Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes 2: People Take Too Long to Post New Threads

[LaZodiac]

gunna have to agree to disagree on that one then.

plus it's not just calling out plot-holes, they call out stupid decisions made by characters / directors to make the story move forwards too among other things.

"It's just for laughs" is not actually true by the admission of the guy who makes the dang things.

anyway here's the video, and a follow up, if you're willing to hear what he actually has to say. He explains very concisely and clearly why CinemaSins is absolute trash from the ground up, and ever since I saw them and stopped watching them my life has been substantially better in at least some small regard.

[Ionathus]

so he... he knows it's all a joke right?

He knows that everything that goes into cinimasins is all a joke?

Oh everyone knows Cinemasins is doing it to be funny. the problem is, pointing out plot holes by itself just isn't funny.

Yep, exactly. The first few videos were funny to me, back when they were like 3 minutes long. It's entertaining when the "sins" are nitpicks, or silly continuity observations, or snappy one-liners. Go back to the early Cinema Sins and see how fast his critiques are. Compare them to what the format turned into after a few years, where the videos are sometimes a 20-minute slog and he can rant for upwards of a minute on a single "sin" without ever making anything resembling a joke.

So my main problem with Cinema Sins is that, for something that claims to be a comedy channel, it's painfully unfunny. That's as much as I need to not like it and avoid their videos.

My other problem, which the referenced video from bobvids finally helped me articulate, is that if Cinema Sins is meant to be actual satire -- and not just a wannabe movie critic trying to worm his way into the big leagues with plausible deniability -- it's bad satire. Mixing genuine criticism with obvious, cartoonish ignorance makes for a very weird viewing experience. Am I meant to agree with this guy and think he's smart and insightful? Or am I supposed to think he's an idiot?

I can always tell when, say, Honest Trailers or Pitch Meeting are joking vs. when they're making a serious critique. By contrast, Cinema Sins feels like that kind of "Schrodinger's weirdo" who couches every statement as a joke, because he thinks it'll make him immune to criticism or soften the blow of his weird behavior if anyone calls him out on it.

Because inconsequential hot take: i feel like people who have actual legitimate problems with CinimaSins don't realize that it's all just to be funny, and they don't actually hate the movies.

The problem is that it's not "just" to be funny. He mixes actual critiques in with "funny misunderstandings", with no clear distinction between them. This is the main complaint from bobvids, the response video guy we linked. The (incorrect) nitpicks that Cinema Sins makes get interpreted as actual legitimate criticism by viewers of CS's videos, who then think the reviewed movie is actually bad because of these nitpicks-that-are-only-nitpicks-unless-I'm-called-out-then-they're-jokes-ha-ha-I'm-not-incorrect-I'm-just-in-on-the-joke.

I think bobvids is overly harsh on Cinema Sins, and I think it's all probably some degree of "old man yells at cloud" since it probably won't be bringing down CS or even getting him to change his ways anytime soon. He's fighting a one-man probably-misguided battle out of principle, which I respect but don't plan to join anytime soon.

But I do recommend at least seeing his Cabin In The Woods response video that LaZodiac linked, if you haven't already. It's a superb breakdown of the criticism about Cinema Sins's style, especially their frequent and deliberate ignorance about basic storytelling conventions, and it was a cathartic watch for me, after being so annoyed at their delivery style every time I tried to get into a recent EWW video.

I prefer Pitch Meeting for that.

I agree wholeheartedly. Pitch Meeting has the good sense to get in and get out quickly, only talk about the stuff that's actually humorous to talk about, and keep it all sustained with a very upbeat tone that keeps the critique lighthearted. Ryan George is very good at pointing out the same mistakes that Cinema Sins does, in a fraction of the time, and with an actual punchline.

[The_Snark]

Funny enough, explicitly supernatural elements have been in the franchise since at least 1988's Scooby-Doo! and the Reluctant Werewolf.

It's preceded (very slightly) by Scooby-Doo and the Ghoul School, wherein Shaggy and Scooby are hired as gym teachers at a finishing school for girls... who all happen to be the daughters of classic horror movie monsters: vampires, werewolves, mummies, etc. Different plot, but similar vibes. I have no idea who pitched these two movies, they seem like a marked departure from the traditional Scooby-doo formula. Doesn't stop me from feeling nostalgic for them.

Edit - apparently there's a third from the same era, Scooby-Doo and the Boo Brothers. But the tiny middle-of-nowhere video rental place that was my sole source of TV media when I was a small child visiting extended family did not have that one, so I never saw it!

