Everything Wrong With "Everything Wrong With Sherlock Holmes" - General

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;51910266]I prefer CinemaWins over CinemanSins[/QUOTE] I love me some CinnamonToastCrunch

[video=youtube;2P0rLslL564]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P0rLslL564[/video] So there's this...

That was an interesting video. There are a lot of ways to nitpick things, and a lot of way to explain away such nitpicking.

I made it to 6 minutes before this dude's sanctimonious and unfunny schtick got old. We get it, guy with a really weak narrating voice, you don't like CinemaSins. The fact that you made a 17 minute satire video is not worthy of praise. Please go back to reading John Steinbeck novels or whatever you do in your spare time. [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] I got more chuckles out of the CinemaSins clips he played than anything he had to say about them. This is textbook "how to call someone out wrong"

[QUOTE=FFStudios;51913221]I made it to 6 minutes before this dude's sanctimonious and unfunny schtick got old.[/QUOTE] you might have more in common than you think

[QUOTE=FFStudios;51913221]I made it to 6 minutes before this dude's sanctimonious and unfunny schtick got old. We get it, guy with a really weak narrating voice, you don't like CinemaSins. The fact that you made a 17 minute satire video is not worthy of praise. Please go back to reading John Steinbeck novels or whatever you do in your spare time. [editline]4th March 2017[/editline] I got more chuckles out of the CinemaSins clips he played than anything he had to say about them. This is textbook "how to call someone out wrong"[/QUOTE] I would actually say how you've gone about it is text book you didn't even watch it and you're bitching

[QUOTE=FFStudios;51913221]Please go back to reading John Steinbeck novels or whatever you do in your spare time.[/QUOTE] Fucking savage, how could he recover from this?

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51918964]so its just 30 minutes of "this isn't my type of humor" and getting mad about it?[/QUOTE] No, it's a point-by-point criticism of CinemaSin's "jokes." Jokes which, when criticised, they've typically defended with "it's not SUPPOSED to make sense, it's just jokes dude!!!!!!!!'

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51918964]so its just 30 minutes of "this isn't my type of humor" and getting mad about it?[/QUOTE] Just like has been posted on the first page of this thread no, not at all Cinemasins is largely shit because it misses context on purpose for the sake of a joke. This is demonstrated extra-ordinarly clearly in these videos. Cinemasins isn't just "This isn't my type of humour" levels of bad. It's "We intentionally take things out of context to make a joke out of it". The result of this is that the average viewer who interacts with Cinemasins is that they see what Cinemasins calls a "Sin" and acts like it's an actual fucking critique of the film. It isn't.

Hell, I'll even (re)post the Age of Ultron video: (skip to 31:07 if the timecode doesn't work) [media]https://youtu.be/q5YWVne9pDE?t=31m7s[/media] It's lies. It's his [I]real critiques,[/I] not "jokes."

I ended up binge watching these and another youtuber's videos on this now all my related videos are feminism/antifeminism arguments thanks

[QUOTE=J!NX;50138123]I hope you don't take it for serious[/QUOTE] Except Cinema Sins also does a series of videos with [B]real[/B] criticism and most of the content in a Cinema Sins video is that [B]real[/B] criticism that you can also find in his [B]real [/B]critique video. Yes, he makes jokes, but also puts his actual baseless and retarded critiques in with them.

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;51919310]Except Cinema Sins also does a series of videos with [B]real[/B] criticism and most of the content in a Cinema Sins video is that [B]real[/B] criticism that you can also find in his [B]real [/B]critique video. Yes, he makes jokes, but also puts his actual baseless and retarded critiques in with them.[/QUOTE] I posted that a year ago so I'm not so sure it matters any more But I'll reiterate regardless; Why would you take cinemasins for serious... regardless of it being his "Real" or "Joke" reviews???

