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 there's another benefit too. When Cinema Wins dings a film the criticism is often a lot more genuine, and not making a reliant on the speaker or a film making a pop culture reference or having a running gag.
I’m with you on this, but some movies don’t deserve your money. That’s the only problem with CinemaWins is that occasionally he’ll defend objectively terrible films and can be a bit rose tinted. Not to say CinemaSins is better, but other channels like Mauler are good at properly critiquing films
Exact same can be said about win who speaks as an authority to the same degree, they both ignore a bunch about the movie it doesn’t matter if one encourages you to watch poor movies
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.
They have dropped a few gems of a joke a few times but overall they've never really been very funny, just overly contrarion and dickish and wrong@@Idontknowwhattonamemychannel
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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 UA-cam 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 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!
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 way I see it, CinemaSins isnt satire or real criticism or video essays, it’s just entertainment the likes of pitch meeting, honest trailers, hishe etc
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.
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*
"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
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.
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
Ive been doing a study on language of opinion and to drastically over generalise, people tend to express negative opinions through objectivity (or by presenting as objective), whereas positive opinions tended to be based in subjevtive lexis For this reason, i would argue cinema sins is significantly worse, as the negative slant demands a greater objectivity and authenticity, whereas cinema wins would largely be allowed to make certain errors, as subjectivity is more permissible in positive scenarios
I simply disagree because I don't see Cinemas Sins as a movie review type thing. I watch it because sometimes it makes me chuckle. It's a shlop, a channel through and through
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.
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
You're flat out wrong about Cinimawins. HE's not trying to critique or review. He's geeking out and sharing that with everyone else. It's always been about that. And people go there to be uplifted.
@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.
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!
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.
Cinemasins is just an asshole being an asshole to movies, not really any real criticism just "this is bad" Cinemawins reminds us that movies can still be fun, even if they have issues, even if they have a "low win count" the movies can just be fun still, even bad movies can be fun It all comes down to the idea behind the channels, Sins goes in to find things to complain about, Wins goes in to find things to praise, one of those will lead to enjoying movies much more
This kinda video bugs me because the true purpose behind both channels seems so obvious but hard to articulate. Like, does anyone actually get confused as to which sins in Cinema Sins are obviously jokes and which are legit criticisms or not picks? Muddying the water by mixing them all together only really seems to be an issue if you are looking for issues. I figured our what CinemaSins is actually meant to be - remember that episode of Community where a bunch of characters sit around to watch a movie and just ad lib jokes and criticisms? Yeah, that's basically it. It's trying to simulate that kinda experience and I don't think there is not much wrong with that. Sure, there are some legitimate criticisms mixed in but overall trying to create genuine film criticism has never been the goal and those things are only included if they seem to increase the entertainment value of the video in some way. I don't watch CinemaSins any more but I do watch CinemaWins, and I think it serves a very similar but reversed purpose - simulating the idea of watching a movie and just wanting to gush about all the awesome stuff about it. Again, I don't think there is an inherent issue with that. Again, most of the video's content is supposed to be for entertainment value, but there is also a more concerted effort on just trying to appreciate the little things or the big things that would still be missed. And why I still watch those videos is because firstly, it's just nice to watch soemthing positive, but also because it helps me appreciate films I didn't initially get. Nope, for example. I finished watching that film liking it, but not necessarily knowing how to feel about it. CinemaWins didn't dictate to me how I should feel about it, but it did put things into context and allowed me to really appreciate a lot about it. A video like this seems to miss a lot of that and that is why it drives me mad, because it seems almost deliberately skirting around the point - that the channels are just meant to be fun and that they achieve that, although CinemaWins more so in my opinion than CinemaSins.
Evan, this video solidified why you are my favorite content creator on UA-cam: 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!
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.
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
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
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 had just a minor confusion over the title. I was almost worried you'd argue that nobody *on UA-cam* does it better than Wins and Sins. Turns out, it's fine 😂
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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.
While it's the same structure, the big difference is just the messages being sent out. Cinemasins makes the same stupid jokes and pads the sin count and has unintentionally encouraged viewers to not watch or actively dislike certain movies based solely on their commentary. Cinemasins hides behind parody to justify their critique and jokes by pretending to be all these different things at once. Cinemawins encourages critical thinking, analysis, summarizing the movie as a whole, etc. In both cases, the sin/win count means nothing because you can't base the quality of an art form in any numerical value. Are some of the wins just little moments that are cool and have nothing to do with the critical analysis of a film? Yes. But it's way more fun than complaining about everything. While Cinemawins can stretch some explanations to explain certain choices, it's way better than constantly getting facts wrong by and being a hypocrite about it. In the case of the water fall, I also believe it isn't a plot hole because we don't see just how long it can take to travel there. And putting yourself in a more relaxed state of mind in terms of being quiet is dangerous, because all it takes is one slip-up. While making a noise isn't a guaranteed death sentence, it's better to always be careful while in a reliable system than being in an environment that allows for talking and small noises. And what about when winter comes? Then the perfect waterfall that apparently defeats the entire purpose of the movie is out of commission. The family has a system that works and 2-3 kids (depending on the time) to also take care of. There's just too many variables for it to be reliable outside of an occasional conversation and work that requires noise like fishing. I certainly had more fun typing all that out in agreement with Cinemawins than the times I could type an essay of how many things Cinemasins got wrong and contradicted. Is Cinemawins an entirely objective channel that only makes wins for the critical quality of a movie? No. But he encourages people to watch movies with an open mind. Cinemawins feels like a friend who you'd make jokes alongside while watching a movie while Cinemasins feels like a snob who you always need to correct in the middle of a movie because they ignored a big piece of information.