[LaZodiac]

It's preceded (very slightly) by Scooby-Doo and the Ghoul School, wherein Shaggy and Scooby are hired as gym teachers at a finishing school for girls... who all happen to be the daughters of classic horror movie monsters: vampires, werewolves, mummies, etc. Different plot, but similar vibes. I have no idea who pitched these two movies, they seem like a marked departure from the traditional Scooby-doo formula. Doesn't stop me from feeling nostalgic for them.

Edit - apparently there's a third from the same era, Scooby-Doo and the Boo Brothers. But the tiny middle-of-nowhere video rental place that was my sole source of TV media when I was a small child visiting extended family did not have that one, so I never saw it!

And lets not forget Thirteen Ghosts of Scooby Doo, a series released in 1985. And the fact that almost all the films Scooby Doo has as a cartoon series involve some degree of the supernatural being real this time. Calling the live action Gun lead Scooby Doo a unique shift to real monsters is just flatly inaccurate on the part of that video.

[Draconi Redfir]

The problem is that it's not "just" to be funny. He mixes actual critiques in with "funny misunderstandings", with no clear distinction between them.

so the problem is that he does... two different things at once? That's pretty common though. Heck look at where we are, order of the stick has funny moments AND serious moments on the same page all the time.

[Ionathus]

so the problem is that he does... two different things at once? That's pretty common though. Heck look at where we are, order of the stick has funny moments AND serious moments on the same page all the time.

"With no clear distinction between them" is the sticking point for me. When other popular reviewers like Pitch Meeting or Honest Trailers "miss the point," I feel like I can at least tell. With Cinema Sins, I can never tell if he's being wrong on purpose or if he's just genuinely wrong and hiding behind "it's just a joke, bro!" to shield himself from criticism.

His Cabin In The Woods video is a great example of this: he "sins" a lot of things that are blatantly not mistakes, they're intentional storytelling choices that are making a point about horror movies as a genre. He criticizes The Organization for shoehorning Jules and Dana into sacrificial archetype "roles" that don't fit them (in fact, they'd probably fit better if you swapped them), but that's the entire point of the movie: that lazy horror movies make their characters act like idiotic shallow parodies of a few stereotypes, rather than unique humans with critical thinking.

His criticism on that point isn't even close to being a joke, and he's missed the point the writers were going for. But he's not framing his criticism as blatant, know-it-all incorrectness -- the way he presents his argument makes it seem like he truly believes his own critiques are correct. I have no idea whether I'm supposed to take it as a joke or as genuine criticism, but it doesn't work on either front regardless.

Seriously, watch a few minutes of the response video to see what I'm talking about. Unless you haven't seen Cabin In The Woods, then go watch that first, because it's great.

[veti]

so the problem is that he does... two different things at once? That's pretty common though. Heck look at where we are, order of the stick has funny moments AND serious moments on the same page all the time.

Well, it's more than that. There are (arguably) real, serious critiques of films in there. Then there are "jokes", which either "purposely" miss the point or actively misrepresent the film. And there's "satire", where he (claims to be) roleplaying an excessively nitpicky reviewer. And, as we keep mentioning, there's absolutely no way of telling which "sin" belongs to which category. Even when I'm watching videos about films I've actually seen more than once, I'm still not sure to what extent he's just pretending to be a complete lackwit, as opposed to actually missing the point. Because he's set up these multiple "roles" for himself as an alibi so that he can't be asked to account for - well, just about anything he says.

And yet people - many people, if the comments are anything to go by - routinely watch these videos and decide on the strength of that not to watch the movie. In other words, they take it and use it as a fair review. Which is crazy. And the narrator, at various times, also describes himself as a reviewer.

I've seen quite a lot of those videos myself, mostly over the shoulders of other people, and I've often found myself thinking "no, no, that's not what happens, that's - sheesh, how drunk are you right now?" But the people over whose shoulders I'm watching, they haven't even seen the frickin' movie, they're forming their first impressions at that point. And don't try to tell me that CinemaSins isn't responsible for that, because they made the videos. And is there a big frickin' disclaimer at the start of each one saying that it contains satire and outright lies as well as legit criticism? No. No, there is not.

CinemaSins is a one-joke idea that's been stretched across hundreds of videos solely because it's a cheap way of getting views and ad revenue. They're in it for the money, no more nor less. There's no genuine interest in culture, no love of films, no knowledge of conventions, not even the most superficial level you'd get from spending a few afternoons browsing TVTropes. Just a naked, unfiltered desire to make money by the cheapest means available.

