I took "the books don't matter" as a criticism of the scriptwriting, since the Hobbit book does explain it and it would have been easy to include a sentence about the Valesmen shooting longbows at the eagles as the reason why they are not taken farther. I also vastly preferred Smaug's reactions (and his inner monologues are hilarious) to the dwarves and the 'theft' of the goblet in the book. There it made perfect sense. Smaug first tried to capture the thief, then went outside to try and catch them that way, and only once the 'rats' were in the tunnels too small for his current bulk, he decided to go and deal with the Laketown and thus basically strand the thieves at Erebor. Sooner or later they'd have to come out or starve, and then Smaug would have them. In the movie, the whole dwarven chase scene made very little sense and deflated Smaug as a threat, and furthermore made him stupid. The dwarves were right there in the open! In general though, I am in full agreement with your critique. There is a reason I don't watch CinemaSins anymore.
Seeing Tolkien Geek (idk your name dude sorry) get progressively angrier and more frustrated and snappy with cinemasins, when in the other debunking videos he was a lot more forgiving/calm to their antics is super entertaining. This video is great!
Haha, so I'm not the only one who felt like Tolkien Geek got really pissed off during this video. The build-up was too funny! I think during the part about the forests he just lost his patience with CinemaSins bullshit xD
But in that case, it's not referring to a shadow that's tied specifically to the wood. It's referring to the Shadow of Sauron (and Saruman) stretching out towards all of the surrounding lands, and the reason Treebeard focuses on woods is because that's the element of Sauron's devastation that matters most to him.
As someone who loves The Hobbit movies I completely understand they aren't perfect, but like you said, instead of CinemaSins actually criticizing actual moments that needed criticizing they criticize things that the movie actually did a good job at, also I'm guessing their rule of "the book doesn't matter" is actually "The book doesn't matter unless I see something that isn't in/contradicts the book then suddenly it does matter but only in this moment in time."
Game Theory legitimately tells you this is supposed to be a Theory. CinemaSins have confessed to be assholes, but fail to be the actual assholes since they make bad jokes.
Wow I don't particularly like them but yal the saltiest salty bois I've ever seen produce salt stop letting them live so deep rent free in y'alls heads
And, so are the majority of modern Hollywood, including Peter Hackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens with their lotr bollywood trilogy. It is not surprising at all.
Mellon, I lol'd. :D Also, when will people stop bringing up the Eagles? It was cute in 2006 maybe, but about 30 seconds of actual thought demonstrates how silly it is to think Eagles can/will fix everything. If they could, wouldn't Gwaihir be ruler of Arda?
I realized at the end of the Unexpected Journey video, he’s both complaining that the Eagles get used too much, and then immediately complains the Eagles don’t do even more and fly them to the Lonely Mountain (despite explaining exactly why in the RotK video?). It’s also made clear in the book (don’t remember if it’s referenced in the movies) that the Eagles hate Orcs most. That’s their primary motive - they saw Orcs gathering for trouble and mostly went there to attack them. The Lord of the Eagles basically says “We did this to repay you (Gandalf) and to screw over the Goblins, that’s it. We aren’t going to risk ourselves for dwarves.” I also don’t get the whole “Eagles are deus ex machina” as a complaint. First of all, that’s almost exactly what they are as the servants of Manwë (maybe Vala ex machina?), although I don’t know if it’s made quite clear if they are acting on Manwë’s behalf or on their own. Secondly, they’re there, they’re very powerful, and they’re sometimes willing to help out. Are the good guys supposed to not take advantage of when they are willing to help?
CinemaSins are notorious for contradicting themselves on what they claim to want from movies. They'll criticize a movie for having too much exposition, but then they'll complain that the movie didn't explain enough, and not infrequently they'll deliberately misrepresent a scene when "sinning" it. Th3Birdman has a lot of great videos that demonstrate this, he's worth a watch (he's WAY funnier than CinemaSins too).
The "Starlight" conversation is by far Tauriel's best scene. It actually very effectively gives a brief glimpse into the character and nature of Elves, especially for someone who doesn't know the Silmarillion.
