#and it's this fun meta joke about how even the closed captions are a character in this

[laurasilvasmith]

Emoji movie rewrite

Movie starts with a heart being drawn in a piece of paper. The pen falters before the heart is fully drawn, so it's almost like a crooked M.

This little heart animates and opens its eyes.

This BIC pen paper heart finds itself in a place not unlike the movie Soul (2020)'s zone plane. As in, it's a place where its characters interact with each other but are also active in other things.

The characters are emojis. Yes. But every emoji. I'm talking 😃 emojis and :D emojis, :-) emojis, and even the cute Japanese (⋋°̧̧̧ω°̧̧̧⋌) emojis.

The human face emojis are there, the full bodied ones, the hand emojis will high-five the prosthetic arm emoji at one point of the movie.

There's no separation of emojis by what message/emotion their technically supposed to transmit. They just make a face in the zone and their job is done.

The heart emoji also changes colors frequently.

Every symbol that ever was to transmit a thought exists in this universe.

Our protagonist M-heart walks around confused because they can't enter the zone. Very quickly a full cast of characters jump in to find out who this newcomer is and are happy to help them on their quest to find meaning.

I'm not sure the order of who they meet, but I think the full-body emojis would be fun just to get a tango dance scene from these two in 4k 💃🏻🕺🏻

The multi-colored heart emoji would bring a moment of "I'm almost like you, but not like you at all."

There is no villain. The fun will be meeting colorful new characters who represent the joy of EXPRESSION and OPEN COMMUNICATION. How wonderful it is be seen and heard for exactly who you are. Which is why this quest is so important for M, and becomes more urgent as they lose hope of ever being able to reach that joy.

Eventually they travel to places with the bigger "emojis". These don't need dialogue, but Words, Emails, Hand-written letters and Books sort of fly up in the sky. They come across mute giants painted in cave walls that inspire M to persevere, because just by existing it means that they already are filling some innate purpose.

The climax is M's fight for existence. The "real world" Person A starts scrunching up the paper with the heart and flings it to the trash.

M's push against it is what makes the paper bounce off the trash and tumble at the feet of Person B, who picks it up and unfurls it. Then smiles at Person A. Bam. Connection.

Cuts back to M, finally floating in the zone. Like the Beast's transformation.

Movie ends with them floating back down, looking more solid and happy. And being cheered and celebrated by all their new friends.

Dance party a la Shrek ensues while the credits role.

[go-diane-winchester]

How come Misha gets away with causing so much damage to this show?

Thanks for the conundrum @staycejo1:

That is a good question to ask.  How does Misha get away with so much?  The reason is simple.  Misha is smart.  Compared to Jared who is merely scholarly or book smart, and Jensen who is intelligent with regards to cinema and various arts [he hit the nail on the head with wincest, year ago], Misha is shrewd.  I don't like the man, but I have to admit, he is very smart.  He is using something I learned about whilst studying Public Relations: networking.  Networking requires skill.  You need to know how to talk to people and you need to know which people to talk to.  If you network properly, you reap major benefits.  There are a few cliques that Misha might be networking with:  SPN production personnel, SPN alumni and cast members, Creation Entertainment, media personnel and selected fans. 

SPN Personnel and affiliates

I elaborated on these people in other posts.

Bob Singer:

Bob Singer has been a co-showrunner for almost all the time that SPN has been on air.  He handles production while the other co-showrunner handles the story.  And yet, this man never gives the impression that he is a showrunner.  When Sera Gamble killed off Castiel, rumor has it, that Singer fought to bring the character back. 

Eugenie Ross-Lemming and Brad Buckner

She is Bob's wife and was brought on board with her writing partner, Brad  Buckner.  Since season 7, she has enjoyed many promotions.  Now she is a co-executive producer on the show.  Nice to work for your husband, huh.  She and Brad butchered Sam's character until recently.  I think Jared told them off.  They were demonizing Sam to elevate Castiel's status.  Currently, they are not writing destiel.  They are not stupid.  They are writing enough material to keep Misha on the show. 

Robert Berens

Robert or Bobo Berens started off as a writer and moved up to co-executive producer.  He allows the leads to be abused by heller fans, that he follows online.  Remember, he is the one following problematic fans and not the other way around.  Does that even make sense?   

