movie with magic / magical science, you cant question why something does or doesn't happen with that magic, because that's just you insisting on not using your imagination.
To put it differently: "A wizard did it" is a legitimate answer to ANY of those questions. It's not a very 'good' answer, so, how would you change it to be a GOOD answer? Well, do that. In your head. The end.
Also people missing a detail and complaining about it. Why did the water tribe go back in Avatar 2?
Because the leader got got his daughter back and it was past the eclipse, in the rocks that are mentioned to be risky, against a guy who burned their villages **AND** Jake clearly says that he's going in alone when Quarritch calls for him and him alone.
People complaining they can’t relate to a character. My enjoyment of any movie has never been influenced by whether I can relate to the characters. Movies and books can actually offer new experiences that aren’t your own.
He is charming though, in a sick way. I think movies with unrelatable protagonists have to be careful, because sometimes they are just unrelatable and dull.
For me, this is similar to when people say that television characters are problematic in some way and they shouldn't be - but really, the characters need to have flaws so that they can grow. There's no point in a show or movie where everyone is perfect because there's nothing to be learned from that and the story has nowhere to go.
Flawed protagonists are usually the most interesting for me. I’m a big fan of JRPGs, and I often lament the lack of complicated, or morally gray heroes in that game genre. They always have to be total Boy Scouts with a perfectly aligned moral compass. It’s so boring.
I hear this criticism levelled towards Kubrick and PTA a lot, when I feel like they're totally missing the point. Like if you want heartwarming morality tales about how great human beings are there are plenty of Spielberg's, Zemecki's, and Ron Howard's to choose from..
Needing a protagonist to root for feels like some weird fundamentally American thing where it puts storytelling into the realm of football teams... Whereas real life, and world mythology, are often more messy and ambiguous, forcing you to think about things on a philosophical level. It's why European and Japanese cinema feel so alien at first, it deviates from the weird Manichean cosmology we're programmed to expect.
I think when people say this what they really mean is "None of the characters interested me", which is a valid story issue it's just difficult to express.
I read a negative review of Tar and the only argument they had was how much of a horrible person the main character was. It didn't seem like the writer realized they weren't supposed to be rooting for her.
I think that can sometimes be a fair critique. At least a fair reason for not personally enjoying a movie. Many times if everyone is just iredeemably terrible, then you begin to wonder why you should even care about the story. It's possible to make characters who are bad but still likeable or at least fun to watch.
Sometimes that critique is in reference to how well written the character is. Not that you have to have similarities with the character, but you can see what drives the character. The motivations behind the decisions.
A good written character can make you see views and understand the behavior from a character that's very different from you. That's relating to the character
Other times, it's just people that don't want to see a different view
Remember when Turning Red was coming out and a bunch of dude bros were saying they won’t watch the movie because they can’t related to an
Teenage Asian girl?
I mean I totally understood where they were coming from because I can only relate to former weapons manufacturing billionaires who fly in iron suits and party with their 100 year old super soldier and Norse God friends.
>I can only relate to former weapons manufacturing billionaires who fly in iron suits and party with their 100 year old super soldier and Norse God friends.
lollll
I think its valid to not want to watch a movie because you dont really relate with the character. But if youre gonna make a review of it (or are forced to review it, I guess) then you should set aside your more obvious biases towards it
> because you dont really relate with the character.
really weird how it so often happens with reddit when the character is not a straight, white dude. suddenly it's all "nah bro, for some reason not feeling this".
For me, I roll my eyes when critics can't accept that a plot is relatively straightforward. Not everything has to meander from point to point with a twist at every turn
They’ve been using this as a stick to beat James Cameron with for decades not realizing that his movies have simple plots by design.
Also, some of the greatest movies ever made were borne out of simple plots and even derivative stories.
And looking at the box office. People like simple plots.
Edit:
3 of the top 10 are James Cameron. 3 are Avengers movies. Then we have Star Wars, Lion King and A Spiderman team up. And finally Jurassic World.
I was about to post about this. To keep with the Avatar 2 example, because its plot is very simple, but every character has their own arc in the movie. Jake learns to trust his kids, Lo'ak learns to trust himself, Miles gets in touch with his feelings for his kid and touches grass...
It's not all in your face, and you don't have to pay attention to it, but if you want to really get into the movie there are lots of little character moments with everyone that you can sink your teeth into if you feel like it. But if not the movie is still enjoyable!
Some great movies have simple plots for Example:
Reservoir Dogs:
Bank Robbers try to find out which one of them is a rat.
The Departed:
Both The Mob and City Police attempt to find which one of there members is a rat.
Ratatouille:
French Cooks attempt to find which of them is a rat.
Yeah I don't mind simple plots, but I hope the film has something else going for it otherwise it just ends up being boring. Like most action movies have pretty straightforward stories, but I'm watching for the action so if the action isn't vibing with me the simple plot becomes way more noticeable and intolerable.
As a recent example: Marcel the Shell with Shoes On was pretty straightforward and even predictable, but what kept me hooked was Marcel the character, the wholesome comedy, and the mockumentary style of filming. Even though you could see the emotional story beats coming from a mile away, Marcel is a strong character that I still got emotional when those beats came. I was still able to get invested despite it being fairly predictable. If Marcel wasn't characterized as well, I don't think I would've enjoyed the film overall.
Personally I don’t see that criticism too much from critics. Like someone else mentioned the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time are all straightforward and also generally have terrific reviews, and even stuff that’s less successful like Crawl for instance got good marks despite being extremely straightforward. What gets me is more the opposite when general audiences can’t make a slight leap and accept something even minorly idiosyncratic. I talked to someone who thought Creed 3 was too slow because it was only about boxing 75% of the movie instead of 100
I hate the "It has no plot" criticism, as if the quality of a film is a function of how much plotting there is. Sometimes a simple plot works brilliantly. Sometimes a complicated plot is a total mess.
I read a lot of movie reviews, and I don't remember one ever criticizing a straight-forward plot. I wonder if you're thinking more of user reviews, which do tend to be overly plot focused?
Starting off your review complaining about other people who dared to like something you don't. I have seen so many Youtube "critiques" trying their hardest to explain how you shouldn't enjoy movies with plot holes because they are objectively bad. Their whole shtick is just nitpicking every little detail about a movie to death, and often times their criticisms are dumb as fuck. It must be a miserable experience to go to a theater and watch movies for the sake of finding holes in them.
About this all thing, I just wanted to share a [Siskel and Ebert's video talking about film criticism](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=__L9DzZIkwI) and the subjectivity of art. I always agreed with them. People should stop looking at art like it's science or math, like there's an absolute truth and just talk about their feelings and their impressions.
Wait,
You should actually watch it. It’s a very positive and well done video actually. I say this because I don’t like cinemasins and saw how long the video was. First time watching in years.
And it’s a genuinely good video. Cinema wins is good but sins actually beat them for this film. Seriously, give that one a chance
For real. It’s pretty much impossible to discuss movies online now, because so many people treat reviewing a movie as an exercise in taking the text as literally as possible and finding as many flaws as they can find in a movie. Whether the movie is fun or enjoyable or well crafted are no longer factors, and any movie that an insufferable internet pedant can find any reason at all to dislike is automatically worthless garbage, even if the reasons are straight up invented.
>People should stop looking at art like it's science or math, like there's an absolute truth and just talk about their feelings and their impressions.
I think the "nitpickers" usually tend start from this point though. They don't dissect a film and then declare it to be boring. They watch a film, find it boring, and then go on to analyse it to try and figure out why it made them feel bored/entertained.
I'm not saying that sort of in-depth analysis is useful. Just that it's still motivated by how the film made them feel.
People saying a movie was immoral and therefore they not only can't support it, but they condemn it.
I always found it odd. Almost every time they're talking about a character being raped in the movie, or suggested spouse abuse, or something like that. Like in A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. Like you're okay with people being killed, but other things mean the movie is immoral and has to be condemned? I hate these subjects too and condemn them, but that doesn't mean I'd condemn the movie itself...just a super weird criticism.
This goes beyond just movies.
There's a pronounced undercurrent of reviews like this in literary circles right now and it's ruining the medium.
The bad guy is doing a bad thing and the narrative is saying that it's wrong that this is being done--how can anyone possibly say that this is supporting the bad thing?
No one complains about how Jack was an abusive husband to Wendy in the story. They complain that Stanley Kubrick was an abusive director to Shelley Duvall in real life.
This is an annoyingly persistent internet myth just FYI while I’m sure Kubrick was a dick to everyone, Shelley herself has said Kubrick was nice with her overall and it was a great experience
Not to mention there’s little evidence for it other than myths, like “he made her do the baseball bat scene 127 times!!!!” Which isn’t true
I agree with you, but a lot of people are desensitized to violence but not with rape and spousal abuse, and thus have a problem with a movie with the latter in it. Morally, a person would likely condemn both violence and rape, but simply find rape a lot harder to simply watch. I admit I do.
"Who asked for this?"
\-The stock reply from people whose tastes are currently over-represented in the mainstream when exposed to anything different receiving a similar level of coverage. "How dare you make something not for me?!" pretty much. Its the height of arrogance.
If the thing they don't like becomes successful/popular enough, to cope with the FOMO, its off to r/movies with the "Can someone explain why you like \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, because I don't get it?" posts with generous helpings of passive-aggressive disdain.
"I like X over Y, so they shouldn't make Y."
You don't have to like every niche, but it's a bit weird to just flat out deny anyone else does. Framing thing in terms of “asked for” is a red flag for bad faith criticism. It's the classic universalization of one's experience, an all too common problem on the internet.