12:30 I'd argue that Legolas *was* in The Hobbit but wasn't named or identified individually. That is, LotR retroactively implied that one of the many wood elves who were involved in the events was Legolas because it wouldn't make sense for him to not be present. A 100% book-accurate version of The Hobbit would feature Legolas as an unnamed extra in scenes of Thraunduil's court and the Battle of the Five Armies. If a film decided to depart slightly from the book by giving unnamed soldiers and courtiers lines to flesh out the environment, it would make sense for Legolas (as the prince) to be given some of those lines. Basically, a book-accurate Legolas would be a Figwit (or Bigwit, I suppose), and even expanding his role to be more like Thraunduil's right hand would just be book-consistent expansion rather than an actual alteration.
I looked it up for fun and because I think I heard this before, but gold had a fairly low melting point. Thorin would have something to ride on but it would be hot.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Arwen was descended from Melian, so she's part-Maiar as well as part-human (and mostly elven). Who knows which part of her heritage her glowiness comes from...
I always figured the glowiness is the person who is perceiving the glowiness as teetering on the edge of the unseen world and seeing the elf's fëa. And since both Frodo and Kíli were wounded by a similar source (Morgul blade/arrow), it makes sense that Kíli is having similar ailments to Frodo.
Another major forest in Middle Earth is Lothlorien, is that a dark and cursed place? Nope quite the opposite. Also the forests of Ithilien are described in loving detail, and remain quite healthy even though the men of Gondor had to abandon the region to the encroach of Sauron's forces. There are also still forests within the broader region of the Shire where elves still live. Tolkien was a nature lover and it would have been weird if most of the forests were hostile places. This would be like if I wrote a story about a Scottish family, and everyone is cool as hell except for one crazy drunken uncle and then I get accused of depicting all Scots as lunatics.
It’s like these people have never heard of a story before, or writing of any kind. All their criticisms about luck amount to “if I read this in the newspaper, I wouldn’t believe it”. Yes. True.
I really enjoy these. It's interesting to see what things Cinemasins pick up on that are legitimate criticisms and explanations/context for other sins.
The funny thing about the miles thing is that if they introduced a made up distance measurement, that'd still have been sinned. There was no winning on that. "Made up a new distance measurement instead of just saying 'miles'. *ding*"
The "raise sword twice" supposed sin is particularly stupid. In really good action scenes it's pretty common to repeat the action at a different angle to give it more sense of power.
If you read between the lines, Bard deliberately let him run off to die in the wilderness, which is arguably a worse and more ironic death than just being killed with a bow.
I actually don’t dislike the elf-dwarf flirting but I am actually glad they made a point that it was impossible and nothing happened in the end, which maybe makes it a tolerable addition. What actually drives me crazy is the impossible action scenes, they are ridiculous.
Again, thank you for this. No, Cinena Sins isn't some good natured parody, it's a smarmy self-satisfied pot shots by people who could be funny if they gave a slight bit more effort.
Yeah, because he doesn't freak out when Bilbo spots it! He just slyly taunts him about it, and then splashes the gold around so Bilbo keeps losing track of it.
Love your channel man. Just wondering, has anyone speculated how middle earth transitioned to modern earth? I know Tolkien wrote as it he found the red book... Or whatever, love your respectful style. Cheers
The English/Elvish thing actually doesn’t work because when wearing the ring you are able to understand languages. So thry may have been speaking Elvish and Bilbo just understood it.
Ok LMAO! I'm only halfway through but I really love your attitude in this one. You seem a lot less serious too and I adore your energy. You made me laugh quite a few times already! Keep it up!
I have a real nitpick. Why is the lake partly iced over on the day before the first day of autumn? If we were on the first day of spring, sure. But this is literally on the ass end of summer, it should be the least icy time of the whole year. And the ice floes don’t even do anything, they don’t add any plot element. Someone must just have thought it looked cool. Or maybe they built the sets in summertime but didn’t get around to shooting there until wintertime?
He’s referring to the very simple bar lock on the door, which in fairness is kinda hard to notice in the short clip they use. You almost have to infer it based on what Thorin does.
That fish sin does so aptly demonstrate the issue with Cinema Sins as parody/satire; they do have their obvious running jokes (sinning logos, no matter how long or short they might actually be as perhaps the most apparent example) and some sins are obvious meant to be funny, but then you have the sins where, without actually knowing a movie pretty damn intimately, you can't tell if it's supposed to be a joke or not. They seem equally sincere, to the point where even knowing that Cinema Sins markets itself as satire, I can't tell whether or not it's supposed to be a "deliberately wrong" criticism or just a mistake on their part. So I have to ask; why is that funny?
