I'd love to see Cinemasins and Cinemawins collaborate on a movie review where they respectively criticize and praise the movie good-cop-bad-cop style and have arguments with each other along the way
YYYYES. And then have it so that the final counter is determining which side has more wins or sins, to declare which side prevails. Obviously it will be all in good fun. And maybe both sides can give their own takes on the film
I thought everyone did that. I mean, why would you want to watch someone hate on a movie you love? Or praise a movie you dislike? It makes no sense to me.
I do agree with your points, but I think in the case of cinemawins, it mostly boils down to intent. The creator of CinemaWins wanted to exclusively point out the good things movies do and be a mirror to Cinemasins. I think he definitely has the potential and capability to be what you wish Cinemawins to be, but maybe that's not what the creator wants (as seen from the fact that Cinemawins videos improves with each new videos while cinemasins go the opposite way). Cinemawins is already better than Cinemasins in a lot of ways, but unless Lee wants to take his video content to another level, it's not going to change. Plus, if the problem is that viewers may not gain anything beneficial out of the video, then I think Cinemawins is already good the way it is as I have learned a lot from their videos and interested to learn more about the things they pointed out, i.e. Edgar Wright's editing. Regardless, I'm glad you made this video. I didn't notice a lot of stuff that Lee does that may not be accurate or correct, so kudos to you
There's one thing to point out the good. Like, he can clap at actors, sound and the pretty lighting to have that but then he goes out of his way to provide counter arguments and the reach is sometimes just sad
Additionally, Lee reacts better to criticism in general and is more willing to adapt further on his content within its limitations, whilst Jeremy is more than often adamant on reacting aggressively to those who criticize him.
@@bipstymcbipste5641 I agree with this a lot. I find myself really disliking his defenses of certain movies (batman v superman comes to mind) as it feels like he defends the indefensible
As a big fan of CinemaWins, I have noticed some occasional mistakes he's made or how sometimes his intends and approaches to his videos aren't exactly the best, but I overall have so much respect and appreciation for him, and I agree with your points.
I'd still argue that CinemaWins is better, as they only encourage people to watch movies, while CinemaSins have actively caused people to avoid seeing certain films because they're seen as an authority on the subject.
I think both Cinemawins and Cinemasins can become better if: Sins: Focuses on the nitpicks and flaws in a movie that specifically bug them and make jokes that aren't founded on a fragile premise. Wins: Focuses his talents on really good movies that mostly aren't blockbusters or not very good movies. Like I get it, it's his choice to pick the movies he wants to win, but I think he's got amazing talent, and I want him to help people expand their horizons on not just their opinions, but the movies out there. TL:DR, Sins needs to sharpen its writing, Wins needs to expand its horizons.
@@locococo8961 Oh you talking about Cinemasins? I think they're not as bad as everyone says they are, I think their jokes and criticisms need time to develop. They don't have enough breathing room between their videos.
Oh, I 100% prefer Cinemawins. Jeremy's content is mostly "these are problems with this movie, and it's definitely a joke wink wink, no actual criticism here (except when it is) and iT's sAtIRe." I don't believe Lee's actually ever claimed to be a critic. His vibe is just "hey these are things I like about this movie, and these are my interpretations of that might explain the plothole." He lacks the pretensions of his OG counterpart, will acknowledge bad tor problematic things with the film as well, (but won't focus on him because that's not his brand) and then give his honest opinion. Plus, I prefer Lee's infectious enthusiasm!
I would like for cinemasins to basically take a sort of, neutral type of change. Where the cool scenes and epic moments can perhaps help cut down on the sins, while keeping in the good jokes. But, have those jokes not add to the counter. Or, have separate counters for the different types. Say, Joke Counter, Sin Counter and Epic counter
CinemaSins to me is just comedy and I think thats the way you should look at it. CinemaWins however is just a beam of positivity to help you appreciate a movie more
For me, it was helpful to learn that you can still thoroughly enjoy a movie while watching someone critique it. Cinemasins for me is just entertainment, and it’s interesting to see a movie through a critic’s eyes. At times, Jeremy does recognize how good a movie is (he called Princess Bride a national treasure in his video about it), which is also good. I do agree that Cinemasins can be overly cynical and annoying, but I don’t think they’re this cancer of RU-vid they’re made out to be. Thank you for listening to my TedTalk.
@@Zarkyun You derive enjoyment from boner jokes on Jeremy's past? Cinemasins are hypocrites, their videos are critiques when it suits them and satire when it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
I’m glad CinemaWins exists, because who doesn’t like positivity? There’s already way too much negativity, we need to balance it out somehow. I’m tired of constantly being bombarded by criticism for everything, Wins is a nice respite from that. So I do think Wins is better than Sins, if only because they’re unique.
I suppose Wins gives better vibes, CinemaWins isn't nitpicking like CinemaSins does. Jeremy from CinemaSins changed too much, before he used to sin something because it was a error, or a shot where you see the cameraman or the logic of the movie is flawed. No he seems to whine about everything and missuses so many things. In his Rogue One video, he complains about the movie changing planets (it's a Star Wats film, you will obviously be changing planets in a movie about a GALAXY far far away), another example es the excesive use of: [Number]Seconds of logos [Something] Cliche [Something] Ex machina Or when he points something at the film and he sins it because he needs to extend de video runtime. Let me show you an example. Character in movie: *Breathes* Jeremy; This character is breathing *Ding* (Or when he asks a question and counts it as a sin) Jeremy: Why is this character breathing? *Ding*. Now, CinemaWins unlike CinemaSins pays more attention to the movie and shows you some subtle but nice details, like when Metroman points at his mother not to tickle him and stuff that are good and subtle details. He often takes the movie as it is, interpreting and understanding the tropes and terms, telling you why the movie is good.
My theory is that negativity was the cooler thing to talk about back in the day since it was seen as something more entertaining than positivity. But it has become a bit oversaturated lately and positivity is starting to get the same treatment as it's something different. At this point, the cycle may just repeat endlessly.
@@reno9821 I’d be surprised if overdone positivity ever passes up overdone negativity again, since the internet absolutely loves negativity. Maybe if a dictator takes away our access to it or something then it’ll happen
@@beyondviolet True, as long as negativity still has as big of a following in the future as it does now, positivity will not be overdone. It's good that positivity has gotten bigger in the past few years, or so it seems.
I get your points... But I still prefer CinemaWins to Sins, mainly because Lee does his best to be positive about movies while Jeremy just plays the jerk who I don’t think anyone would like to be around. Heck, if anything, we need positivity in regards to the media and not needless negativity!
Movies are made to be watched, and enjoyed. If a channel likes CinemaWins is showing me how to look at the positives of a otherwise (maybe) flawed movie, that's only winning for me. If at the end of the day I can still distinguish good movies from bad movies (if that's even necessary), then I believe " twisting" your own logic or logic in general isn't a bad thing to enjoy something more. These little tangents Lee goes on are definitely comparable to what is done at CinemaSins, not adding anything worth of criticism or substance in general, but with CinemaWins it is presented with a very positive, optimistic attitude, which I prefer watching over a guy who "hates" everything in movies(?)
Enjoyment is subjective. Someone could easily enjoy nitpicking and tearing down a movie. If you like the opposite, all the power to you, but just because CinemaWins is trying to be positive doesn't bail him out of the same kinds of poor criticisms and mistakes that CInemaSins makes. They're both two sides of the same coin. One goes out of their way to unfairly push a movie down, and the other goes out of their way to unfairly pull a movie up. Honestly, CinemaWins annoys me more sometimes. He gives me the impression that he feels he's fulfilling some higher, grand purpose for film criticism when he's really not. At least CinemaSins seems more aware that he's just making nitpicks and jokes. Don't get me wrong. I don't like CinemaSins either. I think both of them are pretty bad. But for the love of god, look at the point Evan showcased at the end where CinemaWins tried to defend Palpatine returning in TRoS by saying 'pretend it's what you wanted and see how you feel'. I don't think CinemaSins has every said anything as ridiculous as that. Anyways, I feel that balanced criticism, looking at both the flaws and the strengths, is better for a film critique (or a critique of anything, really). But like Evan said, if that's their shtick, and they've found an audience, well good for them.
I honestly think that Cinema sins guy doesn't actually hate movies, he just does those videos for content. And it works. They have millions of subs. They are pretty fun to watch
I think the main reason why cinemasins is percieved as worse than cinemawins is that cinemasins is almost exclusively negative and cinemawins is almost exclusively positive. As Dom Cobb said “positive emotion trumps negative emotion every time”.
Or fanboys just don’t like their movie being mocked. To be honest, I just watch it for laughs. I never go to a Cinemasins video to get an actual essay about it’s flaws, I just like his jokes and think he has a good sense of humor.
i just listen to cinemasins for the voice of jeremy and.... for the warm and fuzzy feeling i get when they remove sins...it makes me feel like....when something is so good, so perfect....you cannot criticize or poke at it even though thats the only thing you live for
Yeah, I think it makes it more meaningful when a channel dedicated to comedic criticism points out good qualities. Like if you want to watch a channel break down why good films are good, there are plenty of commentary channels that do that. If you want to break down superhero or other action films, there are channels that do that. CinemaSins is meant to emulate watching a movie with friends over beers where you poke fun at it. It's not meant to be serious film criticism, so I'm not sure why some people get so offended when he makes jabs at movies.
Focusing on the formula is about the simplest way to connect the two channels, so that's understandable. But it's also a very shallow element, totally surface level, and I think it can lead one to missing so much of the actual reasons why Cinemasins sucks so hard. bobvids' video is really good at getting into those fundamental, underlying reasons found in the channel's business model (clickbait) and philosophy for how to discuss movies. Now this video brings up more bad things about CS than just pointing to the format, but when it comes to Cinemawins it definitely misses the mark. Painting it in any way as a situation of "both sides are equally bad" (like this were a centrist political video) is doing a disservice to both channels. Whereas with Cinemawins any factual errors come as honest mistakes, with CS they are very much part of the style and aesthetic. The lack of caring that is communicated is the same as with the casual jokes that make up such a big portion of the videos while doing nothing to critique the film. Not to suggest that the errors are intentional, that would be letting CS off with the Tommy Wisseau defense. But the point I'm making is instead that the mistakes are a part of the channel. It has never been improved and they continue to plague their videos like 8 years later. The channel doesn't care to change or better itself because the way the videos are written and the movies examined are what they're going for. This is not the case at all with Cinemawins. Also, why bring up the stated purpose of Cinemawins as a channel but not do the same for CS? If this is a comparative analysis between the two, the fact that there are numerous contradictory statements from the creators of the latter about to what extent it is actual film criticism, or jokes, or to what extent the complaints are real or just them "doing a character", would seem to be relevant in making a solid comparison. Most of what I mention here is addressed in this video itself, so I have to congratulate the video on being thorough and looking at the multiple different aspects of the channel and how the topics raised can be interpreted, it is quite a well structured video in that regard. But the conclusion, as well as the presentation, still makes the equivalency between the channels that is so strange to me. Despite problems pointed out with Cinemawins here, it doesn't seem to follow how that makes it equal with CS in terms of being a bad channel. Like the whole argument here is that people like bobvids and the channel audience are wrong for praising Cinemawins as a superior channel to CS. And how is this disproven? Rather it seems to be confirmed just from the acknowledgement that the former makes good, insightful commentary and critique on the quality of films at times, when this is something the latter is so completely bereft of. The conclusion thus is just wrong, plain and simple. The magnitude of issues with CS and how the good parts/bad parts scales in comparison to them. In that way this video seems to work as like apologetics for Cinemasins more than anything else. In the same way as someone might come to a Cinemawins video having heard the complaints about a movie and then being presented with reasons why it's not necesarily so bad, someone who has seen bobvids or Shaun's videos on Cinemasins might come to this video having heard the arguments against that channel and here be told that it's not so bad, that the channel is at least on par with it's most direct antithesis. And that I take issue with. It seems like you have an issue with the criticism of Cinemasins you present that ends with "Stop watching cinemasins" and as something toxic for moviegoers and for film criticism. If that's so, it would be best to adress it directly, since the conclusion of this video is so much more positively framed towards Cinemasins as harmless and something which has found an audience that likes it for what it is. Anyway, I also think it's inaccurate to describe Cinemawins as just trying to say all movies are good, giving a purely positive appraisal of them. The way it uses the format, which is a lot better than CS imo, rather makes it clear that the channel is about taking all the individual positive elements from a film and presenting that. Not the films quality in it's entirety or as he says "objectively" but the aspects of the film individually.
I think you explained perfectly why most people believe CinemaWins makes better and depper analysis of movies than CS, and also why they are not equal. V nice comment bro
@@vallraffs Jesus you wrote a lot. I think both are good, and i just like cinema sins because they are fun to watch, and it can be amusing to hear someone complain about blockbuster movies. I don't really care about the facts. However, in my opinion, what is better then BOTH channels are Screen Rants pitch meetings. I think they are so genius, and in my opinion more clever then either sins or wins. Check it out, Ryan George is hilarious
I rarely watch cinemasins or cinemawins but when I do I can enjoy both, I don’t watch either channel for an actual review or to decide if I should watch the movie I have other ways of finding that out. I usually watch cinemasins for the dry humor and entertainment value I can see its flaws but I can look past those so that I can enjoy the content. I watch cinemawins when I’m looking for a slightly more comprehensive and more appreciative video on a movie, I usually watch cinemawins videos on movies I’m a fan of so I can share my appreciation of the movie with someone. Both channels are entertaining from time to time and I do enjoy both, but I completely understand how some people don’t like them
I like CinemaWins more because I don't need to see any more negativity than I already do. I feel like consuming negative opinions just for the sake of it being negative puts people, if not then just me, into a bad headspace.
"Hey, maybe Anakin mind-trick padmé without even knowing...though she may fall for him" - CinemaWins AOTC "Revenge of the Sith is a movie where the good far outweights the bad" - CinemaWins ROTS. In comparison too the movies before or to every film ever made. Explain me more! What do you mean? Really the third act of Revenge of the Sith is really rough. CinemaSins: Fuel - the biggest problem of The Last Jedi (iam joking i just never ever watched a Star Wars video from CinemaSins). There are far better Sin videos for the Star Wars trilogy...eh, i mean more entertaining. *The language is without guarantee I didn't check those videos again because i don't want. And hi Mr Anomaly Inc
This is good, thanks for sharing it with me. I enjoy how you wrap up CW's issues, I've never really paid attention before. I like movies for movies sake, as well--I'm not likely to be the one MST3K'ing in the front row about plot contrivances, but you're absolutely right that this doesn't excuse those mistakes.
@@4everhls Oh damn, that's 7 months ago o.O It has to be one of those EFAP covered at that time or earlier, because I did not watch anything on his channel. In case you don't know EFAP: EFAP is a Podcast hosted by MauLer and Rags, they watch video essays and respond to them live. (Oh and if you heard negative things about them, give it a shot anyways, usually someone who engages honestly with their content know that the people are lying about them) If the podcasts would be too long for you that is totally fine of course. Ok it might be the followings: 1. The Rise of Skywalker 2. Joker 3. TLJ My bet is on the Rise of Skywalker one, but I am not entirely sure. Tell me if you found it there, if not I'll look out more.
Oh my, OH MY! Editing and writing are superb. Sound, with the exception of a couple of minor cutoffs or drownouts (tell southpaw to fix your mic XD) combined with that smooth voice creates great ambience. Great to see someone aptly articulate so many of the issues and misconceptions with these two channels. Stay massive and may the Don bless you and this video!
Evan, this video solidified why you are my favorite content creator on RU-vid: you make accurate assessments based on the information present, you create entertaining criticism through great editing and scripting techniques, and you reach conclusions that are fair and understandable. Plus, you are fair to both sides and recognize that they both CAN offer valuable insight, but that they just seemingly choose not to most of the time. Keep up the fantastic work with your videos dude!
18:39 "Yoda using lightning to burn down a tree in The Last Jedi was the first instance where we saw Force Ghosts being able to interact with the physical world." *Cue clip of Obi-Wan's Force Ghost pushing aside vines on Dagobah*
People say cinema sins is supposed to be a satire on nerdy first year film students or something, but if that were the case, they wouldn't be full of mistakes and bad "jokes," it would be full of accurate, but unimportant, overly nit picky criticisms. Cinema sins is just the guy who goes to a movie and doesn't pay attention and then complains that the movie doesn't make sense.
I’d like a collab where they both do each other’s scripts. So cinemawins gets a sins script and the sins get the wins script and then they do the video.
@@zekromx101 Even then, that's a pretty fat statement that Lee made considering the status of lord of the rings as one of the best trilogies ever made. To bluntly throw out a statement like that without anything to back it up, it makes him look like he's really desperate to defend his schtick. The implication that there's a thin line between a great movie and a terrible movie is seriously dumb
Good video, my man. I think the biggest problem with each channel is, that the purpose of their videos seems to shift based on whatever they want at any given time, while keeping the same well-worn format. This is why each of their fanbases are really defensive in saying "It's X but you're treating it as Y", or "it's Y but you're treating it as X" simultaneously. I think at the final point where you summed yourself up, you could have used a side-by-side visual comparison of the flaws of each channel.
I had just a minor confusion over the title. I was almost worried you'd argue that nobody *on RU-vid* does it better than Wins and Sins. Turns out, it's fine 😂
0:18 you said "they have well over 8 million subscribers" this video is literally unwatchable It would have been more accurate to say they have almost 9 million subscribers Also at 28:44 you say we shouldn't sugar coat things when that is exactly what keeps us safe from Diabeto
I don't take CinemaSins seriously but, he has a few good videos like his video on DBE, Transformers 4, & Batman and Robin. His videos on The Room and Troll 2 are hilarious.
I mean to be fair, I don't think that we should expect Cinemawins to be as technical as a professional movie critic. He's just there for the laughs. Same reason as to why there are no conclusion at the end of his vids. I really hate how he makes movies seem worsr than they are though. His content should be harmless and light imo since that is where he fits in.
You'll be giant one day. Really appreciate that you keep a fine distinction between a subjective opinion of yours and an objective criticism of whatever you are analyzing, unlike so many other review channels.
@Sean Macguire my point is that if they lived safely and comfortably at the waterfall, you wouldn’t love the movie because there would be no conflict in the story. It would just be a movie about living in a house by a waterfall. There would be no movie.
@@maximillion322 But the plot of the movie hinges on a set of circumstances that does not involve an element like the waterfall. So why the hell is the waterfall in the movie in the first place? An analogy: Our protagonists need to get from one story to the upper one of a building they are inside, but the staircase has collapsed. They build a ladder to climb up there, at some great cost to themselves. During this time, a fully functional elevator lift, that goes from their floor to the one they want to get to, is shown and the protagonists know of it and they can use it at a minor cost to themselves. They still construct the ladder. Does it not seem ridiculous for the protagonists to continue using the ladder? If it does, then there is a plot-hole because they could just have used the elevator. If it does not, then why is the elevator in the story in the first place?
@@TheJarlOfJyttland good point. Why are the Great Eagles in LOTR if not to just fly the Fellowship to Mt. Doom in an afternoon and be done with it before Saruman can rase an army?
@@maximillion322 Simple answer: Nazguls. But you bringing it up in response to the waterfall in A Quiet Place reveals to me that you acknowledge that it is a plot-hole for that movie. And if that is true, then why are you giving that movie's script the defense of stupidity?
@@TheJarlOfJyttland it is a plothole. The optimal solution would be to cut that scene entirely. But as long as it exists, my point is that it’s better to have an otherwise great movie with a slight plot hole than no movie at all.
Cinema-sins and Cinema-wins: Doppio and Diavolo. Seemingly different personalities inhabiting the same being. One seemingly less awful than the other at first, but upon closer inspection, neither of them are what you would call good.
@@Party_Almsivi fuck mauler Having a stand with the power of requiem would be so cool he could really get points down and finish a lot in such a small spand i wonder what the abilty would be though irl instead of reversing time like GER
I love both channels, and I think cinema sins takes on movies are taken too seriously. I watch their channel for laughs at bad movies, and I don't care whether the sins are for actual complaints, as if that was all cinema sins did I think their videos might fall a bit flat. Cinema wins is just a good channel too imo
I hope I don’t think your assessment is necessarily wrong I feel like taken a purely objective look at sins and wins’ formats is doing it the wrong way. I feel what actually separates them is intent, I remember once in a video Lee said that he started Cinemawins with the mission statement “ every movie is at least one person’s favorite” and he clearly cares about filmmaking as a whole more than Sins does
Glad this comparison exists, really. For how popular both of these channels are, its kinda weird how little they're mentioned in the same sentence. I think this essay kinda missed the point though. The reason these channels are both so great is because of their personality and sense of humor. People don't come to cinemasins to know everything wrong about movies they like, they want entertainment surrounding their favorite entertainment. Shouldn't be taken so seriously, just my take.
tl;dr on a majority of the top comments: it’s very ironic that you simultaneously point to CW’s use of false equivalency to artificially create unreasonable wins/negate legitimate nitpicks or critiques only to turn around and finish your video with the conclusion that “neither one did it better because they both *have flaws*”
The main problem with the sins/wins format is they are extremes. Sins looks for stuff to call out so hard that he’s blinded and often makes mistakes. Wins is only ever looking to praise movies even if he knows they’re not good.
1. Its not complaining. Hes not saying "thats wrong wtf is wrong with you guys" he clearly says "this is not the best way to show movies doing stuff good/bad" 2. Its called examples, not nitpicks
I take false praise 100 times more often than false criticism. I like it more when some tries to point out the good things about a bad movie than someone pointing out the bad things about a good movie. I might just enjoy positivity more even if its not justified. I am pessimistic enough and dont need more pessimism in the area I enjoy. Which is watching movies and series.
I don’t see the problem with their channels. At first I was one of those guys who hated cinemasins for the annoying and stupid criticisms, but then I realized that was the point. Cinemasins is just an overly negative satire of film criticism. Cinemawins is an overly positive praise of films. Both of these channels are designed to promote two sides, I think your video has a point but it’s a point that ultimately is deep for no reason. These channels are not really film essays; they’re fun ways to appreciate film and make fun of it. I think both of their channels do what they’re were meant to do.
I agree with everything you said. I get so annoyed when cinema wins get praised just for being positive when half their stuff is just justification for legitimate problems rather than praise of a films quality elements
@@gojitsar7505 my mesage wasn’t about cinema sins it was about the fact that I agree that wins suffers the same inherent issues sins does and is considered good while cinema sins is considered bad. I don’t personally enjoy cinema-sins though I did for a time. Be that as it my I take issue with your premise that cinema sins should be given leeway because of comedy when the main premise of their channel is critique. Their series name and their mantra “no movie is without sin” imply analysis is their central premise and when uninformed a person can easily mistake them as far more critique focused than they actually are. On top of this cinema sins absolutely includes criticism with their comedy often times the two are so bizarrely mixed to the point that it’s hard to tell the difference. Based on this I think it’s absolutely fair to be critical of cinema sins quality since a lot of their stuff ends up being low quality clickbait using a format that absolutely could work with more work and better writing.
CinemaWins is thought provoking, corrects himself and willing defend the value of garbage, even things he himself finds as garbage. That takes more time and effort then going “logo’s exist” (ding)
I really don't think there's ANY issue with their "content". Both channels have funny enjoyable content to watch. It's not like they are deciding your opinion on the movie for you.
The last day of 7th grade, one boy in my class thought it'd be funny to say something to insult another boy's mom, the insulted boy punched through the glass of our classroom door. Both were suspended.
Cinema Sins is obviously a joke. In every video they pick fun at themselves with some of the points you made in this video. Their goal is not to properly critique a film, it is to entertain the viewer! You take clips of their videos that are clearly for laughs and use it to show evidence on why they are bad/misleading. They say over and over again that they are not being serious and it is all just a joke. The sin counter at the end is not really supposed to show the film's credibility but to add another layer of parody. The idea of Cinema Sins is to give the viewers something to watch and make them laugh. Most of Cinema Sins viewers don't really care about the movie just about the narrator's commentary. They never set out to objectify the film they are trying to make people laugh. *And most of it is parody (also why did I write this?)
I think you are taking these light hearted channels a bit too seriously... But then again so am I because I spent ten minutes writing a rebottle that no one will see...
But there are people who will make a counter-claim to this, saying something along the lines of, “But there are plenty of instances where he says things that are blatantly false or misleading, and then tries to cover it up as joke, even though you could tell by the tone in the video that it was meant to be a ‘serious criticism’. They are just using it as an excuse to hide the fact that they suck and have bad writing.” One guy also said something along the lines of, “He has tried to pass himself off before as an actual critic, which would imply that he makes serious criticisms at least some of the time, yet a lot of the time these serious criticisms are simply false.”
Cinemawins is the same problem ya’ll have with Cinemasins but instead it’s toxic positivity. In the casino royal video, he gave a win to something he said made no sense at all. Keep the same energy.
what makes this kind of funny is how similer the two creators sound but ya it makes sense that the two channels that are basickly reflections of eachother have the opposite problem one is to mean while the others to nice
I feel like there needs to be a "CinemaTruths" channel that has a "good" counter and a "bad" counter, and just have no bullshit to it. But, sadly, that would probably not be marketable. People are emotional irrational creatures, and they go for what makes them feel good. Movies they love, they want to see loved and praised. Movies they hate, they want to see hated and mocked. Actual intellectuals like you and me are a rare breed that can think critically and constructively about things, and PROPERLY embrace and understand how and why things are flawed or not flawed in a movie REGARDLESS of if we love or hate it.
I don't think that's possible. Because no one person can completely evaluate a film 100% objectively. There's always gonna be bias which is why I think it's better to be discussed in a comittee like fashion with multiple people that have arrived to different conclusions.
@@AlexSciChannel I never said they need to evaluate a film 100% objectively, but good job strawmanning what I said. "Truth" can just mean honest opinions. I'd just also want it to be done in a constructive and reasonable and intelligent manner. But sure, have two or three or something people of different preferences and tastes discuss it could work. But even that has it's flaws too. Especially when people remember Siskel and Ebert fondly... even though Roger Ebert was a hypocritical moron.
@@kurvos sorry just misinterpereted. Not strawmanning jusy assumed the implications. But even if a channel like this existed and they're also speaking from opinion putting too much credence in what they say may very well influence the outlook of a piece of art negatively. This happens a lot with cinemasins where a bunch of people suddenly thinks a movie is worse because cinemasins is overly harsh on it when in reality they're idiots that mixes up criticism and parody. This hypothetical cinematruths doesn' have that prospect. But for realnit just sounds like you're talking about a movie critic. Because what you described is a film critic's job.
2:22 or as Spider-Man would say, '"You remember that old movie with the clone dinosaurs that could open doors, and there was that Indiana Jones guy who was like 'clever girl!' just before he got mauled? Well what if WE were the dinosaurs? I mean not like the whole eating people thing because that would just be weird, but..." 😂
The idea that anyone would build a whole channel around either heaping criticism on every movie equally and arbitrarily, or heaping praise on every movie equally and arbitrarily is baffling to me. Can you even consider yourself a movie critic if you don't discriminate between good and bad films? Also, good video. I'm gonna go rewatch Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo because it's brilliant, and then proceed to cry because the trilogy will never be completed.