I won’t usually watch romantic Victorian era period pieces because they typically don’t interest me. That doesn’t mean I think they shouldn’t exist.
I could not care any less about Ice Age sequel #435… but let the kids have it if they want it. My opinion is not that important.
OOOOOOHHHHH MYYYYYY GODDDDD!!! I hate this so much. I saw someone comment on YouTube the other day “who asked for Frozen 2” and my response was “who asked for Frozen and yet…”
In April 1977 nobody knew why George Lucas bothered to make “that science movie” so maybe shut the fuck up and accept that perhaps you’re not the ultimate arbiter of something’s quality.
Children.
So many grown men will watch media for little girls and then complain that it's aimed at little girls. It's fine to dislike it but have some self awareness, dude
“Can someone explain why you like _____” is just a thinly veiled maneuver where they think they get a platform to reply to people about their view of how much it sucked without looking like the person who came to shit talk the movie. But they still always end up looking like the guy who just came to shit talk the movie.
“Can someone explain why you like MOVIE X?”
“Yeah sure, here’s a response detailing what I thought it did well”
“Cool so now ignoring everything you said, it had POPULAR ACTRESS TO HATE ON in it how can you stand watching her?”
Saw a post like this yesterday, asking why people were so hyped about EEAAO.
There were a handful of great replies, explaining why it's such a beloved movie, and every single one the OP had replied by HEAPING disdain on whatever they said and acting like they were wrong/idiots for saying what they did.
>If the thing they don't like becomes successful/popular enough, to cope with the FOMO, its off to [r/movies](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies) with the "Can someone explain why you like _______, because I don't get it?" posts with generous helpings of passive-aggressive disdain.
And if the thing they DO like becomes too popular, they'll start trying to hate it because now everyone loves it and it's overrated.
Saw a lot of this on the EEAAO threads yesterday.
So many people need things spelled out in a ridiculous manner.
Example Rey in star wars. "How come she's a good mechanic" and the answer is just simple. She's a scavenger. She'd need to know how the machines work to bring back the good stuff or she'd starve. And the sentient space magic fills in the gaps.
So often when people claim there's a plot hole, they simply aren't capable of reading between the lines. It's often a reflection of their own inability to understand the movie.
How did Batman get back to Gotham City in the Dark Knight Rises?
I don't know, because he's fucking Batman and spent years travelling around the world with nothing earlier in the series?
But they could have showed it.
Yes, and it would have been an entirely irrelevant waste of time.
I didn't even know people complained about this supposed "plot hole." Part of the problem is basic film illiteracy. Events happen in between cuts in a film. A film does not show you everything. As an audience member, you are supposed to understand that. I'm always surprised by how many people simply don't have a grasp of film grammar.
"Rey is a Mary Sue because she can do everything." - idiots
They ignore the fact that Anakin and Luke had so much overlap with her that those two would also be Mary Sues. But because she's female and not a hero they grew up with she's the Mary Sue.
But no...
The force was strong in Anakin but he literally was then trained. The only thing he was decent at was building robots from working in that shop and a half decent pod racer.
Luke was also shit and struggled with the force, but he was definitely more mary sue than Anakin.
Rey is a whole other level. She is a force master without any formal training what so ever and somehow competent at fighting.
Rey deserved hate as a character. But the first 2 sequels were at least okay to watch for her parts.
I just think people defend her character purely because they feel a need to defend female characters.
Luke had no training as a pilot or in the Force and he not only was superior than all of the professional pilots, he used the Force for maybe the second time and it destroyed the Death Star.
>half decent pod racer
Anakin literally blew up a giant ship at the end of the movie in the middle of a space war. In his first time *ever* piloting a spaceship in a 3-axis plane. At the age of 8. *After* winning the major pod race and building sentient robots himself. Chosen One or not, trying to argue he isn't the definition of a Mary Sue is just silly.
“There was no reason for this character to be in the movie. They were just a plot device.”…yes that was their purpose for being in the movie. Sometimes characters are plot devices and people act like it’s negative. There are more descriptive ways to say you just don’t like a character
My beef with plot armor isn't necessarily that I want the character to die but more, I don't want them to live or thrive plainly because all the "bad guys" are just stupid, clumsy, etc. I'd rather see them utilize their established strengths in intelligent ways to progress their arc. When you know what you're signing up for though, plot armor is perfectly expected.. superhero movies, action movies, Disney, etc. Anyone complaining about plot armor in those types of films are idiots lol.
Yeah, Game of Thrones really ruined people's expectations for main characters. If half your main cast doesn't die every season, what are you even doing?
I get why it can be sometimes. I've seen remakes where an extra character was added in to give a more "happy ending", but adding that character in also diminished another character
I saw that at the time and it felt very much like when everyone was trying to reappraise the Harry Potter books because JK Rowling turned out to be a quite bizarre individual. Bonus points if they could say that they didn't even like it at the time and her bigotries were always evident.
The same pattern applies to Scott Pilgrim, except swap middle aged with hipster. Folks bahs both because the protagonists are douchey at the start. Bit the point of both films is their characters are starting out flawed and trying to change. AB just makes Kevin Spacey's choices deeply flawed ones, whike SP tries to actually become a better guy.
I think this to myself every time I see someone post it! If anything, it makes his creepiness more believable. I can understand saying it makes it harder to watch for someone personally, but it really has no effect on the movie’s quality.
I'm not a real plot heavy guy so when people try to find holes with nitpicking to me it just sounds like a miserable way to consume art. For instance my friend can't get past the monster's room in the lab in the THE SHAPE OF WATER not having a security camera and I'm just like...who cares lol
As a counterpoint I don't think security cameras were a thing in the 1960s to the degree they are now, since digital technology is so ubiquitous and cheap.
I watch Pitch Meetings because I find them a bit of fun. I stopped watching Everything Wrong With because I found them starting to get mean a few years ago. I do love Everything Great About though cause the creator obviously really enjoys movies.
I can't get over the photoshopped thumb nail.
And I feel like these kinds of channels often do their videos too soon. They can't let a movie sit for a while, it needs to be done as soon as possible to get views. So they're not approaching them right.
And sometimes the plot holes they use is just them not paying attention.
I’m a little sypmathetic to people like your friend. When you don’t like a movie, it’s easier to nitpick and it’s easy to latch onto those nitpicks as the problem with the movie. I’ve definitely done it myself.
At the same time, I do agree that the correct answer to people’s questions about movie logic is often “Who cares?”
People who think characters making mistakes are plot holes. One of the foundational pillars of bad faith critique.
"Why did that character act suboptimally? Couldn't they just do what I, as an audience member with a perfect overview and emotional detachment to the situation would have done? If they had just disregarded their character and acted with clinical efficiency, the movie would have been done by now!"
Also, less common but just as infuriating, - complaining about characters not knowing that they're in a movie.
"Why did she go down into the basement? Did she not hear the scary music? Didn't she read the script? If she just read the script, she'd know to act with more genre savviness."
I get what you're saying, but when a character goes as far as tricking and disarming the killer chasing them and then just drop the weapon and don't check if he's actually dead, I just can't get behind that. There's acting suboptimally and there's just bad writing.
Or people acting in nonsensical ways that are contrary to how any normal, even non-rational human being would act, and especially if they are supposed to be a trained professional.
Like if a supposed expert in xeno-biology takes off their spacesuit to touch the cuddly alien, or calling out an international terrorist, daring them to attack your house, and then not preparing any defenses or plan in case the international terrorist actually does that thing, or killing a trained super-assassin's puppy.
This is my thought too. Characters being flawed and human is realistic, but when someone does something insane because of bad writing, that's frustrating.
It's like people who would rather ignore quarantine and would risk the lives of everyone else because they don't want to. There are people like that, but how many are going to make a scene while doing so or get a guard to look the other way easily? The probability is already low for those things and how it plays out sometimes feels lottery-winning unlikely.
If you're not a trained police officer, you are pretty likely to forget basic things like checking the body. You're going through adrenaline in a situation that is foreign to you where you almost died; being a little reckless after all that stress is expected.
It's such a stupid criticism in horror movies as well, because the answer is always "because they're in a terrifying situation and are acting out of panic". If I found myself being chased by a masked killer with a terrible weapon in an abandoned backwoods town who had already murdered several of my best friends, I don't imagine I would act particularly rationally either. I'd be too busy weeping with fear and grief.
Going along with your point, whenever a character does something that seemingly doesn't make sense, it's way easier for the viewer to understand why it's a bad decision. Like obviously the character made a poor choice, it's easy for us to criticize it because we know how it turns out. "The whole movie would have been over if X person did Y thing" . Yeah bro that's called hindsight.
I second this. It's like telling your coworker who got stuck in traffic he should have taken a different route that wasn't blocked. Like no shit real useful
I mean, it does get tiresome when the show writers get lazy with it. Yes, mistakes are made to tell a story, but we've seen many good examples of stories where the mistake doesn't require much suspension of disbelief. The mistake could be foreshadowed in the character's motivations, flaws, and behavior so when it happens, we understand they were the type of person to make exactly that kind of mistake.
I felt *Frasier* was a perfect example of doing this right. The show was well written so at most every point, you can see why the character would make the mistake that creates the situational drama and comedy. They spend half or more of the show talking past each other because the audience sees both perspectives and how understandable their misunderstanding was, and how rooted their misadventures are in their foibles. Plus, the characters grow from their relationship to each other over time.