There are also some "sins" that look like genuine sins if you go based off of the clips they show, but if you know the actual movie, you know that the movie addressed it (in some cases, immediately after they cut off the clip). Mixing actual "sins" with "sins" manufactured by manipulative editing is inexcusable under any classification. The most striking example of this I can think of offhand is from their video on Captain America: The Winter Soldier (I'm probably paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to check the exact wording): Scene from the movie where Natasha is telling about a time she got shot in the side: Natasha: (shows off tiny scar) ...bye bye, bikinis. Steve: (sarcastically) Yeah, because I bet you look terrible in them now. Same scene as used by CinemaSins: Natasha: (shows off tiny scar) ...bye bye, bikinis. CinemaSins: (cuts off clip before Steve's line) Film implies that that scar would make her look bad in a bikini. Their Ratatouille video also sins the "Anyone can cook" motto because not everyone can cook---even though this is addressed later in the film during the "epiphany moment" monologue, so anyone who's watched the film at all would know that this "sin" is nonsense, but I've seen people who presumably haven't watched the film fiercely defend this "sin" as a legitimate criticism.
I watched a lot of CS and I don't think you fully understand what they are. They are aiming for entertainment, but not like that "it's just a joke". They do fair criticism, but they aren't really serious about it, unlike you. I do like your approach as well, and I'm happy you've kept it up :)
@@DeathDragon5000 - Yes, that's what I addressed exactly. They aren't consistent and will give up seriousness for a meme opportunity. So not all of their criticism is fair, but some are.
@@peterbaan9671 I would like to mention the main reason why people don't like this is about cinemasins not being consistent there gonna be "MAKE UP YOUR F%CKIN MIND CINEMASINS!! ARE YOU A COMEDY OR A CRITICISM CHANNEL?!" people generally don't like inconsistency. PLUS arguably what the quality of the jokes or criticisms are, are bad which just adds on top of that.
@@DeathDragon5000 - And that reason is perfectly valid. I do like their half-seriousness, but nobody have to or even for the same reasons. So what I'm saying is, when they do unfair or just bad criticism, they should be criticised for that, but it should be handled with care, because there are times when it isn't a serious point on their part, just a joke. And when you criticise a joke that indicates that you don't get the joke and you make a jackass out of yourself. Also, some jokes only work, if you are at least half-serious or even totally serious the rest of the time.
How come you went with DEBUNKED when you could have called it "Tolkien Geek's Everything Wrong With CinemaSins' Everything Wrong With _____ ?" That's your only Sin though. :)
CinemaSins is an utter clown. The videos have no real thought put into them. It's like listening to an opinionated 10yo who has done zero research. They don't even have comedic value. Shameless clickbait. I'm glad you did these debunking videos, though, because I like hearing you talk about the movies, discussing the lore, and how they differ from the books.
Tolkien Lore This is a random comment, and I do not recommend this. I think that you will like The Chaos Factory's lotr rewatch videos! He analysis what Peter Hackson got right and wrong in each of the films. And he is now on the part where the Hobbits have now entered Bree!
Might have been a glitch in the recording. I lost a segment of the recording so the two might be related. I didn’t notice the resolution being bad when I edited it though.
29:30 I think it's extremely obvious that they mean the Dwarves and Bilbo should be absolutely fried. I hate that you're making me defend CinemaSins, but this one's obvious.
I liked Cinema Sins when it was new, and the videos were 3-4 minutes pointing out actually flaws in a really funny way. For a long time now they've been making bloated videos of excessive nit-picking that stop being remotely funny long before their excessive 20-30 minute lengths are up.
I like some of your videos, but I think you're taking this whole cinema sins thing waaay too seriously 😂 They make half their sins for comedic purposes
I took "the books don't matter" as a criticism of the scriptwriting, since the Hobbit book does explain it and it would have been easy to include a sentence about the Valesmen shooting longbows at the eagles as the reason why they are not taken farther.