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.
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
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.
I just like the positivity CinemaWins puts out, and he’s not afraid to criticize a film just because he’s the Wins guy, but he does it in a more introspective and constructive manner if he does have a problem with a film. CinemaSins while I used to like him, retrospectively just feels like a negative cesspool of nitpicking of problems that barely matter in a film.
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.”
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 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.
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..." 😂
Okay so about the Star Wars thing. Force Ghosts were slowly revealed to do more than we thought possible. In A New Hope they were just voices, in Empire Strikes Back they can show themselves as Ethereal beings, in Return of the Jedi Obi-wan sits down on a log while talking to Luke which is our first hint that Force Ghosts can interact with the physical world. Then in The Last Jedi we see the culmination of this with Yoda summoning lightning to strike the tree and finally in Rise of Skywalker Luke straight up touches and holds a lightsaber despite being dead. This is very clear to see just by watching and observing. It doesn't matter how much you might hate these movies, I myself don't like Rise of Skywalker much either, but that doesn't change that everything about Force Ghosts makes sense if you're paying attention. When it's all said and done CinemaSins is an embarrassment to the film medium and only exists to make money and for no other reason. CinemWins is a celebration of film, someone sharing his love and passion for the medium with as many people as possible. There's no way you can tell me that's as bad as CinemaSins.
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 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.
even if cinemasins and cinemawins are doing the exact same things, cinemasins is worse because they're actively encouraging people to not watch movies. cinemawins is encouraging people to watch movies.
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 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.
CinemaWins is one of my favorite channels honestly. Not just the positivity but the fact that he will remove wins for certain issues if they are genuine issues. That balance is much more enjoyable to watch than consistent negativity with zero constructive criticism.
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.
The way I see it, both are effectively popcorn film criticism, cheap, entertaining, but ultimately insubstantial and probably not good for you in the long run.
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.
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.
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.
Where can I make a suggestion to have a look and analysis of Charriii5's Everything Wrong With Video Games series? Because I GENUINELY think that out of everyone in the world, Charriii is one of the few people who have not only used the Cinema Sins format well, but I would argue is THE DEFINITIVE USER of the Cinema Sins' formula.
Just because the force ghost can be somewhere, doesnt mean it has the same power. From my understanding of the larger lore in general, his interpretation is probably closer to correct than incorrect. I mean, hela doesnt disappear away from asgard, she just gets weaker.
18:05 I know this comment comes really late because this video is 3 years old, but as an avid Star Wars fan I've got to say what you say about CinemaWins' point doesn't make a lot of sense. I've already linked what is said and I'd recommend rewatching that setion before reading the rest of this comment. In essence, CinemaWins' point is that due to the island being a strong Force location, especially for the Light Side, it stands to reason that it's possible to accomplish bigger Force feats on it than in other places. This would explain why the Force ghosts are able to interact with the physical world in a higher level than what we've seen in the OT, where they merely appeared in arbitrary places such as Hoth. About this, you argue that Force ghosts have never physically interacted with the world *in previous films*. The audience assumed they can merely communicate with others, as they can't die and would be extremely overpowered combatants. The first time we've seen a Force ghost physically interact with the world is with Yoda in TLJ. "This" (what exactly is "this"? I'm not sure what exactly you refer to with that) is confirmed fully in TROS with Luke catching the lightsaber. With these changes comes the question of why they don't help the protagonists in battles. There was no implication in the OT that they couldn't go to any place in the galaxy. The ST is the first instance of them interacting with the physical world, but they never assist the heroes, going against all evidence presented in the films showing that they could. Saying they appear in the island doesn't mean they can't leave it. Therefore, both of these cases are retcons to the mechanics of Force ghosts in Star Wars. Breaking down your argument, the idea that Force ghosts have never physically interacted with the world in previous films could be considered correct. In ROTJ, Obi-Wan sits on some sort of branch, but I imagine you're referring to something a bit more important than sitting on something. This and the fact that Force ghosts could be very overpowered, as you correctly state, leads the audience to assume they can't parttake in battles. You then mention that TLJ is the first time we've ever seen a Force ghost physically interact with the world, however this statement is not true. In The Clone Wars season 6 episode 11, Voices, we see Qui-Gon Jinn's uncomplete Force ghost reach out to Yoda to show him the way to earn this ability. In this scene we see Yoda meditating before being interrupted by Qui-Gon's voice. As a way to prove to Yoda that he really is speaking to him from the Living Force, he blows out some candles Yoda had turned on and lifts several objects in the room, including Yoda himself, through the use of the Force. This is a clear contradiction of your statement, since you consider Force ghost Yoda using the Force to create