ITT: invalid criticism

t. Tarkovsky

>nothing happens
>bad pacing
>pretentious
>overrated
>style over substance

>it's shit because I said so

Found the hipsters

"____ just does everything ____ tries to do but better"

>goes home afterwards
>watches DRIVE dvdrip.540mb.SC3N3
>10/10

t. Pleb

>It has "plot holes"

>pretentious
most people who use the word use it wrong.

>It's not realistic

>I don't personally like any of the characters, there isn't a single one here that I would like to sit down and drink a beer with, therefor the movie is shit XD

>as of [insert date] you are trespassing

wait, i thought we are doing that kind of thread

>there was no character arc
>the time travel wasn't realistic
>it aint me starts playing

>it was an amazing accomplishment at the time

>the characters weren't relatable to me

oh this shit is the worst
how the fuck would they even watch movies about just 2 giants monster fighting each other then?

>it's too campy
>it's too cheesy

>plot holes

>there's a black guy in it

>it was booooooooring

>ITT: my precious kino was picked apart by critics and I need to vent

What scares me is it implies these people can normally relate to the characters in your average hollywood flick.

>There's an interrracial relationship
>it's fedora core entry level garbage
>it was convoluted

>They used a flawed concept of technology to solve their problem, even when that technology was relatively new at the time it was made

>it doesn't make sense
>there's no character development
>the writing is cliche
>Deux Ex Machina

>bad cgi

>the character didn't do a thing which would have made the movie an hour shorter

>he uses Mary Sue for any protagonist he doesn't like

Paul Atreides is a Mary Sue in the first book
Rey is a Mary Sue in TFA

>not muh

almost all of these posts are valid criticisms and you are all idiots

>it's problematic

Plenty of these are ONLY used by intellectual midgets who wouldn't be able to produce actual arguments if their life depended on it. They imply a simple mind.

>LE terally REDDIT XD

>It's boring
>Character has no charisma

I'll go down the list and tell you which ones are valid

>it's pretentious
>nothing happens
>it's style over substance
>bad pacing
>it has plot holes
>there was no character arc
>it's too campy
>it's too cheesy
>it was boring
>the writing is cliche
>bad cgi

ALL of these can be valid criticisms of a film. I get that plebs are likely to misuse them, but that doesn't make them "invalid criticism."

Kubrick right there.

>>it's pretentious
>valid

Stopped right there. I give this shitpost two thumbs down.

You're absolutely pleb if you think things can't be pretentious.

I agree with all of these except no character arc and maybe too pretentious.

A character doesn't necessarily need to have an arc. Some people don't change despite the events that they experienced.

Pretentiousness is such an overused word you might as well elaborate on why movie is pretentious.

>it didn't make any sense

>there were too many gay or minority characters

>it's style over substance

This one is especially egregious. What does "substance" even mean? It could mean a dozen different things. And who says style isn't "substance"?

>there was no character arc

There doesn't need to be.

>nothing happens

Literally taken, this is obviously false. If we take it to mean "not much happens" that is still not criticism, why does a lot of things need to happen?

>it was boring

This doesn't say anything about the film. It basically means "I was bored watching the film".

name 3 films that did this

>i've already watched it

In my mind that's valid praise though

I'm too dumb to understand he greater meaning in movies but I know that I enjoy when they make me feel weird because they are weird

Examples:
Hausu
Swiss army man
Dogtooth

>it's pretentious
people call it invalid criticism when used on their meme directors, yet they have no problem in using the term oscar bait.

>it was boring
Boring is an entirely subjective claim that speaks mostly about your perception of a movie than the actual movie.
It's the most pleb-tier criticism of them all.

How will anyone's thoughts on a film be anything other than subjective claims?

How can you have an objective opinion?

>No qt girl

Well any criticism needs evidence/elaboration to back it up.

All of those basically fall under "style over substance" which is definitely a valid critique. Substance is stuff like developing themes, which the style can contribute to, but style isn't substance per se. "Style over substance" also basically means pretentious, ie the filmmaker is trying to hide a simple message behind a lot of style in order to make it look like they are trying to say more than they are.

The rest of the critiques can make sense if you imagine that it is possible to have a pretentious or "style over substance" film.