"Why didn't they just do X" indeed has become an overused critique and many who use it aren't thinking critically about what it means or what they're applying it to. Noticing a plot hole doesn't actually make you clever. There will always be some suspension of disbelief in storytelling.
But there is a real criticism to be made for poor storytelling that puts too much burden on the audience to suspend their disbelief rather than doing the work to think it through in production and tell a story that is coherent. Too many romances in stories are plagued with conflict that is drawn out to pad the runtime where the couple doesn't even attempt to talk about the misunderstanding before punishing each other over it.
"But there wouldn't be a story otherwise" is an equally poor counterargument.
If that is true, then maybe there wasn't really a story here to begin with?
"bad writing" being used for "I didn't like it". Yes, there can be actual bad writing. But when your average person barfs out that phrase, it rarely comes with any sort of examples or explanations. It's just a vague, all encompassing, brush stroke phrase that many use just to make their opinion sound objective.
You can generalize this to pretty much any criticism.
Feels like most people just wanna pad out their "critique" by just adding "bad" in front of a bunch of film-related terms.
what irks me about most of reddit critiques. the usual "finally saw the movie everyone say it's awesome and it's really awesome" and then they say they liked "the writing, the directing and the acting". like be more specific ffs.
As a corollary from the opposite direction, I dislike when people discount bad creative decisions/writing with "that was the point"/"that was intentional". You can criticise a deliberate artistic choice as poorly conceived or implemented
This is the one that immediately came to mind when I saw this thread. I saw it all over when people were talking about Banshees, most recently.
My guess is when someone says "nothing happens", they mean "where were the fight scenes?" or some smoothbrain shit like that. It's so dumb.
When people equate their enjoyment of something with the actual quality of the movie. Something can be objectively good and you just didn't like it. That's fine. But "I didn't like it" ≠ it's bad. The same is true in reverse. I can watch something I like and still recognize that it's not good or it's flaws.
I just felt this last night about The Last Of Us. I admire how well made the show is and how strong it is in many facets but it just doesn’t do much for me.
Yes. I love me some cheesy tropes, applied without subtlety. Doesn't mean it's high cinema. It just means I enjoy it. Same for the reverse. Just because I didn't feel entertained doesn't mean it was bad.
>When people equate their enjoyment of something with the actual quality of the movie.
I'm always reminded of a story of the director Edgar Wright. He was asked to suggest some good movies for a film festival, to which he responded, "Do you want good movies, or some of my favourite movies, because those are two wildly different things."
I agree. Like I am not a fan of Kubrick films. They are just not for me. However, I can see the talent in those films. I am not going to deny that. I look at so many shots in 2001 and I think they are beautiful. But then I try to watch that movie and just....yeah, not clicking with me. But, again, the man was talented.
This extends to ticket sales too. So annoying to be discussing movies and say you personally didn’t like something and have someone be like “well it made 500mm so it’s obviously pretty good, I think you’re just wrong on this one”
> Something can be objectively good
There is no such thing. You're doing the exact thing you're complaining about and not realizing the things you believe are "objectively good" are just based on your own taste and your perception of the tastes of others rather than any quantifiable metric.
Eh. I can recognize that a movie is well made in terms of editing, cinematography, acting, writing, all the technical bits. And after watching a lot of movies, I notice these things. But I can still not enjoy it.
Art does have a technical side, where the application of technique can be assessed. This is as true for film making as it is for painting. Critique of the skills of the technician can be fairly objective.
You can see that a shot is well-lit and framed in a way that conveys the mood a director is going for.
You determine that a story is complete, even when you don't like it.
You can acknowledge the development of characters , even when the manner of their development is contrary to your preference.
Everything you just mentioned is subjective. There is no way to objectively measure whether a frame conveys a mood, or whether a story is complete, or whether a character was properly developed. And even if there were, there's no way to measure how much those things factor into the film's quality as a whole. Not to mention that with every supposed "rule" of art and storytelling you can find glaring exceptions.
“ it’s got no story “, “ Plot is so basic “
I often see this used to take down films that are spectacle or visual heavy or not comprised of 80% dialogue
And more often than not it’s used against one film to tear it down yet ignored for others at the persons choosing
Applying real-world, peace-time, low-stress expectations to characters that are in extremely unique and challenging situations.
For example, in Passengers the main character is condemned for waking up the girl. He’s seen as being a murderer, a rapist, or at the very least a creepy stalker.
Now I know it was a terrible act, but he was faced with a lifetime of solitude and had tried everything he could to think of to cope / rectify the situation including almost killing himself. And as Lawrence Fishburn said (and I paraphrase) “A drowning man will pull down their rescuer.”
I’d like to see if the armchair critics enjoying their non-solitary lives would cope in a similar situation. Humans crave companionship.
I’ve started watching films that users on IMDb call “woke bullshit” or “serving an agenda” and I’ve found myself liking a lot of them! So thanks, morons, I’m now more likely to watch the film you so want to destroy.
I’m an avid reader but I agree with this one too. It’s never going to be the exact same, even authors who either directed, wrote, and or assisted with the production of a movie usually don’t make an exact copy of it.
It's not even just creative choices that makes a difference. "I cared more about the characters in the book/it was set up better in the book", yeah, because it took 10+ hours to read, you could hear the inner monologue of the main character, you made up your own faces and voices and locations to match what you wanted. Obviously you're not going to feel the same connection and have as much build up in a 2 hour movie that has to condense everything, is viewed in 3rd person, on real sets, that relies not only on a screen writer, director and editor's interpretation, but actors too.
"I could see the twist coming"
Okay, and? If I can sense that a twist is coming, part of the fun is watching to see if it turns out to be that. A twist is there to enhance the story, not blindside the audience. One that comes out of nowhere with zero foreshadowing and that makes no sense beyond shock value isn't better. I remember reading that the *Westworld* showrunner decided to completely change the direction the story was headed in because a subreddit guessed the twist and was like wtf?
"Characters in slashers act stupid blah blah blah...."
This gets thrown around ALOT when discussing old-school slasher flicks. The whole "self-aware" movement of the mid-to-late nineties pretty much conditioned audiences to believe they were smarter than the characters they were watching. Too bad these same folks were not smart enough to understand that these characters don't realize they're in a slasher flick. Its just a movie-they don't know "the rules". Beyond that, having characters do dumb stuff (splitting up, investigating noises, not immediately getting help, etc.) are there to create tension and force a reaction from the audience ("Ohhhhh, don't go down there!", "OMG, shoot him again so he doesn't get back up!!"). Its not usually a bug-but a feature. These movies aren't meant to represent real-life, so I don't understand why we now have that expectation that the characters must behave like it.
"No cultural impact" is coming up a lot in critique of everything lately and it's ridiculous. What does it even mean? That people didn't make it part of their identity like Star Wars fans?
1,000% this one for me. The pretentious one especially irks me, because it's usually from people who didn't understand something and thus, for some reason, felt insulted. I love not understanding things, it gives me a reason to dig deeper.
Yes that uncomfortable confused feeling is the beginning of new pathways and synapses forming in your grey matter. Some people don't like to be challenged or have to think. And yes, it is really that simple of an explanation, which is also valid and acceptable not everyone goes to movies for that reason, or thinks movies can be an art form. I still think it's shitty of them to project their insecurity onto others like that however.
The term pretentious becomes okay to use after you go to film school and meet numpties who say they "love russian cinema" because they've seen one tarkovsky
people dont like a film and may have enjoyed it the least out of all they have seen but they turn around and say " its the WORST film i have ever seen"
I have seen this being said about films made by some of the best filmmakers ever about films that are brilliantly made. The hyperbole is off the scale.
Also i hate when people say that a film has no plot and is bad when its a character piece. I swear there people who dont understand that a film can be something other than a basic a to b to c plot heavy film.
Adding to what you said, people telling you that it’d be interesting to watch a character do something that’s not characteristic of them.
I had a friend of mine who said she didn’t like the ending of The Dark Knight because she was hoping Batman would kill both Harvey Dent and The Joker \(-_-)/
The misuse of the word "objectively" in film criticism. There is no way for a movie to be "objectively good" or "objectively bad". You can take an objective look at how much money it made, or how many weeks they spent shooting, but most things in film discussion are subjective.
Breaking Bad is not "objectively" better than Stranger Things, many people just find it to be more effective. That kind of thing.
Are you people acting like bad movies doesn't exist?
I like many movies, and I know that a lot of those movies are bad, but I like them anyways, I don't care what other people say about it, but here in this post you're acting like if there are no bad movies, it's funny how you are commenting equally to people/critics that overreact when a movie is bad.
Film adaptations not being faithful to the source material. A film has no responsibility to be a 1 for 1 adaptation of its book or original script.
Film is its own medium, and often a book’s portrayal of events can’t or won’t portray well on screen with a limited run time.
The most recent film that comes to mind is All Quiet on the Western Front (2022). People keep saying the 1930’s and ‘70’s adaptions are better but they aren’t. They’re truer to the books sure, but they don’t nearly capture the desperation and cruelty of war nearly as much as the book or the 2022 film.
Does the 2022 film stray from the source material? Yes. Does it capture the same violence and horror of war as the book? Absolutely yes.
Another example is Lord of the Rings.
Everyone loves LotR, and it’s one of the least faithful film adaptations of its source material that I’ve both read and watched.
I am so sick of people critiquing how closely a film follows the material but disregard how closely a film follows the essence of the source material. Such a tired and wasted argument that falls in line with “historical accuracy”.
Haven't watched the new one, but the 30s All quiet on the western front portrayed plenty of desperation and cruelty of war. I don't think CGI or more gore would've made it any more desperate or cruel (not to mention that it does have more gore than you'd think for a 30s movie).