What personal stake do they have in keeping Misha relevant?  Well, they all take their cue from Bob, and he is a close friend of Misha's.  If Bob has a stake in Random Acts or Gish, then it might explain why he isn't willing to let Misha go.  But I don't have that information just yet. 

Stands

Misha has shares in Stands.  For awhile now, they have been pushing destiel related merch.  When they start to regret it, you will see a change.  This is because hellers are already complaining about getting duped by Misha regarding the merchandise.  We will just have to wait and see.

SPN alumni, cast members and affiliates

I spoke about these people before so I will gloss over them here.

Kim Rhodes and Brianna Buckmaster

They needed Misha for Wayward Daughters.  They have affiliation with a bunch of fans who are involved in the Travis Aaron Wade scandal. 

Osric Chau and Orlando Jones

I don't think Osric had any personal stake in elevating destiel.  He really loved SPN and the fanbase.  He was probably trolling destiel for fun like Orlando Jones does.  The minute both men realized how problematic the hellers are, they slowly backed off.  I don't think Orlando Jones has spoken about destiel in a while.  He still is a friend with Misha as is Osric.  I don't think these actors have any ill will.  So far they just seem like a couple of trolls.  Misha's networking failed with Destiel but succeeded professionally because these two men may be able to ''hook him up'' with other projects. 

Creation Entertainment

Someone once pointed out that Adam, the CEO of Creation Entertainment, is in fact, Misha's cousin.  I don't have any sources of that.  However, for awhile CE was pushing a lot of YANA and destiel related things on their con circuit.  The reason is because they have financial stakes in Misha's charities and thought that pushing destiel might make his fans shell out more money.  The cockles photo ops probably gave them the erroneously impression that Misha himself, is profitable.  Recently, however, this happened. 

https://jolygram.com/profile/creationent/photo/1842990860569353024_552397215

They added a caption:  Name a better duo.  We'll wait.  So was Cockles not better anymore?  Misha is not profitable, so all of a sudden, CE loves the leads.  I think they realized that when Misha's entire con fails but one of Jared's sweaty hoodies which he wore all day, fetches $8000 during an auction, that maybe they were betting on the race horse that dances rather than runs to the finish line. 

Their personal stake was money which is why they dropped Misha and destiel related endeavors like a hot potato.  Misha's networking failed here.  Well, not completely.  I heard there might be a new Misha con.  I think they want to be sure that he is a failure before letting go completely. 

Media Personnel

There are many kinds of mediums that are available to Hollywood.  Some are more important than others.  There are small trendy little pointless media outlets, usually social media outlets, like Hypable, ONTD and Geekiary.  There are bigger more credible ones, also known as mass media outlets, like E! Entertainment.  The heads pick up on news coming from the mass media.  They don't bother with small outlets, and that is where Misha does his networking.  He has people working within these outlets who are not legitimate reporters.  They are merely gossipers and shippers in disguise.  These outlets are invited to meets to disseminate information and that is where Misha connected with these viruses.  Some of these pseudo-journalists have since been demoted, reprimanded or fired for misinformation. 

What is their personal stake?  Self-importance.  Hellers and their sock accounts keep these peoples social media handles active. 

Selected fans

These are fans that are overly invested in either Castiel or destiel.  Most of them are nobodies but because of their association with Misha, they are recognizable figures.  These are meta writers and influencers within the fandom.  Their names are: 

Lua James, with a twitter handle, poptivist.  Real name:  Theresa Cotter

Influencer who regularly attacks Jared on SM, and fled California after Travis's house was vandalized.  Close friend of Kim Rhodes.  Destiel shipper.  Claimed to be a Journalist.  Not sure about that.  Followed by Kim, Matt Cohen, Robert Berens and Briana on SM.

Monica Gleberman

Very big shot.  Lua's bosom buddy and Swagger magazine journalist or editor.  She is a minion who lied that she had sex with Jensen and Jared.  Commits fraud. 

Emily Cleghorn

Influencer.  Not sure if she is a meta writer.  Runs the SPN anti bullying twitter handle and Exorcising Emily blog on Tumblr.  J2 kicked her out of con once, because she made them uncomfortable with a tweet.  She got into a twitter fight with William Shatner over destiel. 