lightning and Force ghost Luke using the Force to lift his X-Wing as interactions with the physical world. As you correctly point out, these events lead to the question of why they don't help the heroes in battle. Your next statement about there being no implication in the OT that the Force ghosts were limited to certain places is also correct, however I don't understand how it relates to anything shown in the ST or said by CinemaWins. You then mention that the Force ghosts never assist the heroes, despite evidence showing the opposite, however this argument is flawed because the evidence you cite contradicts the initial statement. Yoda helping Luke and Luke helping Rey are both instances of Force ghosts assisting the heroes. This is done more psychologically in Yoda's case, but he utilises physical interactions to further help Luke, while Luke uses the Force to help Rey by lifting his X-Wing out of the water and giving her Leia's lightsaber. Saying Force ghosts appear in the island doesn't mean they can't leave it is true, however I also don't see how it relates to anything said by CinemaWins or presented by the Sequels. We even see Luke and Leia's Force ghosts in Tatooine in the ending scene of TROS. With these arguments you come to the conclusion that both TLJ and TROS retcon the mechanics of Force ghosts in the Star Wars universe. Due to the examples I've provided, I've got to say this isn't necessarily true. CinemaWins was arguing that one could assume that the strong presence of the Light Side of the Force in Ahch-To leads to the Force ghosts being able to pull off the feats we see in the ST, while these would not be possible in arbitrary places such as Cloud City, where Luke had his duel with Darth Vader. The Clone Wars episode I already mentioned reinforces this idea, as Qui-Gon is only able to communicate with Yoda in the Jedi Temple and on Dagobah, a planet which he describes as "one of the purest places in the galaxy" interms of the Force, while also implying that there is no past or future for him, but he can't intervene, serving only as a guide instead. Yoda even asks him about the identity of the Sith Lord they are looking for, but he tells Yoda he can only lead him to the cave Luke visits in ESB. The argument provided by CinemaWins, although not proven, doesn't serve as the only reason for the lack of interference by the Force ghosts due to what I just mentioned. In most instances we've seen of a Force ghost on screen, they have only served as a guide for the heroes, providing a certain level of assistance while not interfering in the crucial moments. Qui-Gon only leads Yoda toward the training to become a Force ghost, Obi-Wan only leads Luke to use the Force to destroy the Death Star, to go to Dagobah for training, to follow the Jedi way by telling him to avoid falling for the trap laid by Vader on Cloud City, and to understand his place in the story, Yoda leads Luke to become a legend once again, Luke leads Rey to fight the battle against Palpatine, Luke and Leia lead Rey to carry out the legacy of the Skywalkers, and, if you want to count it as a Force ghost instance, the voices of several Jedi lead Rey to beat Palpatine. The only moment in which there wasn't really any guiding being done by Force ghosts was the celebration on Endor. It is safe to conclude that the Force ghosts don't help the heroes in battle because they simply have to let things happen as the Force wills it, but they are able to provide critical guidance when needed so that the will of the Force is accomplished. In conclusion, the arguments you've provided don't actually disprove CinemaWins' justification for Luke and Yoda being able to do what they do in the ST. Your points about the Force ghosts not being limited to a certain location have nothing to do with CinemaWins saying Ahch-To is amplifying the powers of the Force ghosts, Force ghosts have interacted with the physical world in previous Star Wars content, and they clearly assist the heroes when you say they don't. I could understand disliking the portrayal of Force ghosts beyond the OT, however the ST doesn't contradict previously established canon and the inferences CinemaWins makes aren't really a stretch, as there isn't any evidence against them. The only problem here is that it isn't actually explained whether what he said is true or not, so I'd rather hang on to Qui-Gon's actions and explanations as a Force ghost, providing guidance but not outright interfering.
Jesus this is long. I'm not one to talk about writing long essays in comments but I'll cover this. First, What's required of a writer is to make sure what we see is believable in the context of the universe. We can beleive the emperor can shoot lightning since it doesn't contradict previously shown info. When new information is established that would effect previously shown knowlege theres a problem For example if a charater is established to be weak and defenseless then is shown later to be able to do kung fu then we ask questions and for the audience to beleive information you need to find a believable reason why this is different. The force ghosts influence from what is shown from the prequels ans the original trilogy is only to the extent is talking. The strong force place = strong powers is not established in the mainline films 1-9 and is not provided information to the audience. If it is provided in a novel that already exists then that's still an issue because people didn't go in with the expectation of read this watch this. Tbe expectation is a sequal trilogy that's a standalone story after the ot. What was marketed was not twards people who know obscure star wars information it's twards the mainline fans who probably just saw 1-6 Also in s6 ep11 of clone wars I had issues with qui gon interacting with shit. One could make a case it was negligible but it's still bad writing. Writers shouldn't repeat the same mistakes they make so it still applies. The rise of skylwalker and tlj shouldn't have reinforced such broken powers. Before it was lifting a few objects which was pretty bad Then it was lightning meaning Then it confirmed they dont just gave force powers but Luke could just go up to palps and just take old sheev out. So no this stands pretty high. The mainline audience have the right to question this post talk abd outside material that majority of the audience doesn't have is just bad writing.
