Mystery Science Theater 3000?

[DaHeckIzDat]

Dude, repeat after me: it's a comedy show. For laughs, not for real movie critiques. If you don't like it, that's fine, but all these edgelords trying to convince other people that what they like is wrong based on their personal, subjective opinions of humor ("Its not funny because its garbage because I say so!") are just making themselves look pretentious.

And no, I didn't watch the videos you posted. Leaving links and expecting people to watch them instead of just explaining what you think is a Sonicx9 move.

[ptdebate]

Dude, repeat after me: it's a comedy show. For laughs, not for real movie critiques. If you don't like it, that's fine, but all these edgelords trying to convince other people that what they like is wrong based on their personal, subjective opinions of humor ("Its not funny because its garbage because I say so!") are just making themselves look pretentious.

And no, I didn't watch the videos you posted. Leaving links and expecting people to watch them instead of just explaining what you think is a Sonicx9 move.

The Cinemasins mission statement is "No movie is without sin. We exist mostly just to remind you of that."

So their purpose is to show all of the problems in movies. How are they accomplishing that if the context is repeatedly contrived or glossed over in order to force a point or to make a movie seem like it has more problems than it actually does?

Judging by the comment sections, a large portion of the viewership seems to take this a lot more seriously than just a comedy show.

[Stalvern]

Dude, repeat after me: it's a comedy show. For laughs, not for real movie critiques.

First of all, it ain't funny. I couldn't stand it even before I learned what a crock it was; about 30 seconds of that smug babble was more than enough for me. The entire premise of the show is that the more condescendingly you say something, the funnier it gets.

Second, you clearly think that it is for "real movie critiques":

They still bring up lots of good criticisms though. I even find myself agreeing with most of their serious, non-joke sins. Believe it or not, they had a big impact on my own writing. I always ask myself "If this was a movie, would the Cinemasins guy sin this part?"

Some of the sins are jokes (like the "scene does not contain a lap dance" ones) but he does point out real flaws too. If the characters act illogically, he'll sin them for it.

Or were those posts also "for laughs"?

If you don't like it, that's fine, but all these edgelords trying to convince other people that what they like is wrong based on their personal, subjective opinions of humor ("Its not funny because its garbage because I say so!") are just making themselves look pretentious.

I didn't say anything about it not being funny; in fact, I explicitly acknowledged that subjectivity when I called it "a matter of personal taste" to like Doug Walker. I don't like it because I don't laugh at it, but I objectively know that it's bad because it's dishonest.

And no, I didn't watch the videos you posted. Leaving links and expecting people to watch them instead of just explaining what you think is a Sonicx9 move.

I summarized the points they made, explained how they made their points, and explained how they informed my own opinion. I didn't rattle off each specific rebuttal because, as I said, it would be redundant when the video is right there and will give you an example of what I'm talking about no matter where you skip to. But heck, I'll humor you:

The CinemaSins guy pretends that the opening fight scene is meaningless, even though the stakes are explicitly stated.
The CinemaSins guy pretends that the Iron Legion could have helped fight the opening battle, even though they are unarmed and only present to aid civilians.
The CinemaSins guy pretends that Tony Stark had no reason to know about a secret door, even though Stark scans the wall to find the door.
The CinemaSins guy pretends that for crying out loud I can't keep this up

Imagine half an hour of bald-faced lies (on no friggin' planet could anyone try to pass them off as jokes) being blown apart with a calm voice-over and a few seconds of relevant footage, and you have the whole video. You happy now?

[DaHeckIzDat]

The Cinemasins mission statement is "No movie is without sin. We exist mostly just to remind you of that."

So their purpose is to show all of the problems in movies. How are they accomplishing that if the context is repeatedly contrived or glossed over in order to force a point or to make a movie seem like it has more problems than it actually does?

Complaining about that is like complaining how the Nostalgia Critic says "I remember it so you don't have to!" He just made a whole video about what he's remembering, so we *have* to remember it if we want to watch it. Most people don't complain about that, though, because they know it's just a catchy slogan to get people's attention and give a one sentence summary of what they do. And Cinemasins has never been shy with their intentions. They've said more times than I can count "We're not critics, we're ---holes." If people are taking them seriously, that's not their fault. That's like if someone read one of the April Fools reviews on this site, ignored the obvious "April Fools" icon, and spent the rest of their life hunting down this game that doesn't exist to complete their collection-- and then you go and blame the critic for it.

[Gleebergloben123]

If you do not enjoy this MST short “What to do on a date” I will be so distraught I will become excessively flatulent. You have 24 hours.

https://youtu.be/GVytXppIFw0

[DaHeckIzDat]

Dude, repeat after me: it's a comedy show. For laughs, not for real movie critiques.

First of all, it ain't funny. I couldn't stand it even before I learned what a crock it was; about 30 seconds of that smug babble was more than enough for me. The entire premise of the show is that the more condescendingly you say something, the funnier it gets.

And now you're the one claiming subjective opinions are objective facts. They're not. When will people learn that just because YOU don't find something funny, that other people are still allowed to?

Second, you clearly think that it is for "real movie critiques":

They still bring up lots of good criticisms though. I even find myself agreeing with most of their serious, non-joke sins. Believe it or not, they had a big impact on my own writing. I always ask myself "If this was a movie, would the Cinemasins guy sin this part?"

Some of the sins are jokes (like the "scene does not contain a lap dance" ones) but he does point out real flaws too. If the characters act illogically, he'll sin them for it.

