Based

they wrote down every single possible thing as a trope.

What is trope?

Kind of like a cliche. For example people not saying goodbye when they hang up the phone in movies is a trope.

If CinemaSins is the one I'm thinking of he's just some leftist faggot so nothing he says matters.

tvtropes and cinemasins make media criticism accessible to the general public.

Close to the epiphany, but still failed to reach it. The real sin of things like TV Tropes and Cinemasins is that it gave so many talentless hacks the idea that as long as they subvert tropes and cliches, it makes their writing automatically good. It doesn't.

Kinda like when someone goes to speak in a microphone and it feeds back?

This twitter lady badly overstates the complexity of the modern movie.

It's something common in television and movies, like a hero having their hometown destroyed, or the villain having a secret familial relationship to a main character. Except the twitter whore is wrong, it's not some "gotcha" meant to denigrate media (a la Cinemasins), it's just an autistic list of everything that's been done more than once in fiction.

>hollywoodshit
>complex narratives, scenes and deliberate artistic choices

tvtropes actually "trained" the generation of dogshit writers currently plaguing consumer fiction media giving the complusion of wanting to subvert expectationd among other things, so he's not wrong about tvtropes being shit, just not in the way this tard expressed it

thank the Lord, unfortunately for you, you will never be a man

Its an observation of reoccurring themes in media that retards confuse with criticism. The word ‘trope’ has somehow become conflated with ‘overdone trope’. Attempting to deliberately avoid tropes purely for the sake of it often leads to very bad writing.

>media criticism
that's a limited academic discipline with little relevance outside bigger contexts like a career in literature, philosophy, or possibly psychology. When it comes to a more useful aspect --film studies for example-- these are narratological tools for would-be directors, writers, or people in the creative field. None of the above is useful or even interesting to the mass audience. No one wants or need to see how the 'sausage is made'.
From here we can only assume 'media criticism' is a toe dip into this discipline to further present authority or propaganda in the 'edutainment' fields of newspaper film critics which is far more flim-flam than it is 'serious' critique (and it was ALWAYS like this). Audiences watch with the presumption that the critic will tell them if watching a film is 'worth' it. In reality people tend to be dragged to theaters by friends/family no matter what and they see whatever is playing that doesn't offend most of them (the lowest common denominator).
So it's the entertainment aspect that actually matters. Lampooning bad movies is 'fun', that's IT. THAT'S ALL. Using auteur theory or feminist theory (which isn't feminism, by the way, it's a lens through which you can critique something and nothing more) or whatever disingenuously to fill up pages of your discussion-with-a-friend simulator is not significant, real, philosophical work. TV tropes is fine in this regard, reducing all these ideas into archetypes and models (which exist with or without the fucking website --the femme fatal is a concept beyond the control or auspices of some fucking goofy pop culture wiki) but like anything with a billion contributers might have maladaptive ideas crawling around like cockroaches.
Cinema Sins is a whole other beast which actively encourages 'turning off your brain' and reveling in your own tongue-in-cheek misunderstanding of everything you see. It kills brain cells to watch, it's a bane on reason and humanity.

Attached: asurpriseannouncement.webm (1198x900, 2.77M)

I hate TV tropes and the cretins who treat the site as some kind of authority on anything but the autism of the people who contribute to it, but
>complex narratives, scenes, and deliberate artistic choices
Come on now.