User blog:TheMaximumMatt/Arguments/Phrases I Hate

Arguments. What is an argument? An argument is a reason used to perusade a viewer into that an idea is right or wrong. Whenever you have have a conversation, you're bound to make an argument somewhere. And if you're going to make said argument, you better have good reasons and points to back it up. If you don't, you'll end up making a complete fool of yourself.

Today, I want to talk about claims/reasons/phrases I've heard many people say over the years that I find just bad, or even awful. If you ever want to back up an argument, please, don't use any of these claims. Just a tip from me to you. Also, if you've used these claims before, I'm not saying you are a bad person. I'm just giving helpful advice on why you shouldn't use these bad claims. With that said...

​1. "Don't Judge a Movie By It's Trailer"
So what this argument is saying is that you shouldn't judge an upcoming/present movie based on what you see in the trailers.

Now, yes. I do agree that we shouldn't always​ judge a book by it's cover and yes, there have been times where a product ends up being better than what the trailer gave us. With that said though, this argument is still weak. First of all, and probably most importantly, ''​a trailer is meant to be judged. ''​What do I mean by this? Simple. A trailer, by definition, is a series of excerpts from the movie or program used to advertise it in advance. They're the things that bring in the viewers and get them to be interested in the movie, especially since, more often than not, they use clips directly from the movie​. Trailers are the first impression people get. They help you determine whether or not you want to see a movie/product. If people don't think the trailer's good, chances are they're not going to watch the movie. In other words, if a trailer is bad, it makes the movie look bad. If the movie ends up being better than expected, that's not my fault for not watching it in theaters. That's the makers of the trailer's fault for not presenting the movie in a good light. I'm not the you should be complaining to. Also, just because I think the trailer looks bad doesn't mean that automatically means I think the movie is bad. Trailers and movies are separate things, it's just one's job is to bring in the viewers for the other. I'm not ​directly​ judging the movie itself. Judging by the trailer just means you are making an educated guess based upon the information you are given from said movie. Another thing is that it is hypocritical (oh yeah. You're going to be seeing that a lot). By saying that I shouldn't judge a film by it's trailer, that implies that you expect the film is going to be good before you watch it, therefore, you are judging a film before you see it. You think the film looks good, I say the film looks bad. To me, it feels people to use this just want to silence the criticism on something they like.

​2. "It's Just a Kids Show!"
Now this is one that has become very infamous in the reviewing community, and yeah, I can see why. What this is saying is: "it's for kids. You're not supposed to take it so seriously".

Before I move on to why I dislike this, I will say there is one​ exception for when this can work. If a reviewer watches a kids show and is clearly overreacting to it, acting as if this kids show somehow murdered his family or has driven him insane from madness, then yes, the claim, it's just a kids show can work, but only if the person REALLY needs to calm down. I've seen many people do this kind of stuff (and no, I'm not talking about TheMysteriousMrEnter).

With that said, I have... many problems with this lame argument. One, you don't address any of my points. I can make a ton of points on why I think the show's writing/animation is bad, and by saying "it's a just a kids show"... how does that prove whether I'm write or wrong with my points? Seriously, I can make the exact same lazy argument to you by saying "my review is for kids, so you can't argue with me". You see how dumb that is? Two, that claim is basically saying "the target demographic is young children, so therefore, you CANNOT have an opinion on this whatsoever". So, am I not allowed to have an opinion on it? How am I supposed to react to whatever I'm watching if it's for kids? Do I just watch it and have no reaction? Do I automatically like it? That can't be it, because that would be hypocritical, which leads me to my next point. Three, it is​ hypocritical. Once again, it implies that you think the show is better than people give it credit for. Therefore, you are judging it, even though it is a kids show. On top of that, what if someone is saying something good about the show? Would you ever use this claim? No, and that would make you a hypocrite. Four, and this bugs me most when someone uses this when someone says they don't like a kids film, by saying "it's just for kids", it demeans that value of kids movies. It's basically saying that you can put as little effort into your movie since its for kids, and it will be considered good. (Sarcastically: I mean, it's just for kids. Am I right? Kids don't need quality). There are movies/shows that people have put in years and years into making sure it is the best quality it is, and by saying that it's afor kids, you kind of make it seems all that effort is a waste.

​3. "Don't Like It, Don't Watch It"
This one... just confuses me. It's saying that if you dislike something, don't watch it at all.