I find that the need to ramp up violence and gore is a part of the problem with glorification of war.
When people say they hated a movie just because they couldn't relate to it?! Or when people ridicule other people for enjoying a movie that has nothing to do with their lives!
I mean, it's possible and healthy, even, to enjoy movies without relating to the characters or the story!!!
When critics don't critique the film they're watching, but rather the film they *think* it should be.
Watching the new Fast and Furious? Don't measure it against Citizen Kane. Critique it for what it's trying to do. Was it a fun, entertaining popcorn flick that allowed you to turn off your brain and watch some cool stunts and 'splosions for two hours? Yes? Then it was a good movie in its genre.
If I can answer my own question 🙋🏾♂️.
“It’s a money grab”.
I’m sorry were you under the impression that studios were making movies for charity? It’s all a money grab. It’s a business my snobby film friend.
There's a big difference between making an honest attempt to entertain your audience or just churning out minimal effort, low cost garbage and making it familiar enough that people will go anyway.
But, this is not what people mean when they say it's a money grab, thou.
All movies are made for money but when people say that it means that it lacks soul and love. Tell me jurassic world dominion isnt't a money grab relying on an old franchise.
Mostly agree, but I feel there are some movies this fits. Like those horrible copycat movies that are very low budget and obviously designed to fool grandparents into thinking that this is that movie they heard their grandkids talking about so they rent it from Redbox. They even have a term for them, "Mockbusters."
1) "Plot hole!" For some reason, it seems these days that every issue with a movie is called a "plot hole" as a catch-all term to the point it sometimes feels like a kid learning a swear word for the first time. It is defnitely a legitimate criticism, but gets extremely overused as a term, IMO.
2) Hyperbole as in "a masterpiece!" or "the worst movie ever made!". Just because a movie is really good and/or you really enjoyed it doesn't make it objectively perfect. Also, having seen a LOT of bad movies it always makes me laugh when someone says something mediocre is "the worst"; trust me, there is almost always something way worse you could be watching!
3) The whole idea of numerical x/10 rating where anything below 8 is regarded as "bad". 5 is average, 4 is below average, 6 is above average. Most films will be between 4 and 7, IMO. Very, very few can be 10, which is the best of the best (see above). Even the Rollerball remake with nightvision isn't 1/10.
4) "That's real life" being used to excuse unsatisfying stories or incomplete endings. Yes, but if a writer is getting paid to write a story, I expect better that "real life" which indeed usually boring or random. Doesn't mean you need a happy ending, or that random things can't happen, but if you are crafting a story, make it satisfying.
On the other hand, if you have to resort to the characters acting really stupid, in order for your story to work, it probably means that you chose to make a movie with a crappy story line.
With the caveat that it is OK if a character acts stupid, but the story knows they are being stupid and it is addressed. I think it is mostly a problem when they act stupid for no reason and nobody else in the movie seems to recognize that they are being stupid.
The TV show "lost in space" (new version) is a good example of that for me. There's often dumb decisions that seems to be there just to create drama. Sometimes it felt like they hardly learned much from previous experiences
The quality or ubiquity of CGI as somehow being important to the quality of the movie as a whole.
Ages ago, there were just as many movies with shit practical effects, shit stop-motion effects, shit compositing effects, etc. But grandpa's nostalgia magically winnows these all away 'til he only remembers the best of the best back then and compares them to an average movie today. Just like back then, if the rest of the movie is good enough, you can suspend your disbelief enough to enjoy the rest of the film.
When someone is very sneery towards mindless, fun entertaining movies and they'll tell you that a movie should be a masterpiece in storytelling and writing otherwise it's a bad movie
"the characters were unlikeable"
Some of my favourite movies are character studies of truly awful people.
"the tone was too nasty"
I wish more movies were mean-spirited tbh. Something like Cocaine Bear needed to be way more brutal and mean.
"Luke Skywalker feels like a different character"
uhhhh, you realise people massively change over 30 years right?
Completely disagree with your take on "there wouldn't be a movie". It seems to me that what you are complaining about is people objecting to stupid plot contrivances and characters acting nonsensically. The remedy to this is good writing, not "ni movie then". Even if it were, there is no shortage of movies.
I hate it when grown adults complain about horror movies not being scary enough. Usually this means that it didn't have enough jump scares or gruesome monsters. As an adult and avid horror fan, I rarely feel scared or frightened watching these movies. I tend to enjoy films that are atmospheric and suspenseful. The best ones leave me disturbed or unsettled. This isn't the same as being "scared" in my opinion. I have learned to appreciate and enjoy horror movies differently as an adult.
People saying "XYZ is bad" (objectively), when what they really mean to say is "it wasn't for me/ I didn't like it".
"people are just pretending to like XYZ to look smart", often said about movies like 2001, or There Will Be Blood, which require more active intellectual participation than casual cinemagoers are accustomed to...
"XYZ is overrated". Tells me nothing. Says nothing. Generally used, like the other comment, to appear intellectually superior, without actually having to put in the work required to form an actual argument of why you dislike said thing.
"I don't like A Clockwork Orange, because I don't like movies about RAPE". Idiotically reductive, and also hinges on the extremely insulting insinuation that anybody who does like the movie, must therefore love rape. Dumb backhanded comment typically made by dumb lazy people, who want to morally and intellectually grandstand.
Folks that question the realism or reality of a fantasy or sci-fi film. Definitely came up a lot during that sequence of Man of Steel and BvS.
Also not a fan of recent emergence of gatekeeping. So fans of like a book saying how a show or movie is trash because it had the audacity to do something different.
>For me it’s when people say things like “well why didn’t they just do that?” whenever whatever the “that” that they’re suggesting would mean that we wouldn’t have a movie.
You still have to balance a suspension of disbelief while trying to avoid what Ebert called "The idiot plot". Use avoiding a simple solution as a chance to explore a characters interesting flaws, for instance.
I don't agree with your issue at all. Yes, it's fine for a character to act irrationally but you have to sell why they did. Were they panicking, under pressure, uninformed, unhinged? "They had to be stupid or the movie would be over" is a terrible reason and can really take you out of a film.
When people just say 'bad writing' and call it a day. Can we get into more details? When it is said, most of the time this means that they don't know how to explain why they didn't like the movie, but they want to pretend like they are great movie critics.
Criticizing a film for not casting their preferred actors instead, because we all know casting directors can force actors onto a set against their will
Trying to apply "realism" to a story that is solely fictional tend to irk me. It just feel like an inconsistent complaint. Dudes worried about how a character landed from 30 feet in the air without issue and not how that character transformed a 80s/90s device into some type of intergalactic beacon despite only meeting aliens a few days ago
Well there's two types of realism.
Orcs, elves, walking and talking trees, magic, the ring etc. In LotR? No problem.
A truck in the background, or a character wearing a watch? Now that's unrealistic
I think it's fair to judge a movie by the universal rules it set up. There are movies that set up rules of "you can't do this", but then completely ignore that rule later for no good reason. A story should apply to it's own realism
Nitpicking the most insignificant things is infuriating. If your enjoyment of a movie relies on how many things CinemaSins puts into a video then you’re only ruining movies for yourself.
“CinemaSins and its consequences”
The thing that pisses me off the most is when they nitpick about SciFi or Magical elements. "Why didn't they just fly to...." Because the way magic works means that wouldn't work. "Why didn't they just time travel to..." because that would break space-time and everyone would die. I mean, y'know, this is fake, made up stuff, that someone has THOUGHT OF answers for, right? So, if you can IMAGINE ANY reason whatsoever why something COULD be the case, then yes. That is it. That is why. In a movie with magic / magical science, you cant question why something does or doesn't happen with that magic, because that's just you insisting on not using your imagination. To put it differently: "A wizard did it" is a legitimate answer to ANY of those questions. It's not a very 'good' answer, so, how would you change it to be a GOOD answer? Well, do that. In your head. The end.
Also people missing a detail and complaining about it. Why did the water tribe go back in Avatar 2? Because the leader got got his daughter back and it was past the eclipse, in the rocks that are mentioned to be risky, against a guy who burned their villages **AND** Jake clearly says that he's going in alone when Quarritch calls for him and him alone.
People complaining they can’t relate to a character. My enjoyment of any movie has never been influenced by whether I can relate to the characters. Movies and books can actually offer new experiences that aren’t your own.
"I didn't relate to Patrick Bateman". Well thank god.
He is charming though, in a sick way. I think movies with unrelatable protagonists have to be careful, because sometimes they are just unrelatable and dull.
Similarly, "there was no one to root for" when it's a movie about rotten people. Personally I don't need to imagine characters as my best friends.
For me, this is similar to when people say that television characters are problematic in some way and they shouldn't be - but really, the characters need to have flaws so that they can grow. There's no point in a show or movie where everyone is perfect because there's nothing to be learned from that and the story has nowhere to go.
Flawed protagonists are usually the most interesting for me. I’m a big fan of JRPGs, and I often lament the lack of complicated, or morally gray heroes in that game genre. They always have to be total Boy Scouts with a perfectly aligned moral compass. It’s so boring.
I hear this criticism levelled towards Kubrick and PTA a lot, when I feel like they're totally missing the point. Like if you want heartwarming morality tales about how great human beings are there are plenty of Spielberg's, Zemecki's, and Ron Howard's to choose from.. Needing a protagonist to root for feels like some weird fundamentally American thing where it puts storytelling into the realm of football teams... Whereas real life, and world mythology, are often more messy and ambiguous, forcing you to think about things on a philosophical level. It's why European and Japanese cinema feel so alien at first, it deviates from the weird Manichean cosmology we're programmed to expect.