Reba Snodgrass 

Runs small cons like Wayward con.  Proven liar.  Has to know Misha personally in order to run the cons. 

Janelle Clay Davis

Influencer, also known as intelligentshipper on Tumblr and GhostofBobby on Twitter.  Claims to be haunted by the YED.  Pushes destiel like a religion.  Cyber stalks people.  Posted a selfie where she is posing with a gun recently. 

Sara Burnhope

Knows Misha and his parents personally.  Random acts volunteer as well as Gish participant.  Might have worked with YANA although I am not sure about that one.  Attacks people on his behalf on social media.  Cyber bully.  From the UK.  Might be an influencer.  Not sure if she writes meta. 

Melanie Adeline

Regular con-goer and influencer.  She has fans of her own.  She belittles Jared to his face.  Destiel shipper.  Knows Misha and Briana personally. 

These influencers and meta writers are important because without them and their overreaching meta, Destiel will fall flat.  Misha accidentally tagged their meta once in a tweet.  Or so he claimed.  What is their stake, other than canon destiel?  Self importance.  These randos are suddenly important people, because Misha put them in that position.  They are the ones who encourage people to vote for Misha for awards, and harass the execs for destiel.  They are the ones who attacked J2 for the Nolacon joke and influenced others to follow suit.  The above women were implicated in the Travis Aaron Wade scandal.  There may be more, but these are the worst of the worst.  As far as I know anyway.

So to answer the question, why does he get away with this problematic system that he has put in place?  Notice, that he is affiliated with small fries.  Misha, like I mentioned before, is a nobody.  People are not linking the irritation they are dealing with, to Misha.  Misha's criticism of SPN's misogyny was reported in those petty small media outlets where his hellers are working.  And it was written in a such way that he is portrayed as a good guy.  If E! spoke about it, Misha would have been in trouble because Pedowitz and gang pay attention to E! not Hypable.  That's why they don't fire him.  They don't know what he has done because he has spn people in his back pocket covering for him.   

Even J2 don't have time to look through their own panels.  They are certainly not paying attention to Misha's panels.  So obviously Jensen doesn't know about this. 

If Jensen was aware of this, a fistfight would have broken out of the set.  Jensen would have boxed Misha's ear.  Because this is sick.  This was apparently at one of the Chicons.  I don't know which one, because I can't stomach looking at that over bloated loudmouth.  This is proof that the leads have no time to spare looking at this man's panels.  So he is confident enough to say these things knowing full well, that the lead are too busy to care about him.  He's behavior goes unchecked, and his continued presence on the show ensures that Gish and Random acts are continually funded.  He needs Castiel to keep these two machines running. 

Excuse the typos. 

[writingsofawanderingwonderer]

Katy's Everything Wrong With Bob's "Everything Wrong With CinemaSin's 'Everything Wrong With Sherlock Holmes'"

vvv Read more line here. vvv

Alternate title: Why CinemaSins shouldn't be destroyed.

Another alternate title: That One Controversial Essay That's Finally Going to Lead to Me Getting Eaten Alive by People on Twitter. Maybe.

Okay, so to get you old corks up to speed: Recently, there's been a surge, and absolute pandemic, of YouTube videos cropping up titled something along the lines of, "Everything Wrong With CinemaSin's Everything Wrong With _______", wherein the video nitpicks (their words, not mine) CinemaSins' nitpicks of a film. There have also been a bunch of comments on Twitter and YouTube saying that CinemaSins should pack up their things and hop it. To stop making their videos.

This is where I come in. And you reading this comes in.

It's hard for me to explain why I'm making this essay. Maybe it's because I want to play the Devil's Advocate in a contained, spaced environment. Maybe I want to give everyone reading this a different perspective on the matter; something to mull over and consider and take away before we decide to write something off as "bad" or "useless" or of low quality. Maybe I consider CinemaSins an old friend and I'd like to speak up for them, even though it's hard because I'm not used to voicing an unpopular opinion out loud, and I'm super-nervous about this. Maybe it's because I want to give a meta statement about how you can nitpick a nitpicker who nitpicks another nitpicker, and that continually nitpicking the next nitpicker will either create a wondrous nitpickception that we can all learn from, or spiral out of control into a lesson that nickpicking nitpickers nitpicking is a futile effort...

But for some reason, I've been overcome with a fierce desire to write this.

