Read on Twitter
Ok, so now I want to cover this criticism in depth. I want to explain why it falls apart under any scrutiny, why it is poor criticism, and I also want to explain why YouTubers might have runtimes longer then the movie they are critiquing. https://twitter.com/cole_tdb/status/1344128602544095232
So to begin, let’s start off with a simple, basic question. What is wrong with having a long runtime? Well let me first go over some possible explanations for what this criticism entails, and why these people make this criticism in the first place.
When people make this criticism, they often mean more then they say. When people say a long video is bad, they are often implying the video is bloated because it’s repetitive, pointless, or maybe incoherent. Another point they’ll make is this one: https://twitter.com/pur_emmanuel/status/1344129907614482432
Essentially, they will ask: Why would anyone make a video this long on something they hate? Or why would they hate a film so much that they rant about it for longer then the runtime of the movie?
The issue with many of these is that they are too vague. Criticising a video for being repetitive can be valid, but in order for it to be valid, the critic needs to elaborate on what is repetitive.
Same with the incoherency point. This argument is on the basis that nobody could talk about a movie for that long without it being a rant (that word being used to imply that the video is unstructured or poorly structured). For this point to be valid, more elaboration is necessary
And now one of the biggest issues with the people criticising these videos is this: they have not actually watched the video/ or they have watched a small portion of that video and are applying the criticism for amount of the video to the whole thing.
This means that they cannot elaborate on how exactly the video is bloated, repetitive or incoherent, because they haven’t watched the video. In order to elaborate, they would have to lie, which anyone who has watched the video will see right through.
A lot of these people will say that they don’t have the time to watch a video of that length, but then a new question arises: Why would these people criticise it in the first place then?
Well simply put, the media the video is criticising in the first place is something the critic likes or defends. Unwilling to sