>CinemaSins isn't satire What did he mean by his

He's right. Most of CS's gimmick is pointing out what is happening in the scene and marking it as a sin for some reason without explanation.

>>86513183
is he going to join Allah's brigades in the Levant?

>>86513218

While that's true, why be more sensitive to a YouTube video than a bunch of reviews?

At least the Rock's bitching was aimed at an appropriate target

This dude is directing the Metal Gear movie. He has my sword.

>>86513183
>I play videogames and think MGS is the most influential work in modern era, please take me seriously

File: 1200.jpg (87KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1200x675px

>>86513482
and my fax

>>86513482
If it ever happened it would obviously be utter trash, your sword is facing the wrong way.

>>86513183
He's still young and immature, and doesn't know how to step away from some stupid comedy YouTube show and not make an idiot of himself.

You wouldn't see a more experienced film director who's been in the game a long time doing this.

>>86513183

Most people don't know what the fuck CinemaSins is. All his whining is doing is giving the video even more exposure than it ever would've gotten otherwise.

Im convinced nobody actually cares about cinemasins critiques. Hes only popular because he shows basically the whole movie in 20 minutes, which if you're a lazy normie you can watch his videos instead of the actual thing

File: 1435627794226.jpg (351KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1200x900px

>that beard
?????????

File: 9372831365a34c4cc2c317b86b0c955e.png (9KB, 601x148px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 601x148px

>>86513183
well let's look at the actual definition of satire to see if cinemasins falls into its category.
>the use of humor
that's subjective obviously. i don't think cinemasins is funny at all, but i do think they think they're funny.
>irony
no.
>exaggeration
also doesn't work. if they're satirizing the movie in question, they're straight up wrong about what they talk about way too much. you can't make yourself look stupid if you're trying to satirize a movie, that doesn't make any sense. it'd be like you're satirizing yourself.
>or ridicule
they certainly try their hardest to ridicule the movies, but to me that just adds to the confusion. they constantly claim that their videos aren't meant to be taken seriously because they're "satire" but they genuinely try to pick apart these movies and mix in legitimate critique with stupid jokes, observations and shit they wouldn't sin if they had just fucking paid attention to the damn movie.
>to expose or criticize people's stupidity or vices
so, yeah, if it is in reference to the movie they're satirizing, then the definition makes no fucking sense. cinemasins seems to be under the impression that "satire" means "mostly jokes not meant to be taken seriously" when satire is almost always trying to make a point or take a jab at something or someone. they also don't seem to know what the definition of "deus ex machina" is, but that's a different story. regardless, i think this guy is absolutely right about cinemasins. whatever they are, they're not satire.

>>86513363
>appropriate target

The critics didn't make the movie shitty. The "appropriate target" for him to roid rage at would be the people who made the movie, not the people point out it's shitty.

>>86513670
Most of the people don't know who he is, how much publicity can he make

>>86513363
probably because the youtube video was straight up wrong about some of its "criticisms" and he pointed this out in his twitter posts. legitimate critique is probably fine for this guy, hence why he probably hasn't had some big meltdown for every negative review he's gotten, cinemasins is not legitimate critique.

>>86513363
>why be more sensitive to a YouTube video than a bunch of reviews?

cinema sins videos get millions of views. despite being "comedy" they influence people more than the average rotten tomatoe review

It isn't satire. It's normie comedy bullshit.

>>86513183
He's right that Cinemasins is shit but he also claims that Mr. Plinkett is good satire and it's astounding someone who directed a blockbuster film is giving any of his time to whine about a YouTube channel.

>>86513183
i wish directors would stop crying about dumb shit.

>>86515401
>he also claims that Mr. Plinkett is good satire

Source?

>>86513482
If he's chimping out this much over some shitty Jewtube channel he's going to kill himself when his MGS kino turns out awful and a bunch of autists are shitting on it non-stop.
kek

Cinema Sins is satire though.

>>86513482
Nah, he's no good. An artist shouldn't be flipping out like this, he should be used to plebs critiquing his work. An artist that wants everyone to love him is no good.

i thought it was satire of other youtube channels

>>86513363
there is no difference, it's all criticism with some audience.

>>86515638
no one has content similar to cinemasins except the retards like videogamesins or animesins who rip their awful style the fuck off. who could they possibly be satirizing?

>>86515741
just how mindlessly nitpicky youtube reviewers are to the point where they have a bell to train you

>>86513717
For movies like Kong skull island or capeshit where I enjoy the visuals but pretty much nothing else I'll watch his videos for that purpose. Plus the channel is a comedy channel, the guy has stated multiple times both in and out of videos that he doesn't actually make these as legitimate criticisms. The only people Roberts should be upset at are cinemasins's audience since they're stupid enough to take his videos seriously

>>86515873
but then why mix in actual legitimate criticisms of movies? criticisms that show up in their actual reviews on their second channel? a lot of which are flat out fucking wrong? if it was just mindless nitpicks about what color the leaves are or something, yeah, i'd be fine with that, that might actually be kind of funny, but in the case presented it makes no god damn sense. it just makes it seem like they are the nitpicky youtubers they're "satirizing."

>>86514763
Have you ever considered that cinemasins satirizes nitpicky YouTube nerd culture as opposed to the movies his videos are about?

>>86516093
>>86516077

>>86515524
I couldn't find the specific tweet I had in mind but here is a relevant one anyways.

http://mobile.twitter.com/VogtRoberts/status/897835787495940096

>>86516220
Oh yeah sorry for forgetting to erase "mobile" in that link

>>86515028
Sure but a million views (with a chance of some of that being bots) means shit compared to the half billion dollars worth in ticket sales.
And it's weird to have a guy say this video is dumbing people down when he made a dumb movie that's light fluff that has no redeemable qualities in it.

What's weird is that the cinemasins video actually did make a lot of valid points. The chinese girl really was shit. The hold on to your butts reference really was cringy as hell. The exposition dialogue dump at the start of the film really was very clunky.

>>86516559
>.10 cents has been deposited into your arse

>>86516650
So you think the chinese girl was a good interesting character, is that it? Or did you enjoy a pop culture reference to a movie that isn't supposed to exist yet?

>>86516737
>a pop culture reference to a movie that isn't supposed to exist yet?
do you think it was like an in-universe pop culture reference or something, like samuel l. jackson looked at everyone else afterwards and was like "man jurassic park sure was great huh"

>>86516962
I think it didn't make sense in-universe and took me out of the film for a cheap cringy joke. Was it worth it?

>>86516220
What or who does he think Plinkett is satire of? What topic is Plinkett satirizing?
Has the word lost its meaning?

>>86516559
I agree with the lame characters that are cliched and uninteresting (with exception of John C) and how the dialogue is horrid.
>do you own a bed?
>you ma must hate you

Awful. Also the editing was weak in some moments like that introductory with the "likeable" soliders.

>>86517057
Did the For Your Health jacket do that too? Like you couldn't stop thinking about Steve Brule fighting Akira or some shit

>>86516202
Fair enough. I think he includes semi-serious criticisms in his videos to pad out the running time and maybe to gain a couple more views from people who want to seem smart but aren't. Not the most intellectually honest course of action since the guy represents his videos as pure satire but I still find them funny

I just read his posts about CinemaSins and they're pretty much on point when it comes to that channel's modus operandi: shitting on things or spelling out what's happening on screen for 'comedic' value. I can't help but laugh, though, when he tries to argue that Red Letter Media's Plinkett reviews and Honest Trailers are somehow better.

Plinkett's criticisms, more often than not, are simply about what annoyed the RLM crew, what they objectively think is bad cinema (an ignorant concept from the get-go) and what things movies need to objectively have in order to be considered good. They make excuses all the time for things they like and try to frame the stuff they don't to fit in the objectively bad category (see: describe this Star Wars character without mentioning his job or looks. All of them can be badly described if you want to say they're terrible or shallow; all of them can be dissected to their very cores and compared to classic cinema characters if you want to show them in a good light, even Jar Jar Binks).

Honest Trailers 'humor' consists of over-analyzing characters' actions and pointing out in a literal manner what happens in a trailer when you, as a viewer, know what actually happened in the movie. Bottom of the tier humor, in my opinion.

In short, he made good points about CinemaSins and the ego of the channel's creator, but he mad, despite saying he's not.

>>86517067
plinkett is actually satirizing internet armchair critics by going to extreme lengths to depict them as old, fat, alcoholic, murderous psychopaths who can think of nothing except star wars. this is juxtaposed against him making an actually good case for why the prequels are terrible. cinemasins is just an internet armchair critic with slightly higher production values and more crunchyroll sponsorships than most others. he's not going to extreme lengths to make fun of them, he is one of them.