So, there you go. I'm making this now.

To structure this academic essay, I'm going to use an "Everything Wrong With CinemaSin's Everything Wrong With _______" video to make several counter-arguments. I'll be using Everything Wrong With "Everything Wrong With Sherlock Holmes" by Bobvids. (Thank you, Bobvids, for letting me use your video as an example. You're quite a trooper and a good sport! And I love your editing style!).

To add upon Bobvid's video's goal, this essay's goal is to nitpick a video nitpicking another video.

Nitpickception?

*cricket chirps*

Ahem. This essay's goal is also, like all my essays here, for educational purposes. Albeit, in a roundabout way.

To keep track of things, I'll add timestamps and quotes from Bobvid's video as I comment on them. I will skip over some parts of the video to prevent this essay from being over a hundred years long.

0:49 Bob: Why call them "movie sins"? One of the CinemaSins guys said it was "[...] because it's a more flexible & nebulous definition." But I guess they never realized "sins" has an extremely negative connotation. Of all the words they could've used, "sins" is the least flexible or nebulous.

Me: They're called "sins" because "no movie is without sin," as their slogan goes (the implication being that any film, no matter how beautiful, wonderful, and perfect it is, has flaws and should be discussed and acknowledged on some level. Because that's how future films grow as an art form. By learning from the past's mistakes). The word "sins" is nebulous because we all contain it, no matter how good or bad we are. He sins. You sin a little. They sin a lot. And I'm sinning right now. So it really is a flexible and nebulous definition.

1:14 Bob: Why have a movie sin timer when YouTube tells you exactly how long a video is?

Me: Because it's a reference/homage to the "gate" used in filmmaking. The "gate" is a black border placed around a piece of film or storyboard that lists the time, scene number, and name of the person who submitted the shot. When I'm animating professionally, I'm given a gate that lists these things, and every time I hand in a shot, I have to "check the gate" as the old filmmaker's term puts it, to make sure everything's in order. The gate even times the frame number (like the CinemaSins' timer and unlike YouTube's video timer), which is super important to include, because it makes it easier for a supervisor to give feedback ("Katy, could you please fix the foot-clipping issue that appears on frame 298? Thanks!"). So YouTube actually doesn't tell you exactly how long a video is (which is very, very frustrating if, like me, you like using YouTube videos as animation reference and want to scrub between individual frames without using an app like Reeview.it Player or Anilyzer)

Me: Here's an example of a film gate:

1:24 Bob: Why is the text of what's being said showing up at the bottom of the screen? Not only is it redundant, but YouTube lets you upload subtitles which is easier to do than premiere titles, lets viewers disable it if they don't need it, and also lets you edit text after the video's uploaded.

Me: Because, 1) the average YouTuber genuinely doesn't know all of YouTube's features, including toggling closed captions (seriously, I've seen several YouTube commenters complain that a person in a video was talking too fast, not realising that you can turn on subtitles and/or adjust the speed of the video. Youtube kinda makes it a wee bit tricky to find all its hidden features. Did you know that you can change the sub's font typeface, colour, and size? Did you know you can scrub through video frames using "," and "." but only sometimes? Well, now you know. You're welcome.)

Me: And, 2) Because YouTube's subtitles do not properly time (nor fit) all of its text onto the screen in full sentences if the speaker is talking fast or saying a lot, making the subtitles cut off midsentence. It is this for exact reason why it was so challenging and annoying for me to transcribe what you were saying throughout this video! And why is was MUCH EASIER for me to transcribe CinemaSins' subtitles in comparison (my typing fingers hurt soooo much right now). CinemaSins' method lets the viewer read subtitles in full and complete sentences, taking things in in a easier-to-digest way. They've also used it for gags where they change the font typeface or size midsentence to add emphasis.

Me: First image: Bobvids subtitles for CinemaSins (note how it's cut off midsentence). Second image: CinemaSins' subtitles (see how they're easier to read?).

Me: Also, why the Dickens did you subtitle CinemaSins if their subtitles are already in their part of the video? Isn't that hypocritically-and-ironically-redundant?!

1:37 CinemaSins: This film production logo is so ballsy I straight up have no idea what company it's for. But good job on being ballsy enough to NOT include your name, mystery production company.