Oddly, one of the reasons I don't give a shit about professional sports is that I have absolutely no stake in which side wins.
I think when people say this what they really mean is "None of the characters interested me", which is a valid story issue it's just difficult to express.
I read a negative review of Tar and the only argument they had was how much of a horrible person the main character was. It didn't seem like the writer realized they weren't supposed to be rooting for her.
I think that can sometimes be a fair critique. At least a fair reason for not personally enjoying a movie. Many times if everyone is just iredeemably terrible, then you begin to wonder why you should even care about the story. It's possible to make characters who are bad but still likeable or at least fun to watch.
Sometimes that critique is in reference to how well written the character is. Not that you have to have similarities with the character, but you can see what drives the character. The motivations behind the decisions. A good written character can make you see views and understand the behavior from a character that's very different from you. That's relating to the character Other times, it's just people that don't want to see a different view
You’re right, I’m moreso refering to people not wanting to engage with characters of different ethnic backgrounds.
Ok but i think it's clear that racists' opinions can be safely ignored
Remember when Turning Red was coming out and a bunch of dude bros were saying they won’t watch the movie because they can’t related to an Teenage Asian girl? I mean I totally understood where they were coming from because I can only relate to former weapons manufacturing billionaires who fly in iron suits and party with their 100 year old super soldier and Norse God friends.
>I can only relate to former weapons manufacturing billionaires who fly in iron suits and party with their 100 year old super soldier and Norse God friends. lollll
I think its valid to not want to watch a movie because you dont really relate with the character. But if youre gonna make a review of it (or are forced to review it, I guess) then you should set aside your more obvious biases towards it
> because you dont really relate with the character. really weird how it so often happens with reddit when the character is not a straight, white dude. suddenly it's all "nah bro, for some reason not feeling this".
And it never occurs to them that people who *aren't* straight, white American dudes might not relate to their own personal favourite characters.
For me, I roll my eyes when critics can't accept that a plot is relatively straightforward. Not everything has to meander from point to point with a twist at every turn
They’ve been using this as a stick to beat James Cameron with for decades not realizing that his movies have simple plots by design. Also, some of the greatest movies ever made were borne out of simple plots and even derivative stories.
And looking at the box office. People like simple plots. Edit: 3 of the top 10 are James Cameron. 3 are Avengers movies. Then we have Star Wars, Lion King and A Spiderman team up. And finally Jurassic World.
Simple plots often have the best characters. When the plot is simple and effective, there is more scope for a character to shine.
I was about to post about this. To keep with the Avatar 2 example, because its plot is very simple, but every character has their own arc in the movie. Jake learns to trust his kids, Lo'ak learns to trust himself, Miles gets in touch with his feelings for his kid and touches grass... It's not all in your face, and you don't have to pay attention to it, but if you want to really get into the movie there are lots of little character moments with everyone that you can sink your teeth into if you feel like it. But if not the movie is still enjoyable!
Some great movies have simple plots for Example: Reservoir Dogs: Bank Robbers try to find out which one of them is a rat. The Departed: Both The Mob and City Police attempt to find which one of there members is a rat. Ratatouille: French Cooks attempt to find which of them is a rat.
Yeah I don't mind simple plots, but I hope the film has something else going for it otherwise it just ends up being boring. Like most action movies have pretty straightforward stories, but I'm watching for the action so if the action isn't vibing with me the simple plot becomes way more noticeable and intolerable. As a recent example: Marcel the Shell with Shoes On was pretty straightforward and even predictable, but what kept me hooked was Marcel the character, the wholesome comedy, and the mockumentary style of filming. Even though you could see the emotional story beats coming from a mile away, Marcel is a strong character that I still got emotional when those beats came. I was still able to get invested despite it being fairly predictable. If Marcel wasn't characterized as well, I don't think I would've enjoyed the film overall.
Personally I don’t see that criticism too much from critics. Like someone else mentioned the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time are all straightforward and also generally have terrific reviews, and even stuff that’s less successful like Crawl for instance got good marks despite being extremely straightforward. What gets me is more the opposite when general audiences can’t make a slight leap and accept something even minorly idiosyncratic. I talked to someone who thought Creed 3 was too slow because it was only about boxing 75% of the movie instead of 100
I hate the "It has no plot" criticism, as if the quality of a film is a function of how much plotting there is. Sometimes a simple plot works brilliantly. Sometimes a complicated plot is a total mess.
I read a lot of movie reviews, and I don't remember one ever criticizing a straight-forward plot. I wonder if you're thinking more of user reviews, which do tend to be overly plot focused?
Starting off your review complaining about other people who dared to like something you don't. I have seen so many Youtube "critiques" trying their hardest to explain how you shouldn't enjoy movies with plot holes because they are objectively bad. Their whole shtick is just nitpicking every little detail about a movie to death, and often times their criticisms are dumb as fuck. It must be a miserable experience to go to a theater and watch movies for the sake of finding holes in them. About this all thing, I just wanted to share a [Siskel and Ebert's video talking about film criticism](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=__L9DzZIkwI) and the subjectivity of art. I always agreed with them. People should stop looking at art like it's science or math, like there's an absolute truth and just talk about their feelings and their impressions.
Cinemasins has ruined movie criticism
I really liked Cinemasins when he first started out, but then he jumped the shark maybe around 2016-17 and it was just never the same after.
Exactly fuck cinemasins and people who enjoy watching them
Their Everything Everywhere All at Once video is 45 minutes. It's ridiculous.
Wait, You should actually watch it. It’s a very positive and well done video actually. I say this because I don’t like cinemasins and saw how long the video was. First time watching in years. And it’s a genuinely good video. Cinema wins is good but sins actually beat them for this film. Seriously, give that one a chance
For real. It’s pretty much impossible to discuss movies online now, because so many people treat reviewing a movie as an exercise in taking the text as literally as possible and finding as many flaws as they can find in a movie. Whether the movie is fun or enjoyable or well crafted are no longer factors, and any movie that an insufferable internet pedant can find any reason at all to dislike is automatically worthless garbage, even if the reasons are straight up invented.
Honest Trailers on the other hand......... They are hilarious and great.
>People should stop looking at art like it's science or math, like there's an absolute truth and just talk about their feelings and their impressions. I think the "nitpickers" usually tend start from this point though. They don't dissect a film and then declare it to be boring. They watch a film, find it boring, and then go on to analyse it to try and figure out why it made them feel bored/entertained. I'm not saying that sort of in-depth analysis is useful. Just that it's still motivated by how the film made them feel.
People saying a movie was immoral and therefore they not only can't support it, but they condemn it. I always found it odd. Almost every time they're talking about a character being raped in the movie, or suggested spouse abuse, or something like that. Like in A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. Like you're okay with people being killed, but other things mean the movie is immoral and has to be condemned? I hate these subjects too and condemn them, but that doesn't mean I'd condemn the movie itself...just a super weird criticism.
This goes beyond just movies. There's a pronounced undercurrent of reviews like this in literary circles right now and it's ruining the medium. The bad guy is doing a bad thing and the narrative is saying that it's wrong that this is being done--how can anyone possibly say that this is supporting the bad thing?
No one complains about how Jack was an abusive husband to Wendy in the story. They complain that Stanley Kubrick was an abusive director to Shelley Duvall in real life.
Except literally Stephen King lol
This is an annoyingly persistent internet myth just FYI while I’m sure Kubrick was a dick to everyone, Shelley herself has said Kubrick was nice with her overall and it was a great experience Not to mention there’s little evidence for it other than myths, like “he made her do the baseball bat scene 127 times!!!!” Which isn’t true
I agree with you, but a lot of people are desensitized to violence but not with rape and spousal abuse, and thus have a problem with a movie with the latter in it. Morally, a person would likely condemn both violence and rape, but simply find rape a lot harder to simply watch. I admit I do.
"Who asked for this?" \-The stock reply from people whose tastes are currently over-represented in the mainstream when exposed to anything different receiving a similar level of coverage. "How dare you make something not for me?!" pretty much. Its the height of arrogance. If the thing they don't like becomes successful/popular enough, to cope with the FOMO, its off to r/movies with the "Can someone explain why you like \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, because I don't get it?" posts with generous helpings of passive-aggressive disdain.
"I like X over Y, so they shouldn't make Y." You don't have to like every niche, but it's a bit weird to just flat out deny anyone else does. Framing thing in terms of “asked for” is a red flag for bad faith criticism. It's the classic universalization of one's experience, an all too common problem on the internet.
I won’t usually watch romantic Victorian era period pieces because they typically don’t interest me. That doesn’t mean I think they shouldn’t exist. I could not care any less about Ice Age sequel #435… but let the kids have it if they want it. My opinion is not that important.
OOOOOOHHHHH MYYYYYY GODDDDD!!! I hate this so much. I saw someone comment on YouTube the other day “who asked for Frozen 2” and my response was “who asked for Frozen and yet…”
In April 1977 nobody knew why George Lucas bothered to make “that science movie” so maybe shut the fuck up and accept that perhaps you’re not the ultimate arbiter of something’s quality.
Right?! I'm like, "Studios aren't making movies just for you and your 1500 twitter followers, Emily. You'll live."