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 there's another benefit too. When Cinema Wins dings a film the criticism is often a lot more genuine, and not making a reliant on the speaker or a film making a pop culture reference or having a running gag.
Wtf why would i not watch a movie because a trio of bald guys took a piss of it about a missing window lmao
I’m with you on this, but some movies don’t deserve your money. That’s the only problem with CinemaWins is that occasionally he’ll defend objectively terrible films and can be a bit rose tinted. Not to say CinemaSins is better, but other channels like Mauler are good at properly critiquing films
Exact same can be said about win who speaks as an authority to the same degree, they both ignore a bunch about the movie it doesn’t matter if one encourages you to watch poor movies
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.
This video was 3 years ago when they used to actually be funny
They have dropped a few gems of a joke a few times but overall they've never really been very funny, just overly contrarion and dickish and wrong@@Idontknowwhattonamemychannel
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 doubt Sins would do that, they'd probably sooner strike CinemaWins down for being a "baseless copy and an Ex Machina"
That would be fun to watch.
Noooooooooooooooo
that’s a cool idea but frankly sins would get creamed no matter what
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.
@@margogoralski6294 and Lee usually corrects it, while Jeremy acts like he did absolutely denies he's done anything.
Birdman said it best: "you padding the sin count, bro?"
*Crunch crunch
"I think you're padding the sin count."
*Ding
Lime toastedos
@@gioigdodisk7460God, I loved him.
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!
Bless you, I agree
Although from time to time Sins comes up with legitimately great sins
Yep. He's great.
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
Jeremy would say, and has said, we're not critics we'ra assholes.
@@jeremydyar7566 well, it would take one to know it, wouldn't it?
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.
Cinemawins made a video about everything great about 'GODS OF EGYPT'...GODS OF EGYPT
@@theG00N-G0BLIN oh my god that's a reach. She says. Having seen that movie more than once.
"Pretend that you liked it (TROS) and see how you liked it"...
Wins is garbage just like sins.
From time to time Sins actually comes up with brilliant sins
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.
But it's too much
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
No way anyone fu***ng laughs at jeremey sure i laugh at his channel lol
the problem with Cinimasins being "comedy" is comedy is funny.
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 UA-cam they’re made out to be.
Thank you for listening to my TedTalk.
@@chickadeestevenson5440 "funny" is entirely subjective. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
@@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 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!
Or both enough with the extremes
No, we don't need positivity more than negativity. People have this idea that being positive is automatically good, when it is neutral at best
@@xolotltolox7626what’s wrong with being neutral lol
@@kaponosucks where did you get neutral = bad from?
@@xolotltolox7626 ummm idk the clown i just replied to
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 way I see it, CinemaSins isnt satire or real criticism or video essays, it’s just entertainment the likes of pitch meeting, honest trailers, hishe etc
All arguments aside, it all comes down to entertainment value...yet again
Uh, I'm out of the loop then. I 100% believed that they were run by the same people
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(?)
God, I used to love CinemaSins... until I saw CinemaWins, and now I can’t go back to CinemaSins.
@@jakeb2x266 exactly i dont like nit picking movies it gets annoying i unsubsribed to cinema sins
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.
It’s your fault for taking Cinemasins seriously to begin with. You’re supposed to take it as a joke 🤦♀️
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”.
Very true
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.
@@gojitsar7505 not really, even watching vids about films I hate on cinemasins I can tell he's full of shit
@@doctordoom1860 Fine then. We all have opinions.
@@gojitsar7505 yes
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*
Hell ghosts shouldn't even be able to walk around considering that would be them disturbing the environment
MR MONROE a surprise to be sure but a welcome one
Prequels are good.. bing bong
Prequels are bad.. bong bing
Hi Nomz
"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
Congrats on 40k Anomaly!
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.
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.
Hopefully this comment didn't come across as overly negative or hostile. Wasn't intended to be.
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
No he says nobody does it better as in both are terrible
@@Galvatronover hiiisssss
i wonder if cinemasins' response to this would be "our sins have no real value because if they did they'd lose their real value"
Pretty sure that point was already made in the EWW Cinema Sins video back in what... 2018? 2017? Somewhere around there.
Ive been doing a study on language of opinion and to drastically over generalise, people tend to express negative opinions through objectivity (or by presenting as objective), whereas positive opinions tended to be based in subjevtive lexis
For this reason, i would argue cinema sins is significantly worse, as the negative slant demands a greater objectivity and authenticity, whereas cinema wins would largely be allowed to make certain errors, as subjectivity is more permissible in positive scenarios
I simply disagree because I don't see Cinemas Sins as a movie review type thing. I watch it because sometimes it makes me chuckle. It's a shlop, a channel through and through
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.