Bob: That's Silver Pictures. You may know them from producing Weird Science, Lethal Weapon, Predator, Die Hard, Road House, Demolition Man, and The Matrix. They're allowed to have some balls.

Me: In all fairness, I literally haven't seen any of those movies you've mentioned (Weird Science looks interesting, I'll check that one out. I've now added it to my library list.) except for The Matrix, which I didn't really like due to its lack of humour and its tonal issues. So using a nameless logo really doesn't help you get more people to know about your company if they're unfamiliar with it or have forgotten what your logo looks like. So why do it? Pointless! Mad as a hatter!

2:25 CinemaSins: Robert Downey, Jr. is a handsome, fun, charismatic lead actor... who cannot do an English accent to save his life. Is it too much to ask that SHERLOCK HOLMES actually be British?

Me: I think CinemaSins is making note on "cultural appropriation," a prevalent thing in Hollywood (an American actor playing an English character), rather than literally how well an actor can do an accent. I mean, when oh when are we going to see a film where Simon Pegg plays Sherlock Holmes?! We're waiting!

2:58 CinemaSins: I don't know how good at deductive reasoning he is, but he wouldn't have been able to guess that that guy had a floating rib.

Bob: It's easy to guess considering floating ribs are the last two sets of ribs on your rib cage and are a natural part of human anatomy, which Sherlock is proficient in.

Me: It's NOT easy to deduce, considering the GUY IS WEARING CLOTHES, THEREBY COVERING HIS RIBS SO YOU CAN'T TELL IF HE HAS FLOATING RIB SYNDROME. Also, SHERLOCK IS CURRENTLY ENGAGING IN A FIGHT WITH SAID GUY. Have you ever tried to assess the state of a guy's ribs while having a fisticuff with him?

Me: Also, you used like the third Google image result that appears when you search "floating ribs," and I don't know how to feel about that, because I think you should have used the fourth Google image result instead, as that diagram illustrates things more clearly in my opinion (it shows the ribcage from the front, which was how Sherlock was viewing the man, rather than from the back).

3:21 CinemaSins: This guy seems to be late to the ceremony. He also didn't get the memo that they all didn't have to wear the hooded robes.

Bob: It's explained later that this is Lord Coward, who is using a robe to hide his identity.

Me: Yes, but WE, the audience, don't know that at this point in the film. So as we watch this for the first time, we're all thinking to ourselves, "Why aren't all the people wearing dark robes?!" Confusion that's resolved through later context is still confusion.

Me: Also, that joke made me laugh and reminded me of that absolutely ridiculous "robes scene" from the movie Dungeons and Dragons.

Me: And let's address the elephant in the room. No one like to be the one to yell "The Emperor has no clothes!" so please let me be the one to do it for you (and get eaten alive for it). The reason why so many people are jumping on CinemaSins right now in particular is because they did a Wonder Woman video. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see that the timelines add up.

Me: For those people who are like me who don't really watch American superhero films* (because we're too tangled up waiting with baited breath for The Adventures of Tintin sequel, because that's the comic book hero we grew up reading), Wonder Woman was a film that was well-received after what one reviewer described as "a long line of waiting apologies."

*Me: Footnote: I've watched The Incredibles and Batman 66, and I really liked those.

Me: Because Wonder Woman was a film that's popular, CinemaSins got in a lot of trouble because... apparently, people can't handle other people poking fun at something they like.

Me: Really, people. I'm disappointed in you. You're better than this.

Me: I hope I'm wrong about this, and people are just upset over CinemaSins' fact-checking. But one has to wonder why all the nitpick comments/videos started appearing now at the same time.

Me: Maybe I'm just weird, but I love it when people poke fun at stuff I like. Even my own work. I like watch LPs of my game played by others who are making cracks at it. I've been waiting for CinemaSins to do a video on one of my favourite films, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, but to no avail. Even CinemaSins pokes fun at itself before other people did. But many people don't seem to be able to handle neither criticism of a work that is near perfect, nor laugh at a joke at the expense of a film they like.

Me: And, not to put too fine a point on it, Bertie, but that's part of a bigger problem.

Me: CinemaSins has a right to exist. Critiquing a video game creator's work is fine, I love getting criticism, in fact. It helps artists grow. But please, stop making posts and videos saying that CinemaSins should die. It isn't decent. And stop making comments like, "CinemaSins doesn't watch the films they cover." They would have to watch the films at some stage to edit the video together.