[Bohandas]

Getting a pet from an animal shelter is more ransoming than it is "rescuing". Rescuing would be if you snuck in at night and opened up all the cages

[Batcathat]

Getting a pet from an animal shelter is more ransoming than it is "rescuing". Rescuing would be if you snuck in at night and opened up all the cages

Wouldn't that likely just lead to most of them dying or ending up in a different shelter? Doesn't seem like much of a rescue.

[Ionathus]

Getting a pet from an animal shelter is more ransoming than it is "rescuing". Rescuing would be if you snuck in at night and opened up all the cages

Interesting. I've never heard "rescue" as a verb for the owner's exchange with the shelter. That's always been "adopt" in my neck of the woods.

AFAIK, The "rescue" part has already happened when you arrive at the shelter to choose an animal. The shelter is the one doing the rescuing from other, worse circumstances (either out of bad ownership situations or off the streets) -- you're just bankrolling their rescue efforts and giving the animal a final, permanent home.

[Peelee]

Wouldn't that likely just lead to most of them dying or ending up in a different shelter? Doesn't seem like much of a rescue.

Or wrecking more havoc on the local environment. For the Bohandas Rescue to be a rescue, it needs to include taking in all the animal, not just letting them free to roam the streets.

[LaZodiac]

Interesting. I've never heard "rescue" as a verb for the owner's exchange with the shelter. That's always been "adopt" in my neck of the woods.

AFAIK, The "rescue" part has already happened when you arrive at the shelter to choose an animal. The shelter is the one doing the rescuing from other, worse circumstances (either out of bad ownership situations or off the streets) -- you're just bankrolling their rescue efforts and giving the animal a final, permanent home.

I've always heard the term rescue refer to animals that where;

1: Adopted from Shelters
2: That where taken from abusive situations

So adopting a stray is just regular adopting, while adopting a cat that was liberated from a family that mistreated it is a rescue.

Ransoming is more "someone is threatening to kill this person and you are paying them off to avoid that" which is... TECHNICALLY what Shelters do, unless you go with a no-kill shelter, but I digress- there is no ill intent towards the animals involved so it isn't really ransoming.

Ironically, none of these are how I got a dog once, which could be more accurately described as kidnapping.

[Ionathus]

Ransoming is more "someone is threatening to kill this person and you are paying them off to avoid that" which is... TECHNICALLY what Shelters do, unless you go with a no-kill shelter, but I digress- there is no ill intent towards the animals involved so it isn't really ransoming.

Spoiler: Whoops, got consequential again

Show

Right: the shelter's not "threatening" to do anything unless its "demands" are met...it's just the sad fact of the situation.

As a side rant, I feel like I've seen multiple articles about how "no-kill" shelters aren't an actual solution (and "kill" shelters don't deserve the hate they get)...because no-kill shelters just turn away further animals once they're at capacity, or even transfer their animals to "kill" shelters to make more space. It's like a surgeon saying they've never lost a patient, but they refuse to do any surgery that's more dangerous than mole removal. You're not actually helping anyone...you're just passing the buck to other people who have to do the hard work.

Ironically, none of these are how I got a dog once, which could be more accurately described as kidnapping.

...You got kidnapped by your dog?!?

[Ionathus]

Also, you should TOTALLY play Majora's Mask. My favorite Zelda game, and that's saying a lot (LttP, OoT, and the original all hold very dear places in my heart).

Also, backtracked to echo this sentiment. Majora's Mask is a treasure and deserves all of the praise it gets. Every time I go back to it, there's another layer of sincerity and excellent character writing hidden somewhere I hadn't thought to look before. The Clocktown citizenry and their day-to-day squabbles are endlessly compelling and emotionally resonant.

[Bohandas]

Right: the shelter's not "threatening" to do anything unless its "demands" are met...it's just the sad fact of the situation.

po-tay-to po-tah-to

You're not actually helping anyone...

And certainly not the animals

Or wrecking more havoc on the local environment.

A case could be made that you're rescuing your local birds but you're still certainly not rescuing the cat

[Ionathus]

po-tay-to po-tah-to

And certainly not the animals

A case could be made that you're rescuing your local birds but you're still certainly not rescuing the cat

You're welcome to start a separate thread about this. I'm not going to spend any more time debating animal euthanasia on the lighthearted rants thread.

[LaZodiac]

...You got kidnapped by your dog?!?

Naw other way around, the dog got kidnapped.

[Ionathus]

Naw other way around, the dog got kidnapped.

C'mon, Zodi, "yes, and" Work with me, here!

[Draconi Redfir]

NGL, i kinda really hate it when a serious, intimidating and powerful character is introduced into a story (Particularly as a mentor to a plucky hero) only to be revealed to be a snivelling coward and/or jerkwad in power armour ten minutes later, especially when it's clear the heel-face turn only exists so the plucky hero will go off on their own adventure or whatever.


If you're going to present me with a space marine Give me a space marine! Stop giving me Wormtail in power armour! I don't LIKE Wormtail in power armour! Wormtail in power armour is boring and overdone!

If you want the plucky hero to leave the hardass mentor-figure and go off on his own, then there are plenty of other ways to do it without turning the mentor-figure into a jerkward or a joke! Have Mentor-figure die saving Plucky-hero's life or something idk!

Like you can still have the mentor-figure scream "Oh shoot!" and start to panic when a giant bear attacks him, who wouldn't in that case!? but having him start insulting and threatening the plucky-hero immediately after plucky-hero saved his life just to prompt plucky-hero to go out on his own is just unnecessary.

[Lord Raziere]

my hot take is that some characters in general should be allowed to just be cool, too many are deflated for a joke or are silly character made to be ironically cool by memes. but then again I feel that sincerity in general needs to come back to balance things out in general. I say this as someone who likes being sarcastic, witty and ironic, us sarcastic ironic people are supposed to be fringe aloof people were we belong, because our bit doesn't work if we're mainstream.

[Rynjin]

NGL, i kinda really hate it when a serious, intimidating and powerful character is introduced into a story (Particularly as a mentor to a plucky hero) only to be revealed to be a snivelling coward and/or jerkwad in power armour ten minutes later, especially when it's clear the heel-face turn only exists so the plucky hero will go off on their own adventure or whatever.


If you're going to present me with a space marine Give me a space marine! Stop giving me Wormtail in power armour! I don't LIKE Wormtail in power armour! Wormtail in power armour is boring and overdone!

If you want the plucky hero to leave the hardass mentor-figure and go off on his own, then there are plenty of other ways to do it without turning the mentor-figure into a jerkward or a joke! Have Mentor-figure die saving Plucky-hero's life or something idk!

Like you can still have the mentor-figure scream "Oh shoot!" and start to panic when a giant bear attacks him, who wouldn't in that case!? but having him start insulting and threatening the plucky-hero immediately after plucky-hero saved his life just to prompt plucky-hero to go out on his own is just unnecessary.

I kept expecting them to do something to explain Titus, but at best it's only hinted at. Titus being a Knight piloting power armor technically means something has already gone horribly, horribly wrong, as it's the veteran ranked Paladins who are the power armor jockeys.

This seems to imply that the West Coast Brotherhood is currently very, very low on manpower and are elevating people to an honor they do not deserve...but that's all it does. We never really get any look into how the Brotherhood is doing as a whole so it's left up in the air as to whether them being portrayed collectively as drooling incompetents and sniveling cowards is an intentional story choice or just dumbing down the worldbuilding again.

[Batcathat]

I was mostly just happy they didn't go the Fallout 3 route and turn the Brotherhood into Generic Hero Organization.

[Draconi Redfir]

i've only seen the first two episodes so far, so fair warning on that.


Personally i feel like the same outcome overall could have happened without making Titus a jerkwad like that.

Have Maximus save Titus from the bear, Titus is still a hard mentor, but thanks him for the assist, and they get back up.

The two of them wander around, maybe their radio broke so they lost contact with their virtibird or something, they encounter the two wastelanders, Maximus urges Titus to get involved, Titus obliges just because Maximus DID save his life, and there's a bit of a lesson at the result. Maybe Titus is wounded from the bear attack, so Maximus needs to leave behind the giant dufflebag to explain things in the future.

Then they get to the settlement, and the same things happen. Titus in his power armour engages the Ghoul over the Enclave guy, but his weapon broke back at the Bear so the fight goes about the same. Maximus still tells Lucy to get Enclave guy out of there, and then tries to help Titus but gets separated. The Ghoul cuts the power armour's chord still, and Titus flies away uncontrolled just like Maximus did in the current show. Between this and the bear-attack, Titus crashes and either dies, or is too wounded to survive for long, so he gives the mission to Maximus, possibly even some small power-armour training, and then dies.