But it's not even about the film. It's really a statement of what the viewer felt watching it.

>I had no emotional connection to any of the characters

but this is extremely valid criticism, particularly for boring films

>the demographics represented in this fictional film don't resemble the ones I know so it sucks!

>the movie had no message

>How will anyone's thoughts on a film be anything other than subjective claims?
Objectivity is a thing that can be used in film criticism to criticize aspects like editing, acting, lack of coherence, etc.
There's subjective criticism and there's objective criticism. The two often go hand-in-hand.

"Boring" is not even a statement about the film, it's based completely on an individual's perception of a film without any accounting for the film itself. It's no different than a child watching something like 2001 or Lawrence Of Arabia and complaining that the movies were "boring" because it didn't appeal to their sensibilities.

This is like the lowest tier of art critique thought. Art has subjective elements, but narrative qualities are nearly universal, and you can also definitely critique a film/book/whatever relative to the current cultural perspective. All films within a culture share in the common "objective" sphere of tastes and criticisms.

something being campy is not a valid criticism, because it amounts to
>I don't like this type of movie therefore it is bad
It's just as retarded as criticizing a movie for being part of a certain genre. If you can't appreciate all kinds of films you're a pleb

No, I'm not buying this because you're starting from the false premise that a film's quality is somehow intrinsically tied to the complexity of its themes/message. The "style over substance" argument only works if you think a film should have a profound "message" to be great. Which is bullshit.

>because it didn't appeal to their sensibilities
So they subjectively didn't like it. Okay.

>it's too violent
>it's misogynist
>it's racist
>it's transphobic

>it only focuses on visuals
>it was Reddit
>it was a pleb movie

That can be a valid criticism, when the movie latches on to trends of its time to poor effect.

>I didn't like the humour

>it's not 100% historically accurate

>all the characters were assholes
>it was just people talking the entire time

except 99.9999% of the time someone calls something "dated" or says it "hasn't aged well" it has nothing to do with that

>it takes itself too seriously
So you'd rather have it be some campy shit

>If you can't appreciate all kinds of films you're a pleb
Favorite chick flick?

>you're starting from the false premise that a film's quality is somehow intrinsically tied to the complexity of its themes/message
Complexity isn't the right word. A film that deals really well with a simple message can be better than a film that deals poorly with a complex message. But the way they deal with their messages is definitely intrinsically linked to their quality.

Films without a message/which don't deal with themes are just basic entertainment (not like there's anything wrong with that, but they don't qualify as high-quality films). And then, a lot of these pretentious "style over substance" films just obfuscate a simple message to seem deeper than they are.

>that criticism is invalid

touché

>the message and themes were simple, it wasn't complex enough

This is a valid criticism when talking about capeshit

>Films without a message/which don't deal with themes
What is a message? What kind of themes?

>Films without a message/which don't deal with themes are just basic entertainment (not like there's anything wrong with that, but they don't qualify as high-quality films).

This is bullshit. I find films that have a specific "message" to be juvenile. There is no profound philosophical statements you can "say" with a film. What you can do is take ideas and feelings and express those through the audiovisual realm, that's what film is for. Just like music is for expressing ideas/feelings through sound.

If you watch a masterpiece film like 2001 it's not a fucking fable where you go "I learned X from this film" at the end. It's just an audiovisual experience that makes you feel things.

...

>that dance sequence
Pure kino. Kinda sucks it gets so slow and stale by the third act.

>it had terrible writing

The way I see it, the message is what you're describing as "ideas/feelings." It's abstract and it takes a lot of analysis to really distill it into words (and most films have more than one message or interpretation), but it's a product of the themes and how they develop throughout the film. A good film is basically an argument which successfully communicates its message.

Underrated post. This is a fucking retarted thing to say about any movie.

>It's sexist

>A good film is basically an argument which successfully communicates its message.

That implies that the film is taking a stance on the subject instead of just presenting it. If I watch a film about love I don't want the director to present me an intellectual argument, I want them to just express ideas about love and make me feel them.

>not fun

Seriously, no one else metioned it?

>it's pretentious
Pretentious actually deals with the work's style and direction to an extent. It's not totally invalid. There's definitely works that take themselves too seriously or try to lean too hard on its award-bait subject material.

>nothing happens

In what possible way is this not a valid criticism? Every work needs key events and happenings to maintain a pace and direction.

>It's too long
The correct length is long enough to tell the story in all its necessary facets at the pace intended. Some works are longer than that, and that means it's too long. It's about content and filler, not about length. For instance, Twin Peaks' second season is too long, not because there's a hard limit of how many episodes it should have, but because it clearly ran out of plot to do and languished with boring subplots for several episodes.

>It has "plot holes"
Story is an important part of TV and movies. Plot holes indicate a poor story.

>I don't personally like any of the characters
>the characters weren't relatable to me
Identifying with and sympathizing with at least part of the cast is an important part of enjoying a work. Nobody likes watching the exploits of a bunch of people they don't care about.

>there was no character arc
>>there's no character development
You don't think character development is a legitimate part of a story?

>it was boring
>>It's boring
Boring is a legitimate criticism so long as someone can explain what parts bored them and why.

>it was convoluted
Complexity isn't the same as quality or intelligence. Being too convoluted is a reason why a story may turn people off.

>it doesn't make sense
Do you not think a story needs to make sense? Fuck off, frogposter.

>>bad cgi
It's a visual medium. The visuals are a perfectly valid part of critique.

>This one is especially egregious. What does "substance" even mean? It could mean a dozen different things. And who says style isn't "substance"?
It seems to imply a work over-focuses on flashy things like stunts, CGI, etc to the detriment of substantial things like story. Think of a Michael Bay film where it has lots of CGI, stunts, explosions etc, and yet has almost no nuance or intelligence at all in its story.

People don't use that to describe Michael Bay films, they use it to describe films like Eyes Wide Shut, or recently Inherent Vice and The Neon Demon. That's why it pisses me off.

>Identifying with and sympathizing with at least part of the cast is an important part of enjoying a work. Nobody likes watching the exploits of a bunch of people they don't care about.

This is just horseshit. Just because a character is an annoying douchebag doesn't mean they aren't great characters that one can enjoy watching. Janice Soprano is among the most annoying people ever put on TV and also a great character. I analyze characters, I don't want to be their friend.

>People don't use that to describe Michael Bay films
google.com/search?q="michael bay" + "style over substance"

Even a character with bad qualities can still have goals, beliefs, or motivations we can sympathize with.

>Identifying with and sympathizing with at least part of the cast is an important part of enjoying a work
>Nobody likes watching the exploits of a bunch of people they don't care about.

If it wasn't obvious, I was talking about Cred Forums

I don't care how normies use the term

There is no reason they need to have any sympathetic qualities to be interesting.

I just used it to describe Michael Bay, and I'm on Cred Forums.

>people they don't care about
>posts Always Sunny
But we, meaning the audience, do care about them. They're awesome, and funny.

winding-refn films are pretty much "all style no substance." They don't address themes in an interesting way, they hardly have plots, and they hardly have characters. They're just stylistic. They don't work their way to anything interesting or deep or meaningful. They are just a vehicle for interesting and beautiful camera shots. Some people mistake the heavy style for depth, when in reality these films are skin-deep with a whole lot of flashy shots. Maybe you could convince me that there is actual meaning and depth (substance) to the neon demon and that you aren't just drawn in by the surrealism and symbolism to make you THINK there is meaning and depth.

You're also posting anime avatars, so I win the argument. Thanks for playing.

>there was no character development

This is literally the most retarded argument.

>overrated

But we don't empathize or sympathetize with these characters (doing so would defeat the purpose of the show).
Characters don't need to be always relatable or sympathetic.

this is the very reason I don't care too much for It's Always Sunny, that and the fact that so much of the humor relies on humiliation which triggers me

I don't need likable characters in a movie, but in a series with a lot of episodes it's a must to remain invested

Avatar isn'y synonymous with reaction pic. I'm posting smug anime girls because you're posting the kind of dumb shit best responded to with smug anime girls.