I also vastly preferred Smaug's reactions (and his inner monologues are hilarious) to the dwarves and the 'theft' of the goblet in the book. There it made perfect sense. Smaug first tried to capture the thief, then went outside to try and catch them that way, and only once the 'rats' were in the tunnels too small for his current bulk, he decided to go and deal with the Laketown and thus basically strand the thieves at Erebor. Sooner or later they'd have to come out or starve, and then Smaug would have them. In the movie, the whole dwarven chase scene made very little sense and deflated Smaug as a threat, and furthermore made him stupid. The dwarves were right there in the open!
In general though, I am in full agreement with your critique. There is a reason I don't watch CinemaSins anymore.
Seeing Tolkien Geek (idk your name dude sorry) get progressively angrier and more frustrated and snappy with cinemasins, when in the other debunking videos he was a lot more forgiving/calm to their antics is super entertaining.
This video is great!
Haha, so I'm not the only one who felt like Tolkien Geek got really pissed off during this video. The build-up was too funny! I think during the part about the forests he just lost his patience with CinemaSins bullshit xD
already know this will be good, keep em comin. i will follow you, my brother, my captain, my king.
7:34 In The Two Towers, Treebeard literally says “The Shadow lies on Fangorn. The withering of all woods is drawing near.”
But in that case, it's not referring to a shadow that's tied specifically to the wood. It's referring to the Shadow of Sauron (and Saruman) stretching out towards all of the surrounding lands, and the reason Treebeard focuses on woods is because that's the element of Sauron's devastation that matters most to him.
Benedict Cumberbatch nails it in his role as Smaug the Tyrannical. You can agree on that Tolkien Lore.
As someone who loves The Hobbit movies I completely understand they aren't perfect, but like you said, instead of CinemaSins actually criticizing actual moments that needed criticizing they criticize things that the movie actually did a good job at, also I'm guessing their rule of "the book doesn't matter" is actually "The book doesn't matter unless I see something that isn't in/contradicts the book then suddenly it does matter but only in this moment in time."
Cinema Sins is just like Game Theory, they're both talking out of their ass because of money.
Game Theory legitimately tells you this is supposed to be a Theory. CinemaSins have confessed to be assholes, but fail to be the actual assholes since they make bad jokes.
Game theory is also actually entertaining, Cinemasins is just a shit show 90% of the time
Wow I don't particularly like them but yal the saltiest salty bois I've ever seen produce salt stop letting them live so deep rent free in y'alls heads
Agreed. No point in even watching it IMO.
And, so are the majority of modern Hollywood, including Peter Hackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens with their lotr bollywood trilogy. It is not surprising at all.
You got admit Tolkien Lore, Lee Pace's Thranduil has more personality than the Elf King of Mirkwood from The Hobbit book.
Did Tolkien Lore say he'd rather jt remained a nameless elf king or something?
Mellon, I lol'd. :D
Also, when will people stop bringing up the Eagles? It was cute in 2006 maybe, but about 30 seconds of actual thought demonstrates how silly it is to think Eagles can/will fix everything. If they could, wouldn't Gwaihir be ruler of Arda?
I realized at the end of the Unexpected Journey video, he’s both complaining that the Eagles get used too much, and then immediately complains the Eagles don’t do even more and fly them to the Lonely Mountain (despite explaining exactly why in the RotK video?).
It’s also made clear in the book (don’t remember if it’s referenced in the movies) that the Eagles hate Orcs most. That’s their primary motive - they saw Orcs gathering for trouble and mostly went there to attack them. The Lord of the Eagles basically says “We did this to repay you (Gandalf) and to screw over the Goblins, that’s it. We aren’t going to risk ourselves for dwarves.”
I also don’t get the whole “Eagles are deus ex machina” as a complaint. First of all, that’s almost exactly what they are as the servants of Manwë (maybe Vala ex machina?), although I don’t know if it’s made quite clear if they are acting on Manwë’s behalf or on their own. Secondly, they’re there, they’re very powerful, and they’re sometimes willing to help out. Are the good guys supposed to not take advantage of when they are willing to help?
CinemaSins are notorious for contradicting themselves on what they claim to want from movies. They'll criticize a movie for having too much exposition, but then they'll complain that the movie didn't explain enough, and not infrequently they'll deliberately misrepresent a scene when "sinning" it. Th3Birdman has a lot of great videos that demonstrate this, he's worth a watch (he's WAY funnier than CinemaSins too).