Me: Now, Bobvid also points out some flaws that are genuinely flaws in CinemaSins' videos (to the best of my knowledge), and that's something that CinemaSins can work on to improve and grow their repertoire. It is not, however, a good reason to have CinemaSins wiped off the face of the Earth.

Me: Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. I don't like something doesn't mean it should exist. I don't like strategy games, but I'm happy others enjoy them. I'm happy strategy games are becoming successful again.

Me: And yet, some people think that visual novel games shouldn't exist. Why? Because they don't like them.

4:46 Watson: How did you see that? Sherlock: Because I was looking for it.

CinemaSins: Sherlock doesn't say, "because even though it's clear, it reflects light and is still visible to the naked eye."

Bob: Yes, you and I can see it, but that doesn't mean Watson was able to see it from his perspective. Watson was rushing Blackwood and wasn't paying attention.

Me: Due to the Kuleshov Effect, and because Watson and Sherlock are standing next to each other by the end of the sequence, we can assume that Watson can see what Sherlock sees in this shot. Crumbs, due to the magic of Prevalent Film Language, we conclude to this thought without even registering it on a conscious because of the way the sequence is shot (shot of object, followed by shot of Watson and Sherlock looking offscreen in the same direction = they are looking at said object).

Me: Also, I noticed you labelled Sherlock and Watson as "Sherlock" and "Watson," respectively, in the subtitles. For proper design unity, shouldn't you have labelled them both by their first names (Sherlock and John) or their last names (Holmes and Watson)? I'm nitpicking, but that's the point.

5:44 CinemaSins: Yeah sure. You're totally under arrest, but you can walk around without anyone holding on to you to make sure you don't try to escape.

Bob: This is showing that even police fear Lord Blackwood. Though I guess it could be a setup for one of your sh**ty jokeyjokes too.

Me: *Still sniggering from CinemaSins' gag.* *Pauses.* *Put hands on hips.* What's wrong with jokey jokes?! Even if they're afraid, they're the police. It's their job to apprehend this guy, so it looks ridiculous when they don't. It's reaching Thompson and Thomson-levels of police bumbling in an otherwise darkish action film.

Me: Details add up. If a film has a ton of tiny details that don't work, they can add up and wreck the enjoyment of the film (see videos that analyse shot-for-shot remakes, like Psycho and Beauty and the Beast to see what I mean). I know artists who have worked on Rick and Morty and have talked about meetings discussing the design of a paper cup that a character has to hold. A paper cup.

Me: I've seen Twitter people make the argument that films are not meant to be totally logical, and instead are meant to hit you on a metaphorical level (that's why Disney's Snow White works). And that CinemaSins uses logic and literalisms too much. But (at the risk of explaining a joke, which I don't like doing) remember that we as creators often pose a statement that we don't agree with to make our viewers both laugh and self-reflect on whether we are telling a truth or not. I hope this makes sense.

Me: Also of note: Bob doesn't censor swear words in the audio nor the subtitles of this video. I had to do that myself. Even though CinemaSins censors swear words. And both CinemaSins and myself have stated publicly that we're fine with swearing used in videos. We just censor them in videos/essays respectively out of consideration for others who may not like hearing them.

Me: It's also sometimes important to censor video essays in case someone wants to use the video in an academic environment, such as being shown in a film school class that has strict profanity regulations (for example, Games As Literature's YouTube videos have been known to be showcased in academic courses on Video Game Theory, which is why he tries to exclude any swearing or gore in his videos).

Me: While we're on the subject of nitpick-jokes, I'd like to take a moment here to point out that that bit where CinemaSins points out that in one of the background areas of a two-second scene in Kingsman has a paper towel roll is hung the wrong way is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Seriously, I was howling when that popped up!

Me: Several people on Twitter were asking why CinemaSins was funny. While I'm highly, highly against explaining jokes ("comedy dies quickly under the microscope"), I can try to maybe go point-to-point and explain why their jokes touch the funnybone. I'll bring Powerpoint slides.

8:12 CinemaSins: While I appreciate the way this movie uses boxing to show off Holmes' superior mind, the idea that a reclusive, agoraphobic investigator would regularly participate in chaotic grimy street fights. Is beyond what my suspension of disbelief can bear.