>I don't need likable characters in a movie, but in a series with a lot of episodes it's a must to remain invested
I disagree that it's a must, plenty of shows have unlikable characters who still manage to draw our interest (Seinfeld did it before Sunny).
[You] personally don't care about It's Always Sunny. That's okay.
But that's [your] problem with the show, not [a] problem with the show if you understand what I mean.

>They don't address themes in an interesting way,
What do you mean, the themes are overtly presented and right in your face. What more needs "addressing"?
>they hardly have plots
Good.
>and they hardly have characters.
His characters are usually not real people, but more a manifestation of some idea. Especially in TND.
>Some people mistake the heavy style for depth, when in reality these films are skin-deep with a whole lot of flashy shots.
I don't really get what you're trying to get out of films. There are no "deep" films in the sense that you're implying. No film is going to leave you with an abundance of new information by the time it's over. That's what documentaries are for (or even better, books).
>Maybe you could convince me that there is actual meaning and depth (substance) to the neon demon and that you aren't just drawn in by the surrealism and symbolism to make you THINK there is meaning and depth.
I'm not interested in convincing you of that because I don't think a film needs "meaning and depth" to be excellent and I don't think it's even possible to achieve that in the same sense you could achieve that in a documentary or a book. All The Neon Demon is is Refn expressing ideas/emotions that he has through the audiovisual realm. That's it. And that's exactly what an artist is supposed to do.

I understand, and I would never use "no likable characters" as a criticism. I would only mention it explain why I as an individual don't really care for it

I think It's Always Sunny is a brilliant show actually, but because of my personal tastes I find it unwatchable except in the smallest doses

I mean tony soprano is a complete asshole with zero redeeming qualities yet he's the greatest tv character of all time and there are tons of great movie with asshole characters. You don't relatable characters for something to be good

>There are no "deep" films in the sense that you're implying. No film is going to leave you with an abundance of new information by the time it's over
I have watched plenty of films which are nuanced, complex, and full of depth. These are films which ask questions but leave answers for you to find, and so you mull them over for days after watching them. That's the kind of film I'm talking about.

>All The Neon Demon is is Refn expressing ideas/emotions that he has through the audiovisual realm
The point is that the film half-expresses the ideas. It has these themes and characters, but it doesn't really go anywhere with them. It presents them and by the time the film is over, they don't develop at all. This means that there isn't really anything to mull over. A person might get this impression that there was all of this depth because the film is so packed with surrealism and beauty, but if you actually think about the film and try to analyze it, you find out that none of the flashy cinematography actually amounts to anything besides atmosphere.

Yeah but he has the wish fulfillment thing going for him. Who hasn't fantasized about being a mob boss?

Whereas on the other hard, I can't exactly project myself on losers who work at a bar and live in shitty apartments in Philly

>I have watched plenty of films which are nuanced, complex, and full of depth. These are films which ask questions but leave answers for you to find, and so you mull them over for days after watching them. That's the kind of film I'm talking about.

What, like 2001? To me there is not much difference between 2001 and The Neon Demon.

>but it doesn't really go anywhere with them. It presents them and by the time the film is over, they don't develop at all.

Again it sounds like you're implying the film should "say" something. I don't think it should. Once the idea has been presented in an aesthetically pleasing way, the work is done.

>you find out that none of the flashy cinematography actually amounts to anything besides atmosphere.

How is that a bad thing? Nothing more is needed. It's like music. Music doesn't need "meaning and depth", it needs to elicit emotion.

2001 is a good example, sure.

To me, the best art with the most emotion also has the most depth and meaning. These things go hand in hand. Anyway, if you think there isn't much of a difference between 2001 and The Neon Demon with regards to depth, then we probably see things too differently to agree.

>depth

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

>it's offensive

>not enough women or diversity
>too much cussing
>not enough dialogue

How about some invalid POSITIVE criticism?

>it's important

>it defies conventions

>The message needed to be said
>It's diverse
>It's unique/it's one of a kind/it's new

Things I've heard my friends say:
>It's too long
>It's too slow
>There's not enough action
>There's too much dialogue
>The plot is boring
>It's more than 30 years old
>Ew, it's in black & white
>It's not subbed, I'm not reading any goddamn subtitles
>It was too science-y
>I didn't understand anything
>The nude/sex scenes were completely uncalled for
>There weren't any aliens or spaceships, is this supposed to be science fiction?