The "Starlight" conversation is by far Tauriel's best scene. It actually very effectively gives a brief glimpse into the character and nature of Elves, especially for someone who doesn't know the Silmarillion.
Anyone else 'member when Cinema Sins would just list actual flaws, and not random facts, and the videos were only like 5-6 minutes long?
I do. Back when they used to be kinda funny.
I really liked them back then. Now they've gotten so bad that the last couple of times I've tried to watch them, I couldn't get more than a minute in.
12:30 I'd argue that Legolas *was* in The Hobbit but wasn't named or identified individually. That is, LotR retroactively implied that one of the many wood elves who were involved in the events was Legolas because it wouldn't make sense for him to not be present. A 100% book-accurate version of The Hobbit would feature Legolas as an unnamed extra in scenes of Thraunduil's court and the Battle of the Five Armies. If a film decided to depart slightly from the book by giving unnamed soldiers and courtiers lines to flesh out the environment, it would make sense for Legolas (as the prince) to be given some of those lines. Basically, a book-accurate Legolas would be a Figwit (or Bigwit, I suppose), and even expanding his role to be more like Thraunduil's right hand would just be book-consistent expansion rather than an actual alteration.
I looked it up for fun and because I think I heard this before, but gold had a fairly low melting point. Thorin would have something to ride on but it would be hot.
BTW, this channel is amazing. You deserve a lot more followers.
Your projecting comment about Csins' length vs the movies cracked me up. Well done!
26:43 they actually found a sort of sin: she should not be glowing, for she belongs to elves who never went to Valinor (vs. Glorfindel for example)
Neither was Arwen, so it’s not clear what that’s meant to signify in the movies.
@@TolkienLorePodcast totally!
@@TolkienLorePodcast Arwen was descended from Melian, so she's part-Maiar as well as part-human (and mostly elven). Who knows which part of her heritage her glowiness comes from...
I always figured the glowiness is the person who is perceiving the glowiness as teetering on the edge of the unseen world and seeing the elf's fëa. And since both Frodo and Kíli were wounded by a similar source (Morgul blade/arrow), it makes sense that Kíli is having similar ailments to Frodo.
Another major forest in Middle Earth is Lothlorien, is that a dark and cursed place? Nope quite the opposite. Also the forests of Ithilien are described in loving detail, and remain quite healthy even though the men of Gondor had to abandon the region to the encroach of Sauron's forces. There are also still forests within the broader region of the Shire where elves still live. Tolkien was a nature lover and it would have been weird if most of the forests were hostile places. This would be like if I wrote a story about a Scottish family, and everyone is cool as hell except for one crazy drunken uncle and then I get accused of depicting all Scots as lunatics.
It’s like these people have never heard of a story before, or writing of any kind. All their criticisms about luck amount to “if I read this in the newspaper, I wouldn’t believe it”. Yes. True.
Loving this series! BTW I think the Inigo Montoya reference was the whole "you killed my father, prepare to die" thing... vis-a-vis Smaug.
Could be.
@@TolkienLorePodcast: In Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf *Literally* tells Frodo: "There are other forces at work besides the will of evil"!!!
Uh, yeah? So?
I really enjoy these. It's interesting to see what things Cinemasins pick up on that are legitimate criticisms and explanations/context for other sins.
The funny thing about the miles thing is that if they introduced a made up distance measurement, that'd still have been sinned. There was no winning on that.
"Made up a new distance measurement instead of just saying 'miles'. *ding*"
The "raise sword twice" supposed sin is particularly stupid. In really good action scenes it's pretty common to repeat the action at a different angle to give it more sense of power.
I hated and never liked Alfrid Lickspittle. I wanted Bard the bowman to kill Alfrid with his longbow.
Yeah! : )
If you read between the lines, Bard deliberately let him run off to die in the wilderness, which is arguably a worse and more ironic death than just being killed with a bow.
I actually don’t dislike the elf-dwarf flirting but I am actually glad they made a point that it was impossible and nothing happened in the end, which maybe makes it a tolerable addition. What actually drives me crazy is the impossible action scenes, they are ridiculous.