Bob: Holmes' penchant for boxing comes straight out of Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories, so suspend that disbelief because people have been doing it since 1890.

Me: While Sherlock being a skilled boxer is indeed canon in the novels, many Doyle fans (including myself, screenwriter Max Landis, and co-creator of BBC Sherlock, Mark Gatiss) consider this to be a flaw in the Sherlock novels, as it often totally imbalances the foil relationship between Holmes and Watson. Watson is meant to be more of the brawn than Sherlock because Sherlock is more of the brains than Watson. Making Sherlock a skilled fighter makes Watson less useful. Because of this, it's perfectly accepted (and often considered an improvement) among many Sherlock fans to re-write Sherlock as being flawed at fighting (in BBC Sherlock, Sherlock is terrible at using a gun on numerous occasions, and fails miserably at trying to box the Golem in season 1, episode 3.) and even works that are heavily-inspired by Sherlock Holmes use this dynamic (Max Landis is the creator of BBCA's Dirk Gently, where Dirk can be taken down in a fight very quickly and is surrounded by friends who are physically stronger than him; and I am working on The Butler Detective, which has the detective character Mel Ambrose being physically weak in a fight, and Tuski Brown being surprisingly strong from buttle-ing).

Me: The following images are from Max Landis' Twitter account:

9:59 Preacher: You are sentenced to death for the practice of black magic.

CinemaSins: Victorian London was pretty backwards, but not that backwards. Were they? Were they?

Bob: Considering a [demonic ritual abuse] panic of our own happened in the 1980s, it's not that strange at all.

Me: Yes, but Reality is Unrealistic. There have been written accounts of farmers seeing cows spontaneously exploding, but if I had put a scene in my slice of life farming video game (The Journey of Ignorance) where a cow explodes, no one playing the game would say, "That's improbable, but realistic." They'd say it was unbelievable. As the saying goes, "Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense." If you want the audience to believe something that's improbable, you either have to create a fictionalised world where it seems less improbable, or you have to do what Fargo does and write a disclaimer at the beginning saying that the events are based on a true story... Even when that's not true.

Me: Also, ritual panic isn’t strange? What?

10:58 Bob: It's pronounced "sh*t," not "[BEEP]."

Me: -_- And you say CinemaSins does jokeyjokes?

Me: I feel like I need to add a swear counter or something to this video at this point. 0_o

13:27 CinemaSins: Pretty sure there would be a separate woman's jail. Right? Right?

Bob: Up until 1902, men and women were held in the same prisons in London. Quit asking rhetorical questions. And. Do. Research.

Me: What, am I supposed to crack open a bally history book every time I finish watching a bally episode of Jeeves & Wooster?

Me: Look, critiques come in all shapes and sizes. Some write in an academic style (Roger Egbert), some candidly (Jeremy Jahns), some scathingly (Ebert again), some focus on the editing side of things (Folding Ideas), the animation side (AniMat Reviews), and others write like they're a modernised version of a PG Wodehouse character from the 1930s (me).

Me: My point is, some critics, like CinemaSins, critique films as they are, as the film is playing, in the moment.

Me: You know. Like the way an average audience member watches a movie?

Me: Let them. And let CinemaSins. It's a valid method to judge a film. "It takes all sorts to build a world." There's room for critics who review films by how they captured people emotionally, but there's also room for critics who observe films on a more literal level.

Me: I feel bad about critics like who critically assess both good and bad films. They make me laugh the most with their snarky with, yet they get a lot of flak for it. One independent gave development team (we dare not speak its name, unless in hushed whispers by candlelight on a full moon) even went as far as to try and sue several critics for negatively reviewing their games. This attempt to silence the critics all led to... well... Let's just say that the Streisand Effect amuses me to no end.

Me: I know there's this dislike towards negativity and "caustic critics," but it's actually healthy to have a good whinge.

Me: If you honestly can't stand CinemaSins' negative tone, then check out their sibling channel, CinemaWins. It takes good and bad films and points out the good or awesome elements in those films.

13:50 CinemaSins: You might be thinking "Amazing sense of smell doesn't make a good superhero," and I would respond by saying, "Remember Hawkeye? He gets to be a top tier avenger and all he can do is shoot a [BEEP]ing bow and arrow."