Kill me

>it sets a good example
>it provides a role model

*it's not dubbed

>it was revolutionary for its time

Tarkovsky has heaps of substance

Valid criticism:
>Anything criticizing the objective technical merits of the work (cinematography, technical goofs, sound mixing, etc)
>Anything criticizing the artistic merits of the work on objectively quantifiable or qualitative grounds (Shot composition, CGI noticability/animation fluidity, acting talent)

Potentially valid or invalid criticism:
>Anything criticizing the subjective merits of the work when well-explained (How well its themes are conveyed, writing quality, etc)

Invalid criticism:
>Anything criticizing the meta context of the work (the wrong people like it, it's for plebs/redditors/tumblr, I didn't like what it had to say)
>Anything criticizing something outside the work (An actor said or did something bad outside of the work, the director made a different movie I don't like, the sequel sucks)
>Anything criticizing the objective technical merits or objectively defined artistic merits of the work incorrectly
>Personal reactions (I didn't like it, it bored me, it offended me)

Did I miss anything?

Found the teenager
>>nothing happens
>In what possible way is this not a valid criticism?
Because every time someone says this, without fail, it's literally not true. Also a two word sentence is never valid criticism

But this is unquestionably true for many kinds of works. The only thing it's not is an indicator of quality.

>Identifying with and sympathizing with at least part of the cast is an important part of enjoying a work. Nobody likes watching the exploits of a bunch of people they don't care about.
No it's not. I didn't identify with any character in a There Will Be Blood, but I still found it compelling, because the characters are great regardless.

>The only thing it's not is an indicator of quality
that's the point

>Because every time someone says this, without fail, it's literally not true
Maybe try not being an autistic faggot, then, and realize that not all language is literal? English, more than many other languages, uses figurative language and exaggeration heavily. When someone criticizes a work by saying "nothing happens," they aren't saying "This is literally a work about a blank screen." Only an autistic child would read it that way. The rest of us use figurative logic to deduce what is meant is "Not enough things happen."

>A two word sentence is never valid criticism
How many words is the floor here, exactly? If I criticized the Star Wars prequels by saying "Bad CGI," is that invalid because it's only two words? What's the limit here?

>You don't think character development is a legitimate part of a story?
Movies don't have to be straightforward stories.

Someone saying something is pretentious generally sets off alarms for me. Not because works can't be pretentious but because most of the time people don't use it appropriately. Most of the time its generally the fans that are pretentious rather than the film itself.

>an instant classic

>If I criticized the Star Wars prequels by saying "Bad CGI," is that invalid because it's only two words?
Yes. If you want anyone to take you seriously you should elaborate and write more than two words. Maybe mention some examples.

>Mention some examples of nothing happening
>asking people to prove the negative

That's not asking you to prove the negative. It's asking you to back up your criticism.

I think you're confusing an invalid criticism with an unelaborated criticism. Saying the SW prequels have bad CGI is a valid criticism, even if literally saying "bad cgi" is a poorly elaborated criticism.

The only one 100% invalid in this thread

>No, except yes
You're asking to "mention some examples" of criticisms like "nothing happens."

That's a criticism that is hard to directly demonstrate with "examples." Examples would generally come in the form of counterexample, i.e. "You say nothing happens, but this scene is interesting."

Hence, you're asking people to prove the negative.

How on earth is bad pacing an illegitimate criticism?

criticizing pacing isn't about how "you don't like the pace", more often than not the complaint is that the pacing is inconsistent... It's on the same tier as having inconsistent tone or themes.

Actually in this case I was saying you could provide examples of "Bad CGI". And again, I said "maybe provide some examples", not that you have to. My main point is that you should elaborate on a two word sentence.

>It's capeshit

Elaborate how? "Nothing happens" pretty much covers it. You can reword the criticism in a longer sentence, such as "Not enough interesting or worthwhile moments happen" but I'm still not clear on how, exactly, you demonstrate this.

>"Nothing happens" pretty much covers it.
I'm not referring specifically to this criticism. I'm referring to lazy two word criticisms in general.