Okay. So what I watch something, come out, and say I disliked it? What am I supposed to do? Do I "unwatch" it since I dislike it after? I can't! I've already seen whatever I dislike. When I watch it, I watch it. It's not like I can just go back in time and make me not see whatever I watch. Speaking of which, watching it is supposed to be the way on determining whether or not I like it. Am I supposed to blindly judge it before I even see it? "No! You can't do that! You can't judge something before you watch it!" Why do I feel like I'm in a paradox? Also, say you watch the first 50 episodes of a show, and you basically dislike all of it. There is a chance that the rest of the show can be bad, but there is also the chance that the show can turn out to be good. you never know unless you watch it​.

Also, this one isn't even an "argument", since you're not addressing any of my points. You don't prove anything. You don't prove if I'm right or wrong. Again, it feels like a claims someone makes when they see an opinion they disagree it. And again, I can just as easily make the same argument to you. If you disagree/don't like my review, why would you watch/read it?

​4. "We deserve better than this!"
This one is just people throwing a temper-tantrum when their writers (aka their "slaves") create something that isn't up to their expectations. Their opinion is a fact, they look down on others who disagree with them, and the writers need to cater to them specifically so only their expectations are reached. Ok... to people who say this... I'm not sure if you know this but... writers are not your slaves! Saying something is bad because it's not to your expectations isn't even a reason. That's bias. They don't need to cater to your expections specifically in order to satisfy you. Oh, and your opinion isn't a fact. It implies that you look down on people who do like what you dislike. Are they dumb for disagreeing with you? No they're not. It's called having an opinion. And the fact that your say you ​deserve​ better, like the makers should​ cater to your expectations just adds the bitter cherry on an upset sundae.

​5. "You're a hypocrite for disliking x, but liking y!"
"How can you say you dislike this for [x], but like [y] for the same reason you disliked [x]?"

Like 2, there are times when this claim can work. Of course, there are critics who say things like "pop culture references are bad", only to praise a pop culture joke in a show they like, just because its in a show they like, so I'm not as harsh on this one as the others.

However, I still think this claim is silly. This is saying that you are a hypocrite for disliking one thing, but liking another thing even though it is similar. Just because two things are similar does not mean they are the same. Why? Simple: execution. There is a lot that goes into the execution of things. One might execute a concept/idea better than another one can. The differences can help determine whether or not you dislike/like something. There are variations you do with the same idea. This one is kind of hard to talk about in a general way, so I'll give two examples where variations/pieces can affect the likability of it.

Two similar stories can be different in pacing, characters, story elements, etc.

Two similar gags can be different in visuals, timing, characters, context, etc.

If I like on thing for doing this, but I like another thing for doing the same thing, that just means the other thing did it in a way that was more enjoyable than the other. Get it?

​6. "I hate this because of the fanbase!"
Last one for today is where people say one thing is bad because of it's fanbase. This is one that's not just infamous in the reviewing community, but in many communities as a whole, and I can see why.

One, a fanbase of something and the thing the fanbase is about are two completely different things. You can say a fanbase is bad, but you can't say a product is bad because the fanbase is bad. The fanbase is not part of it. If the fanbase does something bad, that has nothing to do with the product itself. Example, a fanbase of a show can be bad, but the show itself can actually be good. What the fans do/make is not official. Two, the fanbase is not something the show can control. Seeing as how the fanbase is not part of something, no one can control how a fanbase acts/grows/etc. Did Sonic intentionally create a fanbase to be infamous as it is today? No, it did not. That is on the fans itself. Did Steven Universe wants fans to do horrible things in the past? No! That was the fans, not the show. Three, it's kind of a crummy thing to say. You're basically blaming the fans for why you dislike the show instead of, you know, anything in the show itself. You're not backing your points with evidence from the show. Four, a fanbase cannot make a show good/bad. Unless they deliberately go out of their way to chance the product to being bad, the fans have nothing to do with the product.

For example, people say that Cuphead's fanbase is bad, and while I disagree since the fanbase has done nothing other than create harmless fanart and videos about it, even if it were, would that make Cuphead a bad game? No, it would not. The fanbase can be as awful as it can get, and I'd still love the game and characters to death. Sure, it can kind of change the experience (like with what Creepypasta fangirls have done to ,amy famous creepypasta mascots, making them less scary), but that shouldn't affect whether the product is good or bad overall.

​End
And those, ladies and gentlemen, were six claims that I hate. This was actually a fun blog to make. Again, don't feel bad if you've used any of these claims before. You are not a bad person. All I'm doing is pointing out why I don't think these reasons work and giving helpful advice. I might consider doing another list like this if I ever come up with more ridiculous claims. Are there any arguments you dislike? Leave them in the comments below! See you next time!