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51919353]"Wheres the joke" is all these videos are. Its easy as fuck to find flaws in a completed piece by googling everything in the stuck up method of finding holes. "Gee, why didn't they know about this specific fact from 1800 england? DO YOUR RESEARCH" as if the original videos are meant to be an argumentative piece and not cheap humor. This guy needs to stop being childish[/QUOTE] No you should probably actually try paying attention. The Cinemasins videos [B]manufacture[/B] things. They create "Flaws" in the films by poorly understanding them, poorly remembering scenes/lines/events that occurred [B]literally seconds ago[/B]and then they create jokes out of that lack of understanding and out of the purposeful destruction of context. I genuinely do not understand your point of view [editline]5th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;51919380]I posted that a year ago so I'm not so sure it matters any more But I'll reiterate regardless; Why would you take cinemasins for serious... regardless of it being his "Real" or "Joke" reviews???[/QUOTE] I'll bite. I don't. You don't. We don't. But people do. There's surely a number of people that do based on how large his channel is and based on how many views his videos get and how this very style of "JOKE" is being reproduced more and more in more and more content and people are becoming accustomed to it and no longer seem to raise an eyebrow when a critique is based around "What happened literally 2 seconds ago, didn't actually happen as far as I'm concerned". I hate to even argue this really, but it's by and large true that Youtube, and Youtubers, have a lot of influence over longer periods of time where their trends, styles, and methods become almost "Invisible" to us by our own accustomness to it. I do not want people to be accustomed to his shitty critiques and take them for real. I don't care if that makes it seem like "I take him seriously" when I'm trying to rebuke him, and I highly doubt the shellsshellsshells really gives a shit if he's seen as "taking it seriously" when the point is that people besides US do take it seriously and should be shown how stupid that is because the very nature of the "Cinemasins" videos is to cut shit up to destroy context and people eat that shit up without questioning it.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51919353]"Wheres the joke" is all these videos are. Its easy as fuck to find flaws in a completed piece by googling everything in the stuck up method of finding holes. "Gee, why didn't they know about this specific fact from 1800 england? DO YOUR RESEARCH" as if the original videos are meant to be an argumentative piece and not cheap humor. This guy needs to stop being childish[/QUOTE] you said it best, it's cheap humor. all he's doing is pointing out exactly how cheap it is to get laughs out of people

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51918964]so its just 30 minutes of "this isn't my type of humor" and getting mad about it?[/QUOTE] what does any of this have to do with humour the problem with cinemasins that he's pointing out, isn't the humour, but that it's completely ignorant of what's going on in films. all his sins aren't sins and they're not accurate anyway. the comedy part is the little jokes he does in relaying the sins to us. but he genuinely thinks these are things wrong with a film or just wrong when in reality he's just fucking up and not understanding films. because he's a dumb dumb. it's not hard to see

it's funny how similar this guy is to cinemasins (except, yknow, good) cinemasins is the small guy poking the big guy. their whole gimmick is essentially 'the emperor has no clothes', with movies. pointing out the things nobody questions and getting people to go "why DOESN'T anyone question this?", but with a (supposedly) comic twist this guy is doing the same thing, as the 20k subs channel riffing on a 6 mil subs one, and giving them the same treatment they give movies, except his criticism is actually based on reality, and comes without the overbearing smugness of cinemasins the icing on the cake is that he's actually a better nitpicker than them too, lol

This was brilliant, as are his other related videos. Do you guys know anyone else that does long-form analysis like this?

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51923167]If you honestly look at cinimasins and think anything serious about them shitting on films using couch humor you need to just not watch them. Im saying multiple 30 minute analysis videos bitching about a crude humor comedy group that makes snipes at popular films, based in reality or not, is not warrented with the smugness and rudeness this man portrays. Does he honestly think cinima sins are actually idiots or just pretending to be idiots most of the time to give people who like that style of humor a good chuckle?[/QUOTE] Clearly you're not reading, watching and not listening. Jeremey does real critiques. His real critiques end up in cinemasins. His real critiques are just as miscontextualized and "JOKEY JOKES" as his cinemasins shtick. Cinemasins videos are 20 minutes long at this point anyways, how is that a real critique? Cinemasins has a large viewership, people are largely stupid and follow popular things. His channel being large and spreading stupid things that are easily demonstrably stupid that people fail to pick up on is a reality. You've ignored all evidence to prove for a fact that cinemasins critiques and jokes are just poor understanding of the films. There's very little left to say.

This guy has a real problem with repeating problems. In the Civil War one, he mentions the "The Accords have been in play for longer than the attack in Whereever, Africa like 3 times in a row. The guy scripts this stuff out, notices all the flaws in a video, creates a rebuttal for all the major flaws, but can't be asked to simplify his list?