The problem isnt legolas' presence in DoS, it is how he is handled and tauriel for that matter....
Again, thank you for this. No, Cinena Sins isn't some good natured parody, it's a smarmy self-satisfied pot shots by people who could be funny if they gave a slight bit more effort.
16:10 the ring has the power to allow the wearer to understand languages.
Maybe. That possibility is raised in the book but it’s not definitive.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Interesting, what scene in which book was that possibility raised?
When Sam overhears the Orcs who take Frodo to Cirith Ungol.
@@TolkienLorePodcast And If I remember right, he CAN understand the spiders in the book too...
I think Smaug actually might place the arken stone on purpose close to entrance and easy to see as to draw in the thieves into the open.
Yeah, because he doesn't freak out when Bilbo spots it! He just slyly taunts him about it, and then splashes the gold around so Bilbo keeps losing track of it.
@@spencerfrankclayton4348 Would make a perfect dwarve trap.
Love your channel man. Just wondering, has anyone speculated how middle earth transitioned to modern earth? I know Tolkien wrote as it he found the red book... Or whatever, love your respectful style. Cheers
The English/Elvish thing actually doesn’t work because when wearing the ring you are able to understand languages. So thry may have been speaking Elvish and Bilbo just understood it.
It’s not clear that’s true, though. It’s only a surmise on Sam’s part.
Billbo knew elvish remember in the book when gandalf was looking for Billbo he was gone looking for elvis and going on an adventure
Does anyone have an eagle whistle on them? Bwahaha!!!! Good one!😁👍
Ok LMAO! I'm only halfway through but I really love your attitude in this one. You seem a lot less serious too and I adore your energy. You made me laugh quite a few times already! Keep it up!
Having Legolas be in Mirkwood with Thrnaduil and the Silvan elves during the events of The Hobbit makes sense from the LOTR lore prospect.
We all know that Cinema Sins are just tomnoddys.
The Eagles belong to Manwe the King of the Valar.
Dude, you're awesome! Really love all of your video's!
Was James Bond an elf? I've (fortunately) never heard of CinamaSins but the dumbing down is clearly strong with them.
This is probably my favorite one of these you’ve done lol
Is it the unbridled rage? Lol
@@TolkienLorePodcast definitely xD
3:36 CinemaSins is totally wrong here, no one in Middle Earth does anything at all without MORGOTH putting the idea in their head!
The seeds of his lies are still being seen today.
I have a real nitpick.
Why is the lake partly iced over on the day before the first day of autumn? If we were on the first day of spring, sure. But this is literally on the ass end of summer, it should be the least icy time of the whole year. And the ice floes don’t even do anything, they don’t add any plot element. Someone must just have thought it looked cool.
Or maybe they built the sets in summertime but didn’t get around to shooting there until wintertime?
That’s a good point that if never even thought about 😂
6:04 See what? I guess I'm a dumb dwarf.
He’s referring to the very simple bar lock on the door, which in fairness is kinda hard to notice in the short clip they use. You almost have to infer it based on what Thorin does.
I hate how people drop dead after a single arrow to the muscle or organs. Ugh!!
Same
That fish sin does so aptly demonstrate the issue with Cinema Sins as parody/satire; they do have their obvious running jokes (sinning logos, no matter how long or short they might actually be as perhaps the most apparent example) and some sins are obvious meant to be funny, but then you have the sins where, without actually knowing a movie pretty damn intimately, you can't tell if it's supposed to be a joke or not. They seem equally sincere, to the point where even knowing that Cinema Sins markets itself as satire, I can't tell whether or not it's supposed to be a "deliberately wrong" criticism or just a mistake on their part. So I have to ask; why is that funny?
There are also some "sins" that look like genuine sins if you go based off of the clips they show, but if you know the actual movie, you know that the movie addressed it (in some cases, immediately after they cut off the clip). Mixing actual "sins" with "sins" manufactured by manipulative editing is inexcusable under any classification.
The most striking example of this I can think of offhand is from their video on Captain America: The Winter Soldier (I'm probably paraphrasing because I can't be bothered to check the exact wording):
Scene from the movie where Natasha is telling about a time she got shot in the side:
Natasha: (shows off tiny scar) ...bye bye, bikinis.