Or were those posts also "for laughs"?

What about this don't you understand? Just because some (heck, most) of their "sins" are jokes, doesn't mean they're not still real, albeit minor, problems. They complain about overuse of cliches and things like that. If I stop and ask myself "would they sin this part?" when I'm writing, I can cut down on a ton of little problems throughout the entire story. Small things, yes, but if you fix enough small things, eventually it becomes a big thing.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but all these edgelords trying to convince other people that what they like is wrong based on their personal, subjective opinions of humor ("Its not funny because its garbage because I say so!") are just making themselves look pretentious.

I didn't say anything about it not being funny; in fact, I explicitly acknowledged that subjectivity when I called it "a matter of personal taste" to like Doug Walker. I don't like it because I don't laugh at it, but I objectively know that it's bad because it's dishonest.

And that's only because you're still clinging stubbornly to the idea that they exist for any other reason besides comedy. They don't. Is it annoying when one of their sins is inaccurate? Sure. But since they're not real reviews, just a string of jokes revolving around how deep they can nitpick, it doesn't matter. Besides, I know you don't agree with the critic on a lot of his reviews here either, and yet here you are anyway.

The CinemaSins guy pretends that the opening fight scene is meaningless, even though the stakes are.explicitly stated.

If you watched all of Agents of Shield. Otherwise it's just a random assault on a random Hydra base that happens to have a high ranking officer in it we know nothing about. Sin validated.

The CinemaSins guy pretends that the Iron Legion could have helped fight the opening battle, even though they are unarmed and only present to aid civilians.

Do they ever actually say that? If they do, it comes way after the fight is over, when it would have been useful information to know when the fight is happening. Sin validated.

The CinemaSins guy pretends that Tony Stark had no reason to know about a secret door, even though Stark scans the wall to find the door.

Because as we all know, secret doors, especially secret doors in top secret evil military bases, can be opened by gently pushing on them. Sin validated.

[Gleebergloben123]

Gentlemen! Gentlemen! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who.

[Stalvern]

And now you're the one claiming subjective opinions are objective facts. They're not. When will people learn that just because YOU don't find something funny, that other people are still allowed to?

If I say that something "ain't funny", it's because I don't think it's funny. It is self-evidently my opinion; there's no reason to hem and haw and hedge. In the same post, I explicitly distinguish between that opinion and my actual main point, which is that the substance of the show is largely fraudulent. If this were just about what is or isn't funny, I wouldn't have even brought it up in the first place, because duh, of course you can like what I don't (like the Nostalgia Critic).

What about this don't you understand? Just because some (heck, most) of their "sins" are jokes, doesn't mean they're not still real, albeit minor, problems. They complain about overuse of cliches and things like that. If I stop and ask myself "would they sin this part?" when I'm writing, I can cut down on a ton of little problems throughout the entire story. Small things, yes, but if you fix enough small things, eventually it becomes a big thing.

I genuinely cannot tell what you are defining as "jokes" here. "This scene does not contain a lap dance," is a joke. It is obviously facetious. But where's the joke in pretending that basic details of a movie are plot holes by ignoring the parts that set them up?

And that's only because you're still clinging stubbornly to the idea that they exist for any other reason besides comedy. They don't. Is it annoying when one of their sins is inaccurate? Sure. But since they're not real reviews, just a string of jokes revolving around how deep they can nitpick, it doesn't matter.

If I want to watch people saying blatantly wrong things about movies, where the joke is that they're wrong, there's On Cinema at the Cinema. The humor in that show is at the expense of Tim Heidecker and Gregg Turkington. If I want to watch a guy pick at a movie until its flayed corpse is at his feet, there's Mr. Plinkett. His videos are built on fundamental problems in the craft and conception of the movies he covers. But what you're talking about, where the act of nit-picking is a joke at the expense of the host, is not CinemaSins. You aren't laughing at the guy for being an obsessive idiot who can't see the forest for the trees, because that's not the character that he's playing. What he's doing is presenting "everything wrong with" popular blockbusters, garnished with clearly differentiable joke "sins" but fundamentally purporting to critique what is presented as a lack of logic endemic to popular cinema. (You have already, in fact, said as much.) For that to work, there has to be that lack of logic, but his videos are inflated with fabricated flaws that simply are not present in the actual films.

Sin validated.

Jesus Christ! You aren't even answering the points in the video; you're playing a weird telephone game with a handful of cut-down examples that I randomly pulled from memory. (Not to mention that you ended up with entirely new "sins", which I don't think "validates" anything.) If you want to rebut this guy's response to CinemaSins, it wouldn't kill you to actually watch his response to CinemaSins (although the first video I linked, which is a masterful piece of work as exhaustive in its research as it is polished in its presentation, would be a much better use of that time than the video specifically about Avengers: Age of Ultron). I don't think that's really what you want, though; you're arguing with those points purely because I mentioned them. It's not the video that you're trying to rebut, but me. But going about it that way is a waste of your time and mine.

I'm referring to that video not because I think a guy called "bobvids" on YouTube is some infallible oracle but because he did the best possible job of laying out just what underlies CinemaSins. My off-the-cuff forum posts are no substitute for the work that he put into the video, and if you want to actually talk about this topic in good faith, you do yourself no favors by refusing to acknowledge it.

[DaHeckIzDat]

I'm done arguing with you, man. I've answered your questions multiple times and all you're doing is asking the same question all over again. If you still don't understand by this point, that's on you.

[Gentlegamer]

This thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13vBQfal87k