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51925273]he puts time into making these videos which would require hours of editing on said movies. ... At the end of the day most people watch jeremy's shit because is cheap laughs.[/QUOTE] Which is it, you overly-defensive weirdo? Pick an argument and stick with it. Either it's cheap, or it's got an inordinate amount of effort in. You can't defend CS by trying to claim both at the same time. [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51925273]clearly satire[/QUOTE] Not really, there are multiple points where the criticism and the "satire" are not differentiable and exist in some kind of limbo which can only be escaped when you go and see for yourself whether a given statement is true or false. Especially in the Sherlock Holmes one, e.g., where several points are clearly presented as valid criticisms when they actually made sense in the context that wasn't provided by Jeremy for what must be the "joke" that isn't actually a joke. [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51925273]rude commentary about a popular channel[/QUOTE] Okay, so it's above criticism because people like it? Being popular makes it good, or does being a "crude humor comedy group that makes snipes at popular films" mean that anyone who doesn't like you is pretentious? [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51923167]smugness and rudeness[/QUOTE] Projecting. Oh hey, you know what? There's another group that utilizes fairly crude humor and talks about new popular movies on Youtube. They even utilize satire and have a large audience and their videos are presented to look really low-effort. Hell, they even mix jokey jokes with legitimate criticism. Why, I'm talking about Mike, Jay, and Rich of RLM's Half in the Bag! Let's look at what makes them good where cinemasins kinda sucks! Oh, what's this, the jokes are actually good and the jokes that aren't jokes are intentionally constructed to throw the audience off and shatter the illusion? The criticisms make sense and are presented to be distinct from the jokes? The satire is actual satire of other reviewers and hack journalists? They're self-aware? They can be popular without being shit? They can successfully utilize several layers of irony while still conveying a perceptible point? Seriously though, how is Jeremy's work above criticism by virtue of being garbage?

Something being legit criticism or satire doesn't suddenly make it not garbage. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] CinemaSins is trash.

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51923356]This guy has a real problem with repeating problems. In the Civil War one, he mentions the "The Accords have been in play for longer than the attack in Whereever, Africa like 3 times in a row. The guy scripts this stuff out, notices all the flaws in a video, creates a rebuttal for all the major flaws, but can't be asked to simplify his list?[/QUOTE] He rebuts every "sin" in order. Can't be helped that CinemaSins being repetitive garbage causes his stuff to become repetitive, too.

I used to like cinemasins. Then they got shitty with their jokes and I enjoy this guy pointing it out. Sure is funny how you miscontextualize so many arguments for your sake

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51929097]"Overly defensive weirdo" by countering statements from someone after being told by them that im apparently not paying attention because I don't have the same opinion as a group of people. Starting from the top, I can claim that CS can be defended by saying they both put effort into making their videos as well as also making cheap jokes. The time it takes to put together a video, writing "jokey jokes" and finalizing something that many people find consistently enjoyable is worthy of at least some level of respect. Just because they are popular doesn't mean they need to be judged at a higher level to see if they somehow deserve it. Writing cheap jokes themselves may not be too difficult but they have found a niche of overwhelming supporters who generally like their content. Somehow this is considered wrong. With the case of not being able to differentiate between satire and actual criticisms, this goes beyond the content itself and more of an attack at the creator without real cause, which I'll get to in a minute. When CS makes a statement in the form of a supposed joke in a video which is actually meant to be taken as satire, it doesn't matter what the creator actually thinks the validity of that statement it. You can find humor in it if you know the context and know it's wrong, or if you don't know they context it still sets up a joke. You cant just assume that all contextually wrong statements made in CS are made with serious implications or legit criticisms with misunderstanding. You cant just assume a potential out of context erroneous statement is entirely unintentional either, as it very well could be a purposeful joke made out of a knowing false situation. CS is not a 100% serious critique of a film and it should not be judged as so, regardless of how many people actually use as such. It is not the responsibility of a comedy channel based on satire themed comedy to educate people on the actual substance of a film, and they should not be treated as such. Don't get hung up on supposedly fake jokes to discredit the merit of someones comedy work. What matters is the result. Supposedly Jeremy lacks understanding on the films he writes about. Like a number of people I get full understanding of films backstory. I read the wiki pages, I look up the comments, and I read a dozen reviews about the movies I like. I do not expect everyone who talks about a movie to do so. I get the full picture, all the intricacies, and even then there are basic things that I can easily miss that my friend in the seat next to me will immediately understand. Point being anybody can write a review of a movie and someone with a different mindset can find holes. This is exactly what SS(OP vid) here is doing, while a group of onlookers who fail to see any merit in CS's comedy parrot him with his "jokey joke" catchphrase and rejoice in the fact they found something to complain about. CS is not above criticism. You are free to not like the style of comedy. Some of the jokes can feel very lazy, buts it's not as terrible as it is made out to be through multiple half hour long videos picking it apart piece by piece. Anything can be picked apart like this and made to look worse than it actually is. Its one thing to not find something funny or not worth watching, its another to actively shit on someone else's work because just you don't like it by treating it like some kind of argumentative essay and ripping it to shreds to show how much you dont like it. I fundamentally disagree with how SS is doing what they trying to accomplish, judging CS, and that is why I go to lengths to defend CS here. If you want to go watch Half in the bag, CS is not stopping you. Half in the bag is an entirely different style and only share similarity with CS in the fact they both cover films. SS should do something more with their time than create videos pandering to the audience of people who already don't like, don't watch, and don't enjoy CS. His style of argument in his videos does not aim to make a better CS, it aims to rally the group of people who already don't enjoy it to decry it. It over blows the impact that CS has on viewers to somehow suggest that normal people are swayed to hate a film base solely on their videos. Almost all people who view CS will recognize that CS is nitpicky to the extreme, and is not a reliable source to base an opinion around. This isn't on CS, its on the viewer. The jokes, based on real criticism or not, base on misconceptions or not, are jokes in the end that not everyone will like. for someone who likes to use context as an argumentative tool, he sure does like to misconstrue context a lot. Take his criticism of the use of Sin for example. He fails to recognize that CS use of Sin is far different more broad than definition, but within context of CS it loses nearly all negative connotation. He fails to recognize that Sin is no longer daily verbage to a majority viewer base and has been re purposed for a comedic purpose. Out of his arguments for weak excuses, this example is just a weak excuse to criticize something. This could have just been left with a 5 - 10 minute long video and I would have been fine with it to say what he had to say with legitimate criticism packed together, but instead he draws it out factors of length more than what it needed to be to try to make a point that criticizing something in this fashion isn't entertaining, while not using the same form. IE distinct lack of comedy.[/QUOTE] read through this nonsense, the only thing i really agree with is this [quote]they have found a niche of overwhelming supporters[/quote] indeed they have, as you so clearly exemplify