Steve: (sarcastically) Yeah, because I bet you look terrible in them now.
Same scene as used by CinemaSins:
Natasha: (shows off tiny scar) ...bye bye, bikinis.
CinemaSins: (cuts off clip before Steve's line) Film implies that that scar would make her look bad in a bikini.
Their Ratatouille video also sins the "Anyone can cook" motto because not everyone can cook---even though this is addressed later in the film during the "epiphany moment" monologue, so anyone who's watched the film at all would know that this "sin" is nonsense, but I've seen people who presumably haven't watched the film fiercely defend this "sin" as a legitimate criticism.
Ps every single movie have a love relationship in its and billbo knows how to speak elvish
Ok this is my favorite video u made
I've been waiting for this!
I watched a lot of CS and I don't think you fully understand what they are. They are aiming for entertainment, but not like that "it's just a joke". They do fair criticism, but they aren't really serious about it, unlike you. I do like your approach as well, and I'm happy you've kept it up :)
* clears throat * 21:03 22:10
@@DeathDragon5000 - Yes, that's what I addressed exactly. They aren't consistent and will give up seriousness for a meme opportunity.
So not all of their criticism is fair, but some are.
@@peterbaan9671 I would like to mention the main reason why people don't like this is about cinemasins not being consistent there gonna be "MAKE UP YOUR F%CKIN MIND CINEMASINS!! ARE YOU A COMEDY OR A CRITICISM CHANNEL?!" people generally don't like inconsistency. PLUS arguably what the quality of the jokes or criticisms are, are bad which just adds on top of that.
@@DeathDragon5000 - And that reason is perfectly valid. I do like their half-seriousness, but nobody have to or even for the same reasons. So what I'm saying is, when they do unfair or just bad criticism, they should be criticised for that, but it should be handled with care, because there are times when it isn't a serious point on their part, just a joke. And when you criticise a joke that indicates that you don't get the joke and you make a jackass out of yourself.
Also, some jokes only work, if you are at least half-serious or even totally serious the rest of the time.
@@peterbaan9671 me just reading everything you said: ua-cam.com/video/o6F6u5TIUbI/v-deo.html
good analysis of criticism 👍
How come you went with DEBUNKED when you could have called it "Tolkien Geek's Everything Wrong With CinemaSins' Everything Wrong With _____ ?"
That's your only Sin though. :)
Shush
I did consider that but that title is just too long lol.
But i liked the barrel ride a lot
Hate to disagree with you, but Cinema Sins has a point on miles.
Should be kilometers... Or, like, leagues or something.
Rangar?
Why? That would be subject to the same exact critique.
CinemaSins is an utter clown. The videos have no real thought put into them. It's like listening to an opinionated 10yo who has done zero research. They don't even have comedic value. Shameless clickbait. I'm glad you did these debunking videos, though, because I like hearing you talk about the movies, discussing the lore, and how they differ from the books.
You can understand strange languages while wearing the ring. Cinema sins is just reaching for content
Tolkien Lore This is a random comment, and I do not recommend this. I think that you will like The Chaos Factory's lotr rewatch videos! He analysis what Peter Hackson got right and wrong in each of the films. And he is now on the part where the Hobbits have now entered Bree!
Might have to check that out!
Great video, but the resolution is crap.
Might have been a glitch in the recording. I lost a segment of the recording so the two might be related. I didn’t notice the resolution being bad when I edited it though.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
They could use kilometres.
29:30
I think it's extremely obvious that they mean the Dwarves and Bilbo should be absolutely fried. I hate that you're making me defend CinemaSins, but this one's obvious.
Relax man, you will get a stroke being this invested haha
Are you kidding? This is how I distress! ;)
@@TolkienLorePodcast : )
I liked this video, but my likes disappear if I go. What's with youtube, thats not OK.
11:08 22:18
I liked Cinema Sins when it was new, and the videos were 3-4 minutes pointing out actually flaws in a really funny way. For a long time now they've been making bloated videos of excessive nit-picking that stop being remotely funny long before their excessive 20-30 minute lengths are up.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug the dragon was the only best thing about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
I like some of your videos, but I think you're taking this whole cinema sins thing waaay too seriously 😂 They make half their sins for comedic purposes