A critique on Zero Punctuation and CinemaSins (from 2018)

 Originally posted on January 2018

As a wee lad who grew up watching  YouTube, I entertained myself with all kinds of channels. I watched a small company called Rooster Teeth record dialogue over Halo multiplayer maps, I watched Extra Credits talk about game design, I listened to Hank Green discuss science topics. I’m glad to say these creators are still around in some form today and still make content I enjoy. But there are 2 creators whose content I did used to watch a lot of, that are still around that I now really see the flaws of: CinemaSins and Zero Punctuation.

These 2 need no introduction, with millions of subscribers they aren’t lacking success and have inspired many imitators. Let’s start with CinemaSins, CinemaSins operate by “sinning movies”, a process in which the host goes through a movie and nitpicks it. The nitpicks range from pointing out continuity issues, plot holes, lack of or too much exposition as well recurring gags like saying “Role Credits” whenever the name of the movie is mentioned. Each of these nitpicks is considered a “sin” and is then added to a running total.

So what’s the issue? Well Bobvids goes into much greater depth than me and easily makes my point better than I ever could. 

 https://youtu.be/ELEAsGoP-5I

But in short, CinemaSins is flawed because they use the defense of "satire" to excuse any inaccuracies or issues with their videos, claiming it's all a joke, despite then also featuring their legitimate criticisms and thoughts on movies into the videos with no clear distinction on what's a "real Sin" and what's a "Joke Sin" to the point where their own audience can't tell them apart. And the fact that Jeremy of CinemaSins has often stated they are a "review channel" and he "made the channel  to criticize movies" which puts a hole into the idea that they are just joking. Imagine if the Onion sometimes mixed in actual news stories with their satirical articles with no clear distinction on what's the joke. That's in addition to the fact that they frequently make up "sins" which ignore other aspects of the film.

I once wrote the following Reddit Comment on the topic to someone that just said "They are just overanalyzing:

"It's not even overanalyzing. A lot of the times they just make up sins (like complaining a scene isn't explaining something when it did explain it, and then cut that scene and present that as a sin for "exposition"). Plus, how's stuff like "Hermione isn't old enough to be hot yet", "this scene contains a lap dance", "roll credits" analysis?

 
The problem with CinemaSins is that they try to have it both ways. They are normally criticism/analysis, except when you point out an issue with their approach, then all of a sudden it's a joke/satire. Except that's not how it works. You can't pretend to be the Onion sometimes during your review and switch between "serious mode" and "satire mode" on a dime.

 
Like, I'd be fine if they just picked an approach. Either be over analyzers that nitpick minor and major issues with films like MovieMistakes, or be a review channel that seriously or humorously looks at the issues of a film like countless channels. Or be the Onion and just make up nonsense about movies as you watch them. Don't try to be all 3 at once and switch between them so your own audience doesn't even know when something is a joke sin or "real" sin."

Aside from making lacklustre content, a consequence of this style of video is that it has made a lot of people think film criticism is just pointing out plotholes or nitpicking without substance.

Onto Zero Punctuation, who I see less critical pieces on. These are animated videos made by "Yahtzee" who feature fast paced and often foul mouthed and comedic reviews on video games. These videos do often have more effort put into them than CinemaSins and tend to highlight actual problems. But it does often suffer from the issue of ambiguity in what is a joke and what is serious criticism.

Consider the following: In his review on Deus Ex Human Revolution, a game that's about the conflict between augmented (people with cybernetic additions) and non-augmented people, Yahtzee comments the non-augs do not have a good point against being enhanced. Pointing out how he's "already enhanced" since he wears glasses and uses a phone. But Yahtzee ignores that in the world of Deus Ex, Firstly, Augs have to keep buying an expensive drug called Neuropozine that prevents immunorejection of any augmentations and that those drugs can get very expensive. It's a major plot point in the game. The protagonist, Adam, is unique in that he doesn't need the drug. There are many side quests where you have to deal with people unable to afford the drug. And Secondly, antagonist groups frequently hack or hijack augmentations to control or damage the people using. Again, there are many quests involving this. This isn't something you can miss, this is a major aspect of the story. So the question is: Is Yathzee's comment a serious criticism or a joke? Because either answer is unsatisfying. It doesn't work as serious criticism because as shown above, it's factually wrong. And it doesn't work as a joke because it's so far removed from the game's story that there's no fact to twist or make fun off.

Consider this: In the sequel to Human Revolution, Mankind Divided, there's a mechanic where Adam can overclock his augs to gain new powers at the risk of overheating. If I made a joke to describe this as "Adam learns he can overclock his rig but for some reason he can't water cool it". Yeah, it's not a very original or creative joke but it gets the point across - it makes fun of the mechanic, but it also tells the audience that Adam has a new overclock feature that comes at a cost of overheating that can't just be quickly addressed. A better writer could probably make that line funnier or have more information behind but the premsie remains the same, it's a joke that's grounded in the world of the game and informs it. Many of Yahtzee's points do not do that. And if he wants to remain as a reviewer who offers some some serious criticism rather than joking all the time, it's something that's paramount

Although funnily, there's a place where Yahtzee's current style shines perfectly. When he's roasting bad games. His Mindjack review highlights this as since the game isn't of high quality and neither Yahtzee nor the audience consider it such, it doesn't matter if Yahtzee's criticisms are jokes, exaggerations or not even accurate since nobody is there to learn about the game seriously. If Yahtzee only reviewed games like this (like AVGN does) there wouldn't be an issue. But this seamless mix of serious and satire undermines much of his content.