Like you've never seen a movie where literally every shot screams
Look! LOOK! This is art in its purest form! I'm DIRECTING, oh yeah I'm so good. Doesn't this just blow your mind? You like that? Oh yeah I know you do. *
Proceeds to furiously masturbate for the next 2hours45min

What you just said makes very little sense.

Movies made for kids aren't worthy of thorough criticism on an 18+ website.

Until there exists a superhero movie that isn't shit, this one's valid

Oh, good one, I didn't think of that.

>It's for kids
Also not valid criticism.

But they are for kids

>Did I miss anything?

Also under invalid criticism:
>Unsubstantiated insults (It's shit, it's bad, it's garbage, etc)

Most are for general audiences and there are quite a few R-rated "capeshit" movies too.

I'm sure you have some mental gymnastics to explain why those are "for kids," but not in the direct and objective sense they aren't.

And besides, not only are you incorrect, but that still doesn't make it valid criticism. "It's for kids" is not an criticism of quality, it's a criticism of audience. Meta-context is not valid critique.

Fucking thank you...

I'm surprised people can defend things like "bad pacing", "deus ex machina", "bad cg" (when physical props, forced perspective, and practical effects look just as good if not better), "it's cliche", "PLOT HOLES", et al

like, niggas, you fucking serious?

Try objectively watching something, and develop a sense of taste instead of just defending your poor judgement and bad observation skills.

I mean, Fuck me.

>Try objectively watching something
What.

Who the fuck actually says this? You are just bad at picking who you hang out with.

Tokenism is a problem if it takes audiences out of the work and focuses instead on outside contexts like social issues. When a character has no discernable reason to be there other than to shoehorn in a gay character, it's annoying.

the entire LGBTQIA+ spectrum comprises less than 4% of the US population, yet it seems like every new TV show has at least one gay character in it.

to me, if something is pretentious, that just means the movie projects an incredibly shallow view of what "art" is... It's as if the movie wasn't meant to exist, but the director wanted to feel smart, so their movie is pretty much solely defined by a few shallow visual or conceptual messages and then emphasizing that for 2-3 hours.

I think pretentiousness is a valid critique, in that a movie is trying to be above itself by shining a light on something that appears smart, but lacks the subtlety that would ACTUALLY make it smart.

It's the difference between "there will be blood" (an amazing movie), and "under the skin" (a movie boasting good visuals and artsy concepts and filming techniques, but that alone, a good movie doesn't make)

ok, you got me. That was a stupid statement, but I think you could extrapolate what I meant.

I meant "Watch something with a clear mind and notice what you like and don't like to form objective values instead of just thinking that every movie is subjective, therefore ALL movies are good in their own way, and exempt from ALL criticism"

>PACING

>Tarkovsky
>no substance
Stalker packs more than almost every movie I've ever seen

>but that alone, a good movie doesn't make

Based on what?

"bad pacing" is the pretentious way of saying "it's booooring"

It depends on the meaning

If it's
>It's too long for what it is, they could've shortened it by at least half an hour and not lose much, it drags way too much
then it's valid

If it's
>Yeah, this film is 5 hours, not gonna watch this
Then it isn't

>the characters were the same at the end as they were at the beginning

>it was too good
>it should have been bad on purpose

What's some VALID criticism?

>Bad acting
>Predictable writing

see
>>Anything criticizing the objective technical merits of the work (cinematography, technical goofs, sound mixing, etc)
>>Anything criticizing the artistic merits of the work on objectively quantifiable or qualitative grounds (Shot composition, CGI noticability/animation fluidity, acting talent)
>>Anything criticizing the subjective merits of the work when well-explained (How well its themes are conveyed, writing quality, etc)

>why are there no female main characters in the group, even though the theme is male friendship?

I didn't get a single erection while viewing.

To add to this:

>it's not violent enough
>it's misandrist
>non-whites are treated like human beings
>it doesn't potray trannies as mentally unstable

I have literally never heard the latter three criticisms made ever. "Not violent enough" is only a valid criticism if the film tries to be violent and fails for some reason, like when a TV edit cuts out the good parts for rating reasons.

>this small town in India in the 80s isn't made up of mostly black characters

That isn't a criticism of any kind.

Apparently nothing.