And just like that you reach the same outcome in a more interesting way, Maximus has a positive mentor / father-figure, Titus isn't a dink, and nothing important changes.

[Batcathat]

I do think it could've been interesting to have Titus as somewhat less of a complete jerk, but for rather different reasons. What I liked about what actually did happen was that it gave Maximus more interesting character than the typical hero "good guy who's good even to people who really don't deserve it". Though having Titus be such a monumental ass kinda diminished it, as I wouldn't have been surprised if a literal saint had punched him in the nose at that point.

I wonder if that's a hot enough take for this to not be completely off topic for the thread?

[Rynjin]

Titus's character was doomed from the time he was cast with Michael Rapaport. That guy is never not the most annoying character in whatever show/movie he's in.

How did the Honest Trailers line for the show go? Something like "Maximus tolerates 5 minutes in the company of Michael Rapaport before doing what we all wanna do to him".

[Batcathat]

Titus's character was doomed from the time he was cast with Michael Rapaport. That guy is never not the most annoying character in whatever show/movie he's in.

You might be onto something. I was watching the second season of Only murders in the building around the same time as Fallout and I certainly met my quota of Michael Rapaport being a ****.

[Ionathus]

sincerity in general needs to come back to balance things out in general. I say this as someone who likes being sarcastic, witty and ironic, us sarcastic ironic people are supposed to be fringe aloof people were we belong, because our bit doesn't work if we're mainstream.

Hear, hear! Caring about stuff is cool again! Believe in things, I dare you.

I was mostly just happy they didn't go the Fallout 3 route and turn the Brotherhood into Generic Hero Organization.

I actually kinda liked how Fallout 3's Brotherhood had broken with the other sects. To my memory (I haven't played it in over a decade), there was a fair bit of tension about the leader's choice to become a more humanitarian and charitable organization. I like that there are a sect of "outcasts" who are actually the original philosophy of the BotS.

And if I'm being honest, by the time I met the BotS in Fallout 3, I was in pretty deep need for anybody competent to be trying their best. It's a relentlessly bleak game. I shouldn't be surprised, given its worldbuilding, but still. It's nice to have NPCs who are working to fix things, just so long as that doesn't get in the player's way of being "the hero".

[Draconi Redfir]

to be fair, as a non-fallout nerd, i do feel like "True" brotherhood ideology is a bit strange. They collect and hoard tech, and then just kind of... sit on it?

Like, i could see them using it, or making sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, or trying to reverse-engineer it, or using it to help non-raider factions and the like, but it kind of feels like they just put it in a vault and leave it there or something.

I can understand them being cautious or even untrustworthy with outsiders, but there's a pretty clear difference between settlers and raiders, so i don't see why they couldn't have positive relationships with people just trying to rebuild society.

[Mx.Silver]

to be fair, as a non-fallout nerd, i do feel like "True" brotherhood ideology is a bit strange. They collect and hoard tech, and then just kind of... sit on it?

Like, i could see them using it, or making sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, or trying to reverse-engineer it, or using it to help non-raider factions and the like, but it kind of feels like they just put it in a vault and leave it there or something.

I can understand them being cautious or even untrustworthy with outsiders, but there's a pretty clear difference between settlers and raiders, so i don't see why they couldn't have positive relationships with people just trying to rebuild society.

Because the last time society built-up to that kind of technology, it unleased a nuclear apocalypse. The Brotherhood are founded on the idea that this stuff is just too fundamentally dangerous to be left out there in the wider world, and needs to be kept under control by the few people who can be trusted with it (i.e. the Brotherhood themselves).

They're sort of the foil/other side of the coin to the Followers Of The Apocalypse, in that way. The Followers want to ensure that the post-war soceity won't set the world on fire again; The Brotherhood want to ensure that it can't.

That was the case originally, anyway. I don't know how much that's still true of the Bethesda era.

[Draconi Redfir]

Because the last time society built-up to that kind of technology, it unleased a nuclear apocalypse. The Brotherhood are founded on the idea that this stuff is just too fundamentally dangerous to be left out there in the wider world, and needs to be kept under control by the few people who can be trusted with it (i.e. the Brotherhood themselves).

They're sort of the foil/other side of the coin to the Followers Of The Apocalypse, in that way. The Followers want to ensure that the post-war soceity won't set the world on fire again; The Brotherhood want to ensure that it can't.

The problem is the brotherhood take that idea to ridiculous levels, like trying to stop civilization from inventing nukes by withholding the ability to use a blender.


A lot of the tech they collect is just useful quality-of-life stuff.