http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-mo ... ays-wrong/

In order (and without the commentary, which you can find at the link):

"It's just a big, dumb action movie"
"It all makes perfect sense if you read the comics"
"It's just a ripoff of Battle Royale"
"You can't pick out plot holes. It's a fantasy movie!"
"I don't understand why they would make another one"
"This movie was really about my pet cause"

I'm pretty sure I've seen all of these used here (and probably used some of them myself).

I would like a monocle.

I am positive I have said some of the things on that list in the heat of an argument, but I think the article is pretty spot on.

Now that I recognize the stupidity of the arguments I will make an effort to never make them again.

Number 6 and 3 have Hanzo written all over them.

I actually remember Steinbrenner making argument number 5 in relation to one of the Star Wars prequels. I can not remember exactly the details, but something about a character who showed up who was really important in some tie in novel or other.

We should just have a shorthand rebuttal that uses the numerical system. "Nice try, but that's #5. Thanks."

Also, it would be dismissive and cruel, which is a plus.

I like it.

It might take some time to get people to catch onto it, but it would be well worth it.

I was thinking #1.

If you read the article, they're numbered in countdown order. So when I said 6, I was referring to the first one listed above.

I'm sure I've used 2 and 3 multiple times.

I think "It's Just A Dumb Action Movie" is an excuse that every single person has hidden behind at one time or another. Sometimes a movie manages to do just about everything "wrong", but still ends up being fun and exciting (a particular guilty pleasure of mine is the movie "The Big Hit", a truly horrible Americanized Hong Kong action flick starring Marky Mark, which I've bought on VHS and DVD)... at least for the week or so that you can actually remember it. If you've ever started a post with "I don't see why everyone criticizes this movie", then there's a high probability that you're hiding behind this fig-leaf... or, at the very least, the people who did dislike the movie think you are.

3 and 6 are really, really common. 6 is not so bad, in moderation.

I'm often accused of 5, but I rarely intend it that way.

Six can be a valid argument on a case by case basis. It is not an excuse for all bad writing, but it can be used as an argument for those who complain about lack of complex story or characters in action movies.

Who reads the articles?

6 is always bad.

Never good.

Such that 6 is wrong.

Psh.

I did. I can tell several people didn't, because the points they're making don't fit the full version. They just read the one-liner.

You're guilty of what I like to call #7.

I've read the article, but I'm using the numbering from the points above to avoid confusion. Unlike Jay, who obfuscates like a LAWYER.

I think it's problematic if you're trying to argue that a poorly plotted action movie is actually good because it manages to entertain you. Action movies are designed to be fun and they're usually entertaining enough to make back their sizable budgets no matter how poorly received. Movies like Die Hard and Raiders Of The Lost Ark are the high water marks of the genre, and it's a bit of a shame that so few productions aim that high.

I don't think any numbering system is right. That's why I spoke up to clarify.

Just shoot me. I read the article you linked to.