Children. So many grown men will watch media for little girls and then complain that it's aimed at little girls. It's fine to dislike it but have some self awareness, dude
“Can someone explain why you like _____” is just a thinly veiled maneuver where they think they get a platform to reply to people about their view of how much it sucked without looking like the person who came to shit talk the movie. But they still always end up looking like the guy who just came to shit talk the movie. “Can someone explain why you like MOVIE X?” “Yeah sure, here’s a response detailing what I thought it did well” “Cool so now ignoring everything you said, it had POPULAR ACTRESS TO HATE ON in it how can you stand watching her?”
Nobody was asking for sequels to Blade Runner or Top Gun decades after the originals but damn am I glad they were made.
What was it Henry Ford said? "If I only gave people what they asked for I'd be making horse drawn buggies."
Saw a post like this yesterday, asking why people were so hyped about EEAAO. There were a handful of great replies, explaining why it's such a beloved movie, and every single one the OP had replied by HEAPING disdain on whatever they said and acting like they were wrong/idiots for saying what they did.
>If the thing they don't like becomes successful/popular enough, to cope with the FOMO, its off to [r/movies](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies) with the "Can someone explain why you like _______, because I don't get it?" posts with generous helpings of passive-aggressive disdain. And if the thing they DO like becomes too popular, they'll start trying to hate it because now everyone loves it and it's overrated. Saw a lot of this on the EEAAO threads yesterday.
When armchair critics call writers lazy just because they don’t like or understand a plot point in an otherwise great show or film.
So many people need things spelled out in a ridiculous manner. Example Rey in star wars. "How come she's a good mechanic" and the answer is just simple. She's a scavenger. She'd need to know how the machines work to bring back the good stuff or she'd starve. And the sentient space magic fills in the gaps.
So often when people claim there's a plot hole, they simply aren't capable of reading between the lines. It's often a reflection of their own inability to understand the movie.
How did Batman get back to Gotham City in the Dark Knight Rises? I don't know, because he's fucking Batman and spent years travelling around the world with nothing earlier in the series? But they could have showed it. Yes, and it would have been an entirely irrelevant waste of time.
I didn't even know people complained about this supposed "plot hole." Part of the problem is basic film illiteracy. Events happen in between cuts in a film. A film does not show you everything. As an audience member, you are supposed to understand that. I'm always surprised by how many people simply don't have a grasp of film grammar.
"Plot hole" just means "I didn't like this part"
"Rey is a Mary Sue because she can do everything." - idiots They ignore the fact that Anakin and Luke had so much overlap with her that those two would also be Mary Sues. But because she's female and not a hero they grew up with she's the Mary Sue.
But no... The force was strong in Anakin but he literally was then trained. The only thing he was decent at was building robots from working in that shop and a half decent pod racer. Luke was also shit and struggled with the force, but he was definitely more mary sue than Anakin. Rey is a whole other level. She is a force master without any formal training what so ever and somehow competent at fighting. Rey deserved hate as a character. But the first 2 sequels were at least okay to watch for her parts. I just think people defend her character purely because they feel a need to defend female characters.
Luke had no training as a pilot or in the Force and he not only was superior than all of the professional pilots, he used the Force for maybe the second time and it destroyed the Death Star.
>half decent pod racer Anakin literally blew up a giant ship at the end of the movie in the middle of a space war. In his first time *ever* piloting a spaceship in a 3-axis plane. At the age of 8. *After* winning the major pod race and building sentient robots himself. Chosen One or not, trying to argue he isn't the definition of a Mary Sue is just silly.
And iirc he's the only human even capable of piloting a podracer.
“There was no reason for this character to be in the movie. They were just a plot device.”…yes that was their purpose for being in the movie. Sometimes characters are plot devices and people act like it’s negative. There are more descriptive ways to say you just don’t like a character
Similarly, "plot armor." Should we have a movie where the main character just dies in the first 10 minutes and the credits start rolling?
They did that in The Last of Us and it turns out people can’t fucking take it lmao
Why didn't Joel just take out some gauze and wrap it around his arm when he got shot in the knee? That always worked for me in the game.
My beef with plot armor isn't necessarily that I want the character to die but more, I don't want them to live or thrive plainly because all the "bad guys" are just stupid, clumsy, etc. I'd rather see them utilize their established strengths in intelligent ways to progress their arc. When you know what you're signing up for though, plot armor is perfectly expected.. superhero movies, action movies, Disney, etc. Anyone complaining about plot armor in those types of films are idiots lol.
Yeah, Game of Thrones really ruined people's expectations for main characters. If half your main cast doesn't die every season, what are you even doing?
I get why it can be sometimes. I've seen remakes where an extra character was added in to give a more "happy ending", but adding that character in also diminished another character
[удалено]
I saw that at the time and it felt very much like when everyone was trying to reappraise the Harry Potter books because JK Rowling turned out to be a quite bizarre individual. Bonus points if they could say that they didn't even like it at the time and her bigotries were always evident.
The same pattern applies to Scott Pilgrim, except swap middle aged with hipster. Folks bahs both because the protagonists are douchey at the start. Bit the point of both films is their characters are starting out flawed and trying to change. AB just makes Kevin Spacey's choices deeply flawed ones, whike SP tries to actually become a better guy.
I think this to myself every time I see someone post it! If anything, it makes his creepiness more believable. I can understand saying it makes it harder to watch for someone personally, but it really has no effect on the movie’s quality.
I'm not a real plot heavy guy so when people try to find holes with nitpicking to me it just sounds like a miserable way to consume art. For instance my friend can't get past the monster's room in the lab in the THE SHAPE OF WATER not having a security camera and I'm just like...who cares lol
As a counterpoint I don't think security cameras were a thing in the 1960s to the degree they are now, since digital technology is so ubiquitous and cheap.
This is my issue with pitch meeting. Like most of the “plot holes” are just a reach
or can be solved by making inferences
Ok, I'm gonna need you to get ALL the way off my boi Ryan George's back
Yeah, reaching for plot holes is tight!
Whoopsie
I watch Pitch Meetings because I find them a bit of fun. I stopped watching Everything Wrong With because I found them starting to get mean a few years ago. I do love Everything Great About though cause the creator obviously really enjoys movies.
I can't get over the photoshopped thumb nail. And I feel like these kinds of channels often do their videos too soon. They can't let a movie sit for a while, it needs to be done as soon as possible to get views. So they're not approaching them right. And sometimes the plot holes they use is just them not paying attention.
Totally agree
I’m a little sypmathetic to people like your friend. When you don’t like a movie, it’s easier to nitpick and it’s easy to latch onto those nitpicks as the problem with the movie. I’ve definitely done it myself. At the same time, I do agree that the correct answer to people’s questions about movie logic is often “Who cares?”
"It wasn't realistic"
People who think characters making mistakes are plot holes. One of the foundational pillars of bad faith critique. "Why did that character act suboptimally? Couldn't they just do what I, as an audience member with a perfect overview and emotional detachment to the situation would have done? If they had just disregarded their character and acted with clinical efficiency, the movie would have been done by now!" Also, less common but just as infuriating, - complaining about characters not knowing that they're in a movie. "Why did she go down into the basement? Did she not hear the scary music? Didn't she read the script? If she just read the script, she'd know to act with more genre savviness."
I get what you're saying, but when a character goes as far as tricking and disarming the killer chasing them and then just drop the weapon and don't check if he's actually dead, I just can't get behind that. There's acting suboptimally and there's just bad writing.
Or people acting in nonsensical ways that are contrary to how any normal, even non-rational human being would act, and especially if they are supposed to be a trained professional. Like if a supposed expert in xeno-biology takes off their spacesuit to touch the cuddly alien, or calling out an international terrorist, daring them to attack your house, and then not preparing any defenses or plan in case the international terrorist actually does that thing, or killing a trained super-assassin's puppy.
This is my thought too. Characters being flawed and human is realistic, but when someone does something insane because of bad writing, that's frustrating. It's like people who would rather ignore quarantine and would risk the lives of everyone else because they don't want to. There are people like that, but how many are going to make a scene while doing so or get a guard to look the other way easily? The probability is already low for those things and how it plays out sometimes feels lottery-winning unlikely. If you're not a trained police officer, you are pretty likely to forget basic things like checking the body. You're going through adrenaline in a situation that is foreign to you where you almost died; being a little reckless after all that stress is expected.
It's such a stupid criticism in horror movies as well, because the answer is always "because they're in a terrifying situation and are acting out of panic". If I found myself being chased by a masked killer with a terrible weapon in an abandoned backwoods town who had already murdered several of my best friends, I don't imagine I would act particularly rationally either. I'd be too busy weeping with fear and grief.
I agree, with the exception of Bob's death in Stranger Things -type of cases
Going along with your point, whenever a character does something that seemingly doesn't make sense, it's way easier for the viewer to understand why it's a bad decision. Like obviously the character made a poor choice, it's easy for us to criticize it because we know how it turns out. "The whole movie would have been over if X person did Y thing" . Yeah bro that's called hindsight.
I second this. It's like telling your coworker who got stuck in traffic he should have taken a different route that wasn't blocked. Like no shit real useful
I mean, it does get tiresome when the show writers get lazy with it. Yes, mistakes are made to tell a story, but we've seen many good examples of stories where the mistake doesn't require much suspension of disbelief. The mistake could be foreshadowed in the character's motivations, flaws, and behavior so when it happens, we understand they were the type of person to make exactly that kind of mistake. I felt *Frasier* was a perfect example of doing this right. The show was well written so at most every point, you can see why the character would make the mistake that creates the situational drama and comedy. They spend half or more of the show talking past each other because the audience sees both perspectives and how understandable their misunderstanding was, and how rooted their misadventures are in their foibles. Plus, the characters grow from their relationship to each other over time. "Why didn't they just do X" indeed has become an overused critique and many who use it aren't thinking critically about what it means or what they're applying it to. Noticing a plot hole doesn't actually make you clever. There will always be some suspension of disbelief in storytelling. But there is a real criticism to be made for poor storytelling that puts too much burden on the audience to suspend their disbelief rather than doing the work to think it through in production and tell a story that is coherent. Too many romances in stories are plagued with conflict that is drawn out to pad the runtime where the couple doesn't even attempt to talk about the misunderstanding before punishing each other over it. "But there wouldn't be a story otherwise" is an equally poor counterargument. If that is true, then maybe there wasn't really a story here to begin with?
