>Person reviews or criticizes a movie
>Only states obscure plot-holes no one would think/care about, nitpicks, or "weird" moments.
Why do so many folks do this?
>>68184092
Accessible technologies give a voice to a lot of people that have nothing to say.
>>68184153
first post best post
internet was a mistake
>reading reviews
>>68184178
It certainly has elevated how people perceive the importance of their own opinion
>>68184092
>>68184153
>>68184178
>>68184202
>>68184325
But what's the difference between us and them?
>>68184477
We're self-aware.
>>68184521
Literally everyone says this.
>>68184178
Without the internet I wouldn't be able to have fart porn in one tab and my email in another and be able to switch between them
>>68184477
Reviewers tend to be failed artists made that didn't make it
>>68184477
I don't have an audience that listens to and accepts my shitty opinions.Like YMS
>>68184092
A lot of times (not always) it means the person didn't find the movie engaging. If they're detached from what they're watching, all the plot holes and nitpicky stuff really stands out, so that's what they focus on. They just don't realize the real problem they had with the movie goes deeper than the surface-level stuff.
>>68184092
I do this. I have autism so I don't really understand things like characters, or acting (I don't know what makes good acting or not) and I don't really care to overanalyze the themes or anything, so really the story is usually the only thing in a movie that makes sense to me and if the story is illogical I just have nothing else to enjoy in the movie.
>>68184551
The thing is anyone that states his opinion here almost instantly gets bombarded with refutals, and is forced to think of counter-arguments. So it's a feedback cycle that forces everyone to reconsider their thoughts.
This of course is the ideal version of it, we all know it doesn't really work this way.
>>68184477
Here we judge people not for the quality of their nitpicking, but the quantity of their digits.
>>68184092
Everyone who has an internet connection thinks their opinion is just as valid. Criticism is an art form, and people think it just "happens" like they think movies just "happen."
>>68184092
Plotholes can be annoying and can legitimately detract from a film but any review that goes on about them is instantly pleb tier
>I don't get this! This doesn't make sense! I can't wrap my head around this! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? WHO WOULD MAKE A MOVIE LIKE THIS!
People actually call this 'a review'
>>68184866
Oh shit those dubs
>>68185007
>dull
>not fun
>pretentious
>>68184810
I just don't think that anyone's as self aware as they think they are.
>>68184092
Most people think with a narrow mind because they lived in a small world, getting only bits of information here and there.
They're not attuned to seperating the real issues from smaller ones like you stated.
People whom are smarter by birth or simply travel more, who are in general more open and curious will always be 3 steps ahead of those who do not posses these qualities.
The sheer majority of the population does not have these qualities.
They try and be heard by carving out a niche for themselves by being specifically interested or known for a few gimmicks they pursue or cling too as it worked out for them in the past.
Better attuned people to this world reject bullshit with far greater ease while those unfortunate souls tend to wallow in anger or sadness as a lot more things "get to them".
>>68184092
It's really really mindnumbingly simple to point out errors in the script and continuity but it takes taste and a little bit of thought to review a movie based on its whole and critique the entire thing precisely and all at once. That's why so many sites break it down into an assembly line: They're shit writers and even worse critics.
>something happens that I don't like
>PLOTHOLE
>character does something I wouldn't do in that situation despite never being in that kind of situation
>PLOTHOLE
>something happens that the audience can infer took place off screen but we aren't directly shown
>PLOTHOLE
>>68185044
>Artsy fartsy
>>68185123
Those people are the worst, fuck those people
>>68185123
this actually pisses me off way more than it should
>>68185123
This is /tv/ in a nutshell.
Pic related.
>>68184477
Everyone's opinion is equally worthless, it's what you produce with them that has value.
Critics do not create.
Why are you blaming reviews for teh fact that hollywood cant write its way out of a paper bag.
I can only assume you are all salty that some reviewer pointed out the retardedness of your favorite movie and now you feel like an idiot for not seeing it on your own.
>>68184092
My opinion is that it is directly related to the massive relevancy of realistic 'gritty' TV dramas and comic-based crossover blockbuster film. Both rely heavily on story and often ignore other (more important) cinematic qualities.
>>68185661
>you are all salty that some reviewer pointed out the retardedness of your favorite movie and now you feel like an idiot for not seeing it on your own.
>>68185661
It's not that. What annoys me personally is that those critics devote waaaaaay too much time/space to those irrelevant plot holes that aren't even plot holes or technical stuff that they completely overlook the artistic element. It would be like reviewing The Godfather and making a half of your review about James Caan visibly missing that guy in the ghetto. Or about Moe Greene's awfully dubbed dialogue. No normal person cares about those little slips when the entire thing is so good.