Even if Cinemawins commits many of the same mistakes as cinemasins, i think people just like him more because unlike Jeremy, Lee isn't an arrogant pretentious asshole.
I mean don't get me wrong, this is an amazing video but I have always gotten the feeling that Lee created his channel to spread positivity and to criticise him so harsh seems really unfair to me, mainly because I feel like CW doesn't take itself that serious... its there to be positive and to provide a mirror to CS, in my opinion it doesn't NEED to be accurate or 100% objective, the "jup", or Brutal" - wins criticised in this video are there to lighten up the mood and show what Lee likes about the movie. Not to be seen as a serious base of argumentation for the movie, but more of a "hey that was cool! and that too, this movie is fun!"I can't say much about the critique on CinemaSins because I don't really watch his videos. This being said I think that this video did an amazing job at criticising both channels, and had not only a beautiful structure and writing style but also an amazing sound and editing quality. Truly great work. I don't know if anyone is doing to be reading this considering I'm quite late to the party and this comment might get buried anyway, but in CinemaWins' spirit I hope whoever reads this has a lovely day/night that's filled with positivity.
I really wish you've made more content. Not only do I enjoy your excellent points and analysis, I need to hear more of that buttery smooth voice of yours.
I used to watch CinemaSins back in the day. But as time went on, Jeremy just started focusing more on jokes that had nothing to do with the film in question rather than actual sinning of a movie. And sadly, I feel like CinemaWins is starting to do the same. Some recent videos just feel like they're overstuffed with pointless humour rather than the actual winning of the movie. But that's just my opinion
Cinema sins is a satire channel that jokes around a movie, a great laugh. Cinema wins is a channel that analyze and review a move carefully, a great companion to evening coffee. To put them in the same category is kinda misled.
Well that was 30 minutes well spent. I might do it again later. I used to like Sins, because I enjoyed that style of content. I still watch Chariii5, who was inspired by Sins to make videos the same way, but with video games. His videos are better though, because they usually address actual problems. I could never get behind Wins. Especially since the first video of his I saw was his TLJ video, which is one of his worst. I'd prefer to watch someone talk about both the good and the bad, then come to a conclusion based on what they've found.
I don't like wins because they're basically like my mom saying I was doing good at skating while I was holding the handrails. Even if they're basically admitting something a movie did badly, they still give a win for some reason.
Here's one thing you didn't point out as to why Wins is superior: he does go on tangents that he'll go "actually, that's not a win". Whereas with Sins, literally everything they say, brings the sin counter up a number.
Is crazy how people don't know the crazy amount of efforts to make this kinds of videos. Just because it's simple in a way doesn't mean is easy or less time consuming
Regarding the waterfall in A Quiet Place (16:30), even if we agree that they SHOULD move to the waterfall there are still reasonable people who disagree, and if not, it seems reasonable that the people in the movie may have not recognised the value. I don't understand why an arguably poor decision is necessarily a plot hole.
I agree and disagree. CinemaWins rarely ever bashes movies. His problem is that he is too positive and optimistic about whatever movie he is covering. Instead of just covering the good things about movies, he covers EVERYTHING about the movies, including the bad things, and tries to make an argument about how that stuff is good(I.e. VERY subjective). CinemaSins I just don’t take seriously. I don’t necessarily have a problem with either of these channels though, in fact I watch both of their videos regularly, but there are definitely things about them I don’t like.
@@u121386 He bashes old movies misrepresenting than to defend his terrible corporate garbage as some misunderstood form of art, every time I see anything from is resumed in "everything is garbage anyway... I love it"
@@u121386 He should focus on amazing movies. Not to sound snobby, but he's underutilizing his talent trying to defend bad movies. He could focus on arthouse films.
These are the kinds of videos with objective criticism I love most. The ones where, yes, points are made about a film’s flaws, but they get made without a ton of rage or ranting. And don’t get me wrong, I like those kinds of videos too, but I personally think these are more interesting and fun to listen to.