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
I’ve been excited for this for a while
*I've been looking forward to this*
You're flat out wrong about Cinimawins. HE's not trying to critique or review. He's geeking out and sharing that with everyone else. It's always been about that. And people go there to be uplifted.
“Why doesn’t the family from a Quiet Place just move to the waterfall?”
...because then it would be a less interesting movie
@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.
I prefer cinema wins, mainly because the narrator in cinema sins sounds like he has phlegm in his throat and I can’t listen to that
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.
CinemaWins says every Movie falls apart when analyzing it thoroughly. He clearly didn't watch In Bruges then.
Can you remind me in what videos did he say it again? I've been looking for the video to know the context as to why he said it
@@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.
@@Soapy-chan_old It was in the Joker one. I was watching that the other day. Blur the blood, not the wound
@@bipstymcbipste5641 Ah right, yes, thanks for informing me.
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!
TL;DW :
cinema sins : is bad
cinema wins: is bad
i make constructive criticism watch me.
So, you did not watch this video then?
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.
lee is such a likeable guy that i bear with all of his shallow one word wins and whatever else. he just got the best vibe idk
"The sequel trilogy is the first instance in which we see Force ghosts interact with the real world."
Clone Wars S6E11: You sure about that?
Now *_this_* is epic.
*Celestial* finding yer comment 'round here, for nough reason... Arrrg'ably.
Cinemasins is just an asshole being an asshole to movies, not really any real criticism just "this is bad"
Cinemawins reminds us that movies can still be fun, even if they have issues, even if they have a "low win count" the movies can just be fun still, even bad movies can be fun
It all comes down to the idea behind the channels, Sins goes in to find things to complain about, Wins goes in to find things to praise, one of those will lead to enjoying movies much more
"if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all."
Underrated comment. This is a godly quote
Ah! A fellow Witcher fan.
It looks like Jay was right after all, but then we all knew that anyways...
This kinda video bugs me because the true purpose behind both channels seems so obvious but hard to articulate. Like, does anyone actually get confused as to which sins in Cinema Sins are obviously jokes and which are legit criticisms or not picks? Muddying the water by mixing them all together only really seems to be an issue if you are looking for issues.
I figured our what CinemaSins is actually meant to be - remember that episode of Community where a bunch of characters sit around to watch a movie and just ad lib jokes and criticisms? Yeah, that's basically it. It's trying to simulate that kinda experience and I don't think there is not much wrong with that. Sure, there are some legitimate criticisms mixed in but overall trying to create genuine film criticism has never been the goal and those things are only included if they seem to increase the entertainment value of the video in some way.
I don't watch CinemaSins any more but I do watch CinemaWins, and I think it serves a very similar but reversed purpose - simulating the idea of watching a movie and just wanting to gush about all the awesome stuff about it. Again, I don't think there is an inherent issue with that. Again, most of the video's content is supposed to be for entertainment value, but there is also a more concerted effort on just trying to appreciate the little things or the big things that would still be missed. And why I still watch those videos is because firstly, it's just nice to watch soemthing positive, but also because it helps me appreciate films I didn't initially get. Nope, for example. I finished watching that film liking it, but not necessarily knowing how to feel about it. CinemaWins didn't dictate to me how I should feel about it, but it did put things into context and allowed me to really appreciate a lot about it.
A video like this seems to miss a lot of that and that is why it drives me mad, because it seems almost deliberately skirting around the point - that the channels are just meant to be fun and that they achieve that, although CinemaWins more so in my opinion than CinemaSins.
Evan, this video solidified why you are my favorite content creator on UA-cam: 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!
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.
You are complaining about cinemawins and sins and how nit-picky they are while nit-picking at certain videos...
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
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
What
@@gggfightklub8449 Read it as if someone was being sarcastic
Last part needs deep EFAP lore for context
Got angry then started laughing bmy ass of nice one man
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)
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, JUST WATCH A DAMN MOVIE AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!
someone's angry
Didn't CinemaSins make a video called *Everything Wrong With CinemaSins* where one of the sins was that they were not movie reviewers
Oh yeah that extremely dumb deflection.
Yet they include actual criticism of movies in their videos
Shoutout to using Cowboy Bebop ost!
I had just a minor confusion over the title. I was almost worried you'd argue that nobody *on UA-cam* does it better than Wins and Sins.
Turns out, it's fine 😂
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.
The return of the king. I was convinced you had been absorbed by cinema roberto or something. Very happy to see this in my sub box.
You deserve millions of subs
dude, I just want to watch people talk about movies and have a positive attitude, chill...
Nothing that is said in this video prevents you from doing that. With that being said, why should he chill?
Dude, he just wants to criticise people talking about movies and have a constructive attitude, chill...
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
Now I’m going to watch the efap on cinema wins joker just so I can watch the very justified fury at his asinine lord of the rings take
It's 10 months later. Has that EFAP video ended yet?