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51929173]Great. Explain why.[/QUOTE] For one, you completely fail to understand what satire is or how it works. You've continually brought it up as if satire and criticism were two mutually exclusive things. This is such an outrageously fucking ignorant understanding of the concept. It is possibly the most baffling opinion on satire you could ever hold. Newsflash: [B]satire IS criticism[/B]

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51929456]calm down lad You don't have to stick directly to dictionary definitions. CS's work is not strictly satire in the traditional sense. Honestly I would call CS less of direct satire, if you want to be strict about that, and closer to a string of commentary with not so serious satirical undertones. Either way, you are arguing semantics.[/QUOTE] Lol, last page you were telling people they weren't thinking, to "give you a fucking break," and "get the fuck over it," but HE needs to calm down? Lmao. I'm sure everyone in this thread would gladly drop this and continue with the discussion if it weren't for you continuing to drag this argument and yourself through the mud.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;51929456]calm down lad You don't have to stick directly to dictionary definitions. CS's work is not strictly satire in the traditional sense. Honestly I would call CS less of direct satire, if you want to be strict about that, and closer to a string of commentary with not so serious satirical undertones. Either way, you are arguing semantics.[/QUOTE] If this is semantics, it's entirely relevant. You don't get to use words you don't know the meaning of without looking like a doofus, and you don't get to reshape those words to your liking when people point out how wrong you are Satire isn't synonymous with 'not serious'. Not by the dictionary definition, and not by popular perception either. Satire always needs a target, and it's always intrinsically related to whatever it's satirizing. To give an example of the kind of satire you're probably thinking of, look at Diane Morgan and her Philomena Cunk character. It's satirizing a particular style of documentary, but it's by no means saying that style is inherently bad. This isn't what Cinemasins does with their inaccurate jokes. They just happen to be inaccurate jokes. It would really help your argument if you just stopped trying to change the meaning of a word you don't understand, and instead stuck to 'serious' and 'not serious' as points of reference. If you say their joke about Tony Stark finding a secret door based on pure instinct - when in reality, Jarvis had scanned it just a second earlier - is satire, you need to give a target for that satire. Is it themselves? Is the real joke 'look at how shit we are at this', a la Philomena Cunk? Because I don't get that impression at all. They never reference Jarvis' scan and you need to know that for the joke to work as satire. If you say it's not meant to be taken entirely seriously though, that's perfectly valid! I still think it's an example of lazy, trashy, manufactured humor in lieu of actual comedic skill, but hey. Still valid.