Bob: Hawkeye has a hoverbike, f**k you!

Me: Having a hoverboard is not a skill. Shooting with a bow and arrow IS a skill. I actually have to state this? I mean, he could give that hoverbike to anyone with a compatible drivers license and they could fly it in Hawkeye's place.

Me: Or was that another one of your jokeyjokes? *Wiggles eyebrows.*

Me: Also, WHO THE HECK IS HAWKEYE?!

14:23 CinemaSins: Movie repurposes "old-timey" footage from Les Mis and Shanghai Knights.

Bob: Les Mis, Shanghai Knights and Sherloch Holmes all filmed in Greenwich. I guess it's a sin to shoot in the same location. Is this just a sh**ty jokeyjoke or a legit piece of criticism? I honestly can't tell.

Me: It's a reference/homage to Hollywood constantly filming in certain locations to do film shoots (especially Canada, due to its tax differences). You see camera crews filming stuff all the time and even handing out notices that give info on what film/show they're working on and how long they'll be there. I'm probably in the background of 257 different films and television shows simply because I'm Canadian.

Me: Canadians have very, very mixed, passionate feelings about being used to film American movies that are virtually never set in actual Canada, so I'd count this as a movie sin, yes.

14:48 Bob: Why are jokes about ejaculating allowed in these videos but cursing isn't?

Me: For the same reason double entendre jokes were allowed in 1971's "The Two Ronnies," but cursing wasn't: Because double entendre has a layer of subtext that hides its taboo nature from younger audiences (making it often "go above their heads"), but swearing doesn't. Unless you censor it in some way.

Me: The Two Ronnies' comedy sketch "Crossed Lines" literally has every other line a sex-related joke and it's considered to be a masterpiece of English double entendre. Check it out.

17:46: CinemaSins: The three main characters take down all-20-plus henchmen without the slightest injury.

Bob: By "20-plus henchmen" do you really mean six dudes?

Me: Hey, we're all allowed to hyperbole. I've been doing it like 50 times in this essay alone. :D

17:53 Adler: Moriarty. Please don't underestimate him.

CinemaSins: Irene is just saying "and we need a plot for the next movie."

Bob: Would you prefer the sequel to have a villain that comes out of nowhere, or is teased a little bit? Do all those Marvel post-credits scenes with Thanos make you really mad?

Me: I would prefer a film to be restrained enough to not sequel bait and allow itself to be its own, self-contained story.

Me: Also, sequel-baiting is slowly growing to be a hugely frowned-upon trend in films. It can smack of the creators being over-confident that they'll get enough money to warrant a sequel (The Last Airbender film anyone?) and well as manipulating the audience in an underhanded way. People are getting upset over sequel hooks, especially this year (2017) with films like King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (which was revealed to be a setup to six more films. I kid you not.), The Snowman (which was planned on being possibly a franchise. Which is ironic, since the film is literally incomplete but was released anyway), The Dark Tower (which was meant to lead to a television series), and Murder on the Orient Express (which ends with a sequel hook that, if you've read Agatha's Christie's Death on the Nile, creates a staggering plotting issue that I honestly have no idea how the writers will get around if the sequel does get made).

Me: I don't watch Marvel movies, so I don't know if Thanos makes me mad. Would he make me mad? Probably.

18:55 Bob: (Final Tally) Closing remarks: I have never seen someone simultaneously watch and not watch a film before. So thanks for that I guess.

Me: I've never had to type so much nitpicking-related stuff about a nitpicker before. Not since last Tuesday. So thanks for that I guess.

Me: No, really, thanks for that, Bob. This was cathartic. Genuinely.

Me: If people want to nitpick my nitpick of nitpicking and nitpicker who is nitpicking another nitpicker who's nitpicking a movie, please fell free to. Whatever you title it is bound to be hilarious, and I could do with a jolly good laugh.

-Katy

Also, here's Bobvid's YouTube Channel. *cough*Shameless plug he didn't ask for but I'm adding it anyway.*cough*

Bob, you've been a sweetheart. Keep making your videos.

"I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."- From Roger Ebert's review of North (1994)

Gee, I hope I don’t come off as too narky in this essay. This is such a big experiment. I’m so nervous about this ahhhhhhh--