@Reno Thomas that isnt what he was saying tho
@@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.
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.
@AlezanderO2 Cinemawins really likes TLJ though, he explained his views for 20 minutes after the main rundown.
Cinema sins is just a satire channel though, nitpicking is their thing
@@neroidius6915 the satire excuse has been debunked by tons of people
@@1917girl I mean if they themselves say its satire then i don't understand what has to be debunked
@@1917girl That's the thing about satire. Surely it can't exactly be “debunked”. It doesn't quite work like that, I don't think.
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.
Well he was inspired by Mauler who has started to popularize the renormalization of concept of objective criticism.
I think most people take CinemaSins far too seriously. Even he has said that the sin counter has no real meaning and most of the sins mean nothing.
While it's the same structure, the big difference is just the messages being sent out. Cinemasins makes the same stupid jokes and pads the sin count and has unintentionally encouraged viewers to not watch or actively dislike certain movies based solely on their commentary. Cinemasins hides behind parody to justify their critique and jokes by pretending to be all these different things at once. Cinemawins encourages critical thinking, analysis, summarizing the movie as a whole, etc.
In both cases, the sin/win count means nothing because you can't base the quality of an art form in any numerical value. Are some of the wins just little moments that are cool and have nothing to do with the critical analysis of a film? Yes. But it's way more fun than complaining about everything. While Cinemawins can stretch some explanations to explain certain choices, it's way better than constantly getting facts wrong by and being a hypocrite about it. In the case of the water fall, I also believe it isn't a plot hole because we don't see just how long it can take to travel there. And putting yourself in a more relaxed state of mind in terms of being quiet is dangerous, because all it takes is one slip-up. While making a noise isn't a guaranteed death sentence, it's better to always be careful while in a reliable system than being in an environment that allows for talking and small noises. And what about when winter comes? Then the perfect waterfall that apparently defeats the entire purpose of the movie is out of commission. The family has a system that works and 2-3 kids (depending on the time) to also take care of. There's just too many variables for it to be reliable outside of an occasional conversation and work that requires noise like fishing.
I certainly had more fun typing all that out in agreement with Cinemawins than the times I could type an essay of how many things Cinemasins got wrong and contradicted.
Is Cinemawins an entirely objective channel that only makes wins for the critical quality of a movie? No. But he encourages people to watch movies with an open mind. Cinemawins feels like a friend who you'd make jokes alongside while watching a movie while Cinemasins feels like a snob who you always need to correct in the middle of a movie because they ignored a big piece of information.
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.
A Mauler video yesterday and a Monroe video today, is this when the year 2020 starts to improve?
Ha no it got worse
1:12 there is also a channel that makes “zombie sins” for zombie movies
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
However from bobvids' video we can see that people actually take his criticism seriously and don't watch the movies, thats the problem
@@akhil6826 Thats their problem, not cinemasins
@@akhil6826 most people don't care and just want to enjoy the movie
i think cinema wins is worse , may be a personal opinion but i find forced positivism annoying
"Pretend it's what you want."
Cinemawins
*Enough said!*
Edit: Changed my old favorited quote to match the guy's newest tism...
this rant was a legit snoozefest
EWW is just bland and unfunny
Okay but why does all film discussion need to be high-brow analysis?
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.
I just like the positivity CinemaWins puts out, and he’s not afraid to criticize a film just because he’s the Wins guy, but he does it in a more introspective and constructive manner if he does have a problem with a film. CinemaSins while I used to like him, retrospectively just feels like a negative cesspool of nitpicking of problems that barely matter in a film.
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.”
Please watch the video 'Cinemasins videos are not satire: they're just poorly written.' To understand the flaws in this idea
Wow do people really fall for this shit?
@@totallyrealcia From their patreon: "We at CinemaSins are fortunate to be able to make silly sins videos for you every week".
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 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.
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 reason I find wins more entertaining and enriching is that they are uplifting the art of movies, but sins is just shitting on them
I actually used to think they were the same person/people, is that weird?
Nope, not weird at all...
Cuz you're not the only one
I mean, They look so identical,
So it's no shame to be fooled
What's your opinion on Chariii5?
Wait..they're not the same person???
I thought so too
Okay so about the Star Wars thing. Force Ghosts were slowly revealed to do more than we thought possible. In A New Hope they were just voices, in Empire Strikes Back they can show themselves as Ethereal beings, in Return of the Jedi Obi-wan sits down on a log while talking to Luke which is our first hint that Force Ghosts can interact with the physical world. Then in The Last Jedi we see the culmination of this with Yoda summoning lightning to strike the tree and finally in Rise of Skywalker Luke straight up touches and holds a lightsaber despite being dead.
This is very clear to see just by watching and observing. It doesn't matter how much you might hate these movies, I myself don't like Rise of Skywalker much either, but that doesn't change that everything about Force Ghosts makes sense if you're paying attention.
When it's all said and done CinemaSins is an embarrassment to the film medium and only exists to make money and for no other reason. CinemWins is a celebration of film, someone sharing his love and passion for the medium with as many people as possible. There's no way you can tell me that's as bad as CinemaSins.