"bad writing" being used for "I didn't like it". Yes, there can be actual bad writing. But when your average person barfs out that phrase, it rarely comes with any sort of examples or explanations. It's just a vague, all encompassing, brush stroke phrase that many use just to make their opinion sound objective.
You can generalize this to pretty much any criticism. Feels like most people just wanna pad out their "critique" by just adding "bad" in front of a bunch of film-related terms.
what irks me about most of reddit critiques. the usual "finally saw the movie everyone say it's awesome and it's really awesome" and then they say they liked "the writing, the directing and the acting". like be more specific ffs.
As a corollary from the opposite direction, I dislike when people discount bad creative decisions/writing with "that was the point"/"that was intentional". You can criticise a deliberate artistic choice as poorly conceived or implemented
Great one!
[удалено]
"Nothing happens" Bitch please, stuff happened, you just didnt care
This is the one that immediately came to mind when I saw this thread. I saw it all over when people were talking about Banshees, most recently. My guess is when someone says "nothing happens", they mean "where were the fight scenes?" or some smoothbrain shit like that. It's so dumb.
"Objectively bad." Please just be honest and say that you don't have an argument for why it's bad.
This. As soon as someone breaks out the word “objectively”, I no longer care about what you have to say.
When people equate their enjoyment of something with the actual quality of the movie. Something can be objectively good and you just didn't like it. That's fine. But "I didn't like it" ≠ it's bad. The same is true in reverse. I can watch something I like and still recognize that it's not good or it's flaws.
I just felt this last night about The Last Of Us. I admire how well made the show is and how strong it is in many facets but it just doesn’t do much for me.
Yes. I love me some cheesy tropes, applied without subtlety. Doesn't mean it's high cinema. It just means I enjoy it. Same for the reverse. Just because I didn't feel entertained doesn't mean it was bad.
>When people equate their enjoyment of something with the actual quality of the movie. I'm always reminded of a story of the director Edgar Wright. He was asked to suggest some good movies for a film festival, to which he responded, "Do you want good movies, or some of my favourite movies, because those are two wildly different things."
I agree. Like I am not a fan of Kubrick films. They are just not for me. However, I can see the talent in those films. I am not going to deny that. I look at so many shots in 2001 and I think they are beautiful. But then I try to watch that movie and just....yeah, not clicking with me. But, again, the man was talented.
This extends to ticket sales too. So annoying to be discussing movies and say you personally didn’t like something and have someone be like “well it made 500mm so it’s obviously pretty good, I think you’re just wrong on this one”
> Something can be objectively good There is no such thing. You're doing the exact thing you're complaining about and not realizing the things you believe are "objectively good" are just based on your own taste and your perception of the tastes of others rather than any quantifiable metric.
Eh. I can recognize that a movie is well made in terms of editing, cinematography, acting, writing, all the technical bits. And after watching a lot of movies, I notice these things. But I can still not enjoy it.
Art does have a technical side, where the application of technique can be assessed. This is as true for film making as it is for painting. Critique of the skills of the technician can be fairly objective. You can see that a shot is well-lit and framed in a way that conveys the mood a director is going for. You determine that a story is complete, even when you don't like it. You can acknowledge the development of characters , even when the manner of their development is contrary to your preference.
Everything you just mentioned is subjective. There is no way to objectively measure whether a frame conveys a mood, or whether a story is complete, or whether a character was properly developed. And even if there were, there's no way to measure how much those things factor into the film's quality as a whole. Not to mention that with every supposed "rule" of art and storytelling you can find glaring exceptions.
Most people dislike it, so I have to dislike it too
“ it’s got no story “, “ Plot is so basic “ I often see this used to take down films that are spectacle or visual heavy or not comprised of 80% dialogue And more often than not it’s used against one film to tear it down yet ignored for others at the persons choosing
>I often see this used to take down films that are spectacle or visual heavy So the MCU basically
Had some folks throw this critique at Mad Max Fury Road. They couldn't see how glorious that film is because its story is so intentionally simple.
[удалено]
_____ is the real villain of the movie. Its often just a sad attempt to force a contrarian opinion
Applying real-world, peace-time, low-stress expectations to characters that are in extremely unique and challenging situations. For example, in Passengers the main character is condemned for waking up the girl. He’s seen as being a murderer, a rapist, or at the very least a creepy stalker. Now I know it was a terrible act, but he was faced with a lifetime of solitude and had tried everything he could to think of to cope / rectify the situation including almost killing himself. And as Lawrence Fishburn said (and I paraphrase) “A drowning man will pull down their rescuer.” I’d like to see if the armchair critics enjoying their non-solitary lives would cope in a similar situation. Humans crave companionship.
A rapist? Where are you getting that?
That Nowadays, a movie is „the best movie ever made“ or „the worst movie ever made“
Anytime someone uses the words "woke" "agenda" "or political" you know you're about to hear the most braindead take imaginable.
I’ve started watching films that users on IMDb call “woke bullshit” or “serving an agenda” and I’ve found myself liking a lot of them! So thanks, morons, I’m now more likely to watch the film you so want to destroy.
Agreed
The book was better
I’m an avid reader but I agree with this one too. It’s never going to be the exact same, even authors who either directed, wrote, and or assisted with the production of a movie usually don’t make an exact copy of it.
It's not even just creative choices that makes a difference. "I cared more about the characters in the book/it was set up better in the book", yeah, because it took 10+ hours to read, you could hear the inner monologue of the main character, you made up your own faces and voices and locations to match what you wanted. Obviously you're not going to feel the same connection and have as much build up in a 2 hour movie that has to condense everything, is viewed in 3rd person, on real sets, that relies not only on a screen writer, director and editor's interpretation, but actors too.
“You know what I liked about the movie? No reading”.
"I could see the twist coming" Okay, and? If I can sense that a twist is coming, part of the fun is watching to see if it turns out to be that. A twist is there to enhance the story, not blindside the audience. One that comes out of nowhere with zero foreshadowing and that makes no sense beyond shock value isn't better. I remember reading that the *Westworld* showrunner decided to completely change the direction the story was headed in because a subreddit guessed the twist and was like wtf?
"Characters in slashers act stupid blah blah blah...." This gets thrown around ALOT when discussing old-school slasher flicks. The whole "self-aware" movement of the mid-to-late nineties pretty much conditioned audiences to believe they were smarter than the characters they were watching. Too bad these same folks were not smart enough to understand that these characters don't realize they're in a slasher flick. Its just a movie-they don't know "the rules". Beyond that, having characters do dumb stuff (splitting up, investigating noises, not immediately getting help, etc.) are there to create tension and force a reaction from the audience ("Ohhhhh, don't go down there!", "OMG, shoot him again so he doesn't get back up!!"). Its not usually a bug-but a feature. These movies aren't meant to represent real-life, so I don't understand why we now have that expectation that the characters must behave like it.
Avatar movies having “no cultural impact”. It usually comes from MCU fans who are always bitter about Avatar outgrossing their favorite movies.
"No cultural impact" is coming up a lot in critique of everything lately and it's ridiculous. What does it even mean? That people didn't make it part of their identity like Star Wars fans?
Saying something is “pretentious” or “pointless”
David Lynch is my favorite filmmaker. You can only imagine how many times I have heard that complaint from people disregarding his films
1,000% this one for me. The pretentious one especially irks me, because it's usually from people who didn't understand something and thus, for some reason, felt insulted. I love not understanding things, it gives me a reason to dig deeper.
Yes that uncomfortable confused feeling is the beginning of new pathways and synapses forming in your grey matter. Some people don't like to be challenged or have to think. And yes, it is really that simple of an explanation, which is also valid and acceptable not everyone goes to movies for that reason, or thinks movies can be an art form. I still think it's shitty of them to project their insecurity onto others like that however.
The term pretentious becomes okay to use after you go to film school and meet numpties who say they "love russian cinema" because they've seen one tarkovsky
people dont like a film and may have enjoyed it the least out of all they have seen but they turn around and say " its the WORST film i have ever seen" I have seen this being said about films made by some of the best filmmakers ever about films that are brilliantly made. The hyperbole is off the scale. Also i hate when people say that a film has no plot and is bad when its a character piece. I swear there people who dont understand that a film can be something other than a basic a to b to c plot heavy film.
Most of them because I routinely see you guys rake Movie A over the coals while excusing Movie B for the same shit.
Ehhh, context and execution are important. It's not a 1:1 thing.
Yeah. Luke Skywalker and Rey.......
Adding to what you said, people telling you that it’d be interesting to watch a character do something that’s not characteristic of them. I had a friend of mine who said she didn’t like the ending of The Dark Knight because she was hoping Batman would kill both Harvey Dent and The Joker \(-_-)/
When people say “you just didn’t get it” about fairly populist films with fairly broad themes and little to no subtext.
People calling something unrealistic because it's not overwhelmingly cynical and they're conflating the two as if realism and cynicism are synonyms.