CinemaSins isn't funny.

i used to think cinemasins was complete shit but seeing this guys meltdown due to a youtube video makes me kinda respect them more

>>86513183
They aren't mocking or reflecting on anything, their "sins" are just
>Why did [character] do [x], when they could have done [y] and it would have been way easier
>Why isn't the plot to this movie 100% airtight and infallible
>Why don't characters act with calculating logic for the entire movie
They just keep pushing this autistic nerd idea that "I noticed a minor detail in this movie that doesn't make a ton of sense if you put a lot of thought into it, that means that the movie is bad" rather than focusing on any of the cinematic or compositional elements that would actually make for an interesting video

>>86517164
I'm fine with Easter eggs, but that cheap cringy joke wasn't an Easter egg. It was told by one of main characters in one of the pivotal moments of the film. It just cheapens the film. And yes actually, all the constant references were a bit annoying. Grey fox was cheap, it's their ship, it's supposed to represent something, the name is supposed to stand for something. Instead, it's a reference to a cyborg ninja for some reason. What does that add to the movie? What am I supposed to feel other than "I get that reference"?

>>86513363
He understands that ADHD millennials care more about bullshit youtube channels like CinemaSins and WatchMojo than whatever a critic from the San Jose Times has to say

>>86517354
>rather than focusing on any of the cinematic or compositional elements that would actually make for an interesting video
Yes, what we need is more videos by failed film students who break down every shot of Godfather for half an hour.

>>86513183
A guy with a beard like that either has a sense of humour about himself or he's the kind of hipster faggot who takes himself and his """art""" too seriously.

Guess which one he just outed himself as.

>wahhh some youtube video made fun of my kino monster movie!!!!! Let me rant about it for hours on twitter but then pretend im not butthurt!!!

>>86517408
This

And yes the bizarre fanboy gushing over Steve Brule's actor the entire movie was just weird.

>>86517800
It's hard not to gush when he's the only likeable human in the movie. Everyone was flat and one note. Completely boring people.
And I know Mad Landis said one of the themes of the movie is this cynical aspect as all the soliders die for nothing.
But that doesn't mean shit when the less likeable ones live, only in case of a sequel.

>>86517564
Alright then, so how do you propose films should be reviewed if we are no longer critic the craft? witty green text like in /tv/? "its a dumb movie but its fun"

>>86517312
It isn't any exaggeration when it's pure fiction and ridicules nobody in particular's style, it's just a humorous character created to make an hour plus video breakdown of a movie more interesting. The character allows them to fill an hour plus long review with something other than Star Wars, short and fast jokes about a mentally-addled serial killer with an absurd backstory. So it isn't really satire, Plinkett is just a humorous guide along a journey of lousy movies, designed to make you laugh enough that you stick around to watch terrible films with him.
CinemaSins isn't even really an armchair critic in my book, their criticism is often dogshit and just there as a base for the "humor" they put on top of it. They pick easy flaws or just make up their own. They aren't there to change anyone's opinion or give a breakdown on anything, they're there to dull people laugh at their screens. RLM is an actual armchair critic group, but they're at least a good one.

>plebbitors STILL triggered that their favorite youtuber got called out

What's the difference between an armchair critic and a real one. Criticism is one of the professions that are armchair by design. You're an armchair coach if you spend a lot of time talking about what the team should've done. You're an armchair director if you talk about how a film should've been shot.

To me the only person who can be called an armchair critic is someone who talks about how other people should criticise art. So that includes us and Kurt.

File: ZkQEV8B.png (3MB, 1668x1488px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1668x1488px

>>86518167
thank you for being correct anon. saves me from having to post in this retarded thread.

>>86518052
Again, theyre not actual reviews, theyre comedy video. Its ok if you dont find them funny but alot of people do and that is their purpose if you want to criticise them, criticise their comedy, dont treat them like theyre trying to be roger ebert or something you fucking autist.

>>86515401
Why shouldn't he be allowed to be as petty or complain about trivial shit as much as someone else?

>>86513183
Tiny dick director gets mad when a shitty YouTube channel points out some fair criticism. Then bitches about it on Twitter, calls them Trump like and gets e-points with all the hip movie obsessed dbags on Twitter.

Both suck ass.

>>86513482
>Metal Gear

Fuck you for making me think about that shitty stuff. I had like a 5 year streak you just ruined.

The Game.