So what you are saying rather than everyone’s opinion they are just sinning and winning with their own opinions
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.
And of course, Patrick Willems is Risotto Nero, for anyone who’s a fan of this analogy.
So MauLer or Monroe is Giorno?
Who is that I would say sentry and void
Diego Brando
Mauler of course!
@@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 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.
@@gojitsar7505 have a nice one 😁
even if cinemasins and cinemawins are doing the exact same things, cinemasins is worse because they're actively encouraging people to not watch movies. cinemawins is encouraging people to watch movies.
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.
TLDW: cinemasins nitpicks and cinemawins picknicks
"Gordon Ramsay critiques a store bought can of spaghettios" (Alternate title for this video)
Just watch honest trailers
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.
Is this video a joke? It’s a joke right? Talk about a waste of time.
CinemaWins is one of my favorite channels honestly. Not just the positivity but the fact that he will remove wins for certain issues if they are genuine issues. That balance is much more enjoyable to watch than consistent negativity with zero constructive criticism.
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.
The way I see it, both are effectively popcorn film criticism, cheap, entertaining, but ultimately insubstantial and probably not good for you in the long run.
Cinema Wins isn't positive, he bashes good movie trying to defend garbage, he's even worse than Cinema Sins
Yeah, I find cinema wins more disingenuous with his defense of garbage, unlike cinema sins who I just find stupid at times.
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.
Mackie Lunkey - Or he just needs to make a genuine review channel, he has very intelligent points and could benefit from having a review channel.
19:50 ya... that’s the point
Just because it’s for comedy, that dosen’t excuse them from getting things wrong, especially when they’re also using legitimate criticism as well.
@@Serena_Maeve and JOKES
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.
@@AlexSciChannel You strawmanned by assuming from implications, so it's still strawmanning. But whatever.
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.
Where can I make a suggestion to have a look and analysis of Charriii5's Everything Wrong With Video Games series? Because I GENUINELY think that out of everyone in the world, Charriii is one of the few people who have not only used the Cinema Sins format well, but I would argue is THE DEFINITIVE USER of the Cinema Sins' formula.
Just because the force ghost can be somewhere, doesnt mean it has the same power. From my understanding of the larger lore in general, his interpretation is probably closer to correct than incorrect. I mean, hela doesnt disappear away from asgard, she just gets weaker.
Cinema Sins : dumb and nonsensical at times
Cinema Wins: disingenuous and way too much forced positivity
@Zombie Hunter find the good, dont sugarcoat the bad
18:05
I know this comment comes really late because this video is 3 years old, but as an avid Star Wars fan I've got to say what you say about CinemaWins' point doesn't make a lot of sense. I've already linked what is said and I'd recommend rewatching that setion before reading the rest of this comment.
In essence, CinemaWins' point is that due to the island being a strong Force location, especially for the Light Side, it stands to reason that it's possible to accomplish bigger Force feats on it than in other places. This would explain why the Force ghosts are able to interact with the physical world in a higher level than what we've seen in the OT, where they merely appeared in arbitrary places such as Hoth.
About this, you argue that Force ghosts have never physically interacted with the world *in previous films*. The audience assumed they can merely communicate with others, as they can't die and would be extremely overpowered combatants. The first time we've seen a Force ghost physically interact with the world is with Yoda in TLJ. "This" (what exactly is "this"? I'm not sure what exactly you refer to with that) is confirmed fully in TROS with Luke catching the lightsaber. With these changes comes the question of why they don't help the protagonists in battles. There was no implication in the OT that they couldn't go to any place in the galaxy. The ST is the first instance of them interacting with the physical world, but they never assist the heroes, going against all evidence presented in the films showing that they could. Saying they appear in the island doesn't mean they can't leave it. Therefore, both of these cases are retcons to the mechanics of Force ghosts in Star Wars.
Breaking down your argument, the idea that Force ghosts have never physically interacted with the world in previous films could be considered correct. In ROTJ, Obi-Wan sits on some sort of branch, but I imagine you're referring to something a bit more important than sitting on something. This and the fact that Force ghosts could be very overpowered, as you correctly state, leads the audience to assume they can't parttake in battles.
You then mention that TLJ is the first time we've ever seen a Force ghost physically interact with the world, however this statement is not true. In The Clone Wars season 6 episode 11, Voices, we see Qui-Gon Jinn's uncomplete Force ghost reach out to Yoda to show him the way to earn this ability. In this scene we see Yoda meditating before being interrupted by Qui-Gon's voice. As a way to prove to Yoda that he really is speaking to him from the Living Force, he blows out some candles Yoda had turned on and lifts several objects in the room, including Yoda himself, through the use of the Force. This is a clear contradiction of your statement, since you consider Force ghost Yoda using the Force to create lightning and Force ghost Luke using the Force to lift his X-Wing as interactions with the physical world. As you correctly point out, these events lead to the question of why they don't help the heroes in battle.