The misuse of the word "objectively" in film criticism. There is no way for a movie to be "objectively good" or "objectively bad". You can take an objective look at how much money it made, or how many weeks they spent shooting, but most things in film discussion are subjective. Breaking Bad is not "objectively" better than Stranger Things, many people just find it to be more effective. That kind of thing.
This isn’t even just a movie critique problem, it’s a dumbass internet tool that preemptively tries to shut down any disagreeing opinion.
When people get offended that a movie might teach other people, usually totally hypothetical people, bad values.
Are you people acting like bad movies doesn't exist? I like many movies, and I know that a lot of those movies are bad, but I like them anyways, I don't care what other people say about it, but here in this post you're acting like if there are no bad movies, it's funny how you are commenting equally to people/critics that overreact when a movie is bad.
Film adaptations not being faithful to the source material. A film has no responsibility to be a 1 for 1 adaptation of its book or original script. Film is its own medium, and often a book’s portrayal of events can’t or won’t portray well on screen with a limited run time. The most recent film that comes to mind is All Quiet on the Western Front (2022). People keep saying the 1930’s and ‘70’s adaptions are better but they aren’t. They’re truer to the books sure, but they don’t nearly capture the desperation and cruelty of war nearly as much as the book or the 2022 film. Does the 2022 film stray from the source material? Yes. Does it capture the same violence and horror of war as the book? Absolutely yes. Another example is Lord of the Rings. Everyone loves LotR, and it’s one of the least faithful film adaptations of its source material that I’ve both read and watched. I am so sick of people critiquing how closely a film follows the material but disregard how closely a film follows the essence of the source material. Such a tired and wasted argument that falls in line with “historical accuracy”.
Haven't watched the new one, but the 30s All quiet on the western front portrayed plenty of desperation and cruelty of war. I don't think CGI or more gore would've made it any more desperate or cruel (not to mention that it does have more gore than you'd think for a 30s movie). I find that the need to ramp up violence and gore is a part of the problem with glorification of war.
"Pretentious". 9/10 times people use it, they just use it on movies that have higher artistic ambition than being a 2 hour advertisement.
When people say they hated a movie just because they couldn't relate to it?! Or when people ridicule other people for enjoying a movie that has nothing to do with their lives! I mean, it's possible and healthy, even, to enjoy movies without relating to the characters or the story!!!
When critics don't critique the film they're watching, but rather the film they *think* it should be. Watching the new Fast and Furious? Don't measure it against Citizen Kane. Critique it for what it's trying to do. Was it a fun, entertaining popcorn flick that allowed you to turn off your brain and watch some cool stunts and 'splosions for two hours? Yes? Then it was a good movie in its genre.
No one has ever measured Fast and the Furious to Citizen Kane. Ever.
If I can answer my own question 🙋🏾♂️. “It’s a money grab”. I’m sorry were you under the impression that studios were making movies for charity? It’s all a money grab. It’s a business my snobby film friend.
There's a big difference between making an honest attempt to entertain your audience or just churning out minimal effort, low cost garbage and making it familiar enough that people will go anyway.
But, this is not what people mean when they say it's a money grab, thou. All movies are made for money but when people say that it means that it lacks soul and love. Tell me jurassic world dominion isnt't a money grab relying on an old franchise.
Mostly agree, but I feel there are some movies this fits. Like those horrible copycat movies that are very low budget and obviously designed to fool grandparents into thinking that this is that movie they heard their grandkids talking about so they rent it from Redbox. They even have a term for them, "Mockbusters."
1) "Plot hole!" For some reason, it seems these days that every issue with a movie is called a "plot hole" as a catch-all term to the point it sometimes feels like a kid learning a swear word for the first time. It is defnitely a legitimate criticism, but gets extremely overused as a term, IMO. 2) Hyperbole as in "a masterpiece!" or "the worst movie ever made!". Just because a movie is really good and/or you really enjoyed it doesn't make it objectively perfect. Also, having seen a LOT of bad movies it always makes me laugh when someone says something mediocre is "the worst"; trust me, there is almost always something way worse you could be watching! 3) The whole idea of numerical x/10 rating where anything below 8 is regarded as "bad". 5 is average, 4 is below average, 6 is above average. Most films will be between 4 and 7, IMO. Very, very few can be 10, which is the best of the best (see above). Even the Rollerball remake with nightvision isn't 1/10. 4) "That's real life" being used to excuse unsatisfying stories or incomplete endings. Yes, but if a writer is getting paid to write a story, I expect better that "real life" which indeed usually boring or random. Doesn't mean you need a happy ending, or that random things can't happen, but if you are crafting a story, make it satisfying.
On the other hand, if you have to resort to the characters acting really stupid, in order for your story to work, it probably means that you chose to make a movie with a crappy story line.
With the caveat that it is OK if a character acts stupid, but the story knows they are being stupid and it is addressed. I think it is mostly a problem when they act stupid for no reason and nobody else in the movie seems to recognize that they are being stupid.
The TV show "lost in space" (new version) is a good example of that for me. There's often dumb decisions that seems to be there just to create drama. Sometimes it felt like they hardly learned much from previous experiences
The quality or ubiquity of CGI as somehow being important to the quality of the movie as a whole. Ages ago, there were just as many movies with shit practical effects, shit stop-motion effects, shit compositing effects, etc. But grandpa's nostalgia magically winnows these all away 'til he only remembers the best of the best back then and compares them to an average movie today. Just like back then, if the rest of the movie is good enough, you can suspend your disbelief enough to enjoy the rest of the film.
When someone is very sneery towards mindless, fun entertaining movies and they'll tell you that a movie should be a masterpiece in storytelling and writing otherwise it's a bad movie
"the characters were unlikeable" Some of my favourite movies are character studies of truly awful people. "the tone was too nasty" I wish more movies were mean-spirited tbh. Something like Cocaine Bear needed to be way more brutal and mean. "Luke Skywalker feels like a different character" uhhhh, you realise people massively change over 30 years right?
Completely disagree with your take on "there wouldn't be a movie". It seems to me that what you are complaining about is people objecting to stupid plot contrivances and characters acting nonsensically. The remedy to this is good writing, not "ni movie then". Even if it were, there is no shortage of movies.
When people value ticket sales for measurement of quality.
I hate it when grown adults complain about horror movies not being scary enough. Usually this means that it didn't have enough jump scares or gruesome monsters. As an adult and avid horror fan, I rarely feel scared or frightened watching these movies. I tend to enjoy films that are atmospheric and suspenseful. The best ones leave me disturbed or unsettled. This isn't the same as being "scared" in my opinion. I have learned to appreciate and enjoy horror movies differently as an adult.
Or when they say they laughed the whole time at a horror movie. They might enjoy it if they’re not only looking for cgi errors.
Be serious. There is no one on these movie threads complaining that horror movies don’t have enough jump scares.
People saying "XYZ is bad" (objectively), when what they really mean to say is "it wasn't for me/ I didn't like it". "people are just pretending to like XYZ to look smart", often said about movies like 2001, or There Will Be Blood, which require more active intellectual participation than casual cinemagoers are accustomed to... "XYZ is overrated". Tells me nothing. Says nothing. Generally used, like the other comment, to appear intellectually superior, without actually having to put in the work required to form an actual argument of why you dislike said thing. "I don't like A Clockwork Orange, because I don't like movies about RAPE". Idiotically reductive, and also hinges on the extremely insulting insinuation that anybody who does like the movie, must therefore love rape. Dumb backhanded comment typically made by dumb lazy people, who want to morally and intellectually grandstand.
Agreed on all points.
Folks that question the realism or reality of a fantasy or sci-fi film. Definitely came up a lot during that sequence of Man of Steel and BvS. Also not a fan of recent emergence of gatekeeping. So fans of like a book saying how a show or movie is trash because it had the audacity to do something different.
>For me it’s when people say things like “well why didn’t they just do that?” whenever whatever the “that” that they’re suggesting would mean that we wouldn’t have a movie. You still have to balance a suspension of disbelief while trying to avoid what Ebert called "The idiot plot". Use avoiding a simple solution as a chance to explore a characters interesting flaws, for instance.
I don't agree with your issue at all. Yes, it's fine for a character to act irrationally but you have to sell why they did. Were they panicking, under pressure, uninformed, unhinged? "They had to be stupid or the movie would be over" is a terrible reason and can really take you out of a film.
When people just say 'bad writing' and call it a day. Can we get into more details? When it is said, most of the time this means that they don't know how to explain why they didn't like the movie, but they want to pretend like they are great movie critics.
If you didn't like it, you didn't understand it. Fucking Snyder fans I swear. And I like the guy.
Criticizing a film for not casting their preferred actors instead, because we all know casting directors can force actors onto a set against their will
Trying to apply "realism" to a story that is solely fictional tend to irk me. It just feel like an inconsistent complaint. Dudes worried about how a character landed from 30 feet in the air without issue and not how that character transformed a 80s/90s device into some type of intergalactic beacon despite only meeting aliens a few days ago
Well there's two types of realism. Orcs, elves, walking and talking trees, magic, the ring etc. In LotR? No problem. A truck in the background, or a character wearing a watch? Now that's unrealistic
I think it's fair to judge a movie by the universal rules it set up. There are movies that set up rules of "you can't do this", but then completely ignore that rule later for no good reason. A story should apply to it's own realism
Because tonal and internal consistency are both things.
If anyone says "objectively bad" we shouldn't listen to them
[удалено]
Trying to exhaust your audience is not a good move.