Your next statement about there being no implication in the OT that the Force ghosts were limited to certain places is also correct, however I don't understand how it relates to anything shown in the ST or said by CinemaWins.
You then mention that the Force ghosts never assist the heroes, despite evidence showing the opposite, however this argument is flawed because the evidence you cite contradicts the initial statement. Yoda helping Luke and Luke helping Rey are both instances of Force ghosts assisting the heroes. This is done more psychologically in Yoda's case, but he utilises physical interactions to further help Luke, while Luke uses the Force to help Rey by lifting his X-Wing out of the water and giving her Leia's lightsaber.
Saying Force ghosts appear in the island doesn't mean they can't leave it is true, however I also don't see how it relates to anything said by CinemaWins or presented by the Sequels. We even see Luke and Leia's Force ghosts in Tatooine in the ending scene of TROS.
With these arguments you come to the conclusion that both TLJ and TROS retcon the mechanics of Force ghosts in the Star Wars universe. Due to the examples I've provided, I've got to say this isn't necessarily true. CinemaWins was arguing that one could assume that the strong presence of the Light Side of the Force in Ahch-To leads to the Force ghosts being able to pull off the feats we see in the ST, while these would not be possible in arbitrary places such as Cloud City, where Luke had his duel with Darth Vader. The Clone Wars episode I already mentioned reinforces this idea, as Qui-Gon is only able to communicate with Yoda in the Jedi Temple and on Dagobah, a planet which he describes as "one of the purest places in the galaxy" interms of the Force, while also implying that there is no past or future for him, but he can't intervene, serving only as a guide instead. Yoda even asks him about the identity of the Sith Lord they are looking for, but he tells Yoda he can only lead him to the cave Luke visits in ESB. The argument provided by CinemaWins, although not proven, doesn't serve as the only reason for the lack of interference by the Force ghosts due to what I just mentioned. In most instances we've seen of a Force ghost on screen, they have only served as a guide for the heroes, providing a certain level of assistance while not interfering in the crucial moments. Qui-Gon only leads Yoda toward the training to become a Force ghost, Obi-Wan only leads Luke to use the Force to destroy the Death Star, to go to Dagobah for training, to follow the Jedi way by telling him to avoid falling for the trap laid by Vader on Cloud City, and to understand his place in the story, Yoda leads Luke to become a legend once again, Luke leads Rey to fight the battle against Palpatine, Luke and Leia lead Rey to carry out the legacy of the Skywalkers, and, if you want to count it as a Force ghost instance, the voices of several Jedi lead Rey to beat Palpatine. The only moment in which there wasn't really any guiding being done by Force ghosts was the celebration on Endor. It is safe to conclude that the Force ghosts don't help the heroes in battle because they simply have to let things happen as the Force wills it, but they are able to provide critical guidance when needed so that the will of the Force is accomplished.
In conclusion, the arguments you've provided don't actually disprove CinemaWins' justification for Luke and Yoda being able to do what they do in the ST. Your points about the Force ghosts not being limited to a certain location have nothing to do with CinemaWins saying Ahch-To is amplifying the powers of the Force ghosts, Force ghosts have interacted with the physical world in previous Star Wars content, and they clearly assist the heroes when you say they don't. I could understand disliking the portrayal of Force ghosts beyond the OT, however the ST doesn't contradict previously established canon and the inferences CinemaWins makes aren't really a stretch, as there isn't any evidence against them. The only problem here is that it isn't actually explained whether what he said is true or not, so I'd rather hang on to Qui-Gon's actions and explanations as a Force ghost, providing guidance but not outright interfering.
Jesus this is long. I'm not one to talk about writing long essays in comments but I'll cover this.
First, What's required of a writer is to make sure what we see is believable in the context of the universe. We can beleive the emperor can shoot lightning since it doesn't contradict previously shown info.
When new information is established that would effect previously shown knowlege theres a problem
For example if a charater is established to be weak and defenseless then is shown later to be able to do kung fu then we ask questions and for the audience to beleive information you need to find a believable reason why this is different.
The force ghosts influence from what is shown from the prequels ans the original trilogy is only to the extent is talking.
The strong force place = strong powers is not established in the mainline films 1-9 and is not provided information to the audience. If it is provided in a novel that already exists then that's still an issue because people didn't go in with the expectation of read this watch this. Tbe expectation is a sequal trilogy that's a standalone story after the ot.
What was marketed was not twards people who know obscure star wars information it's twards the mainline fans who probably just saw 1-6
Also in s6 ep11 of clone wars I had issues with qui gon interacting with shit. One could make a case it was negligible but it's still bad writing.
Writers shouldn't repeat the same mistakes they make so it still applies. The rise of skylwalker and tlj shouldn't have reinforced such broken powers.
Before it was lifting a few objects which was pretty bad
Then it was lightning meaning
Then it confirmed they dont just gave force powers but Luke could just go up to palps and just take old sheev out.
So no this stands pretty high.
The mainline audience have the right to question this post talk abd outside material that majority of the audience doesn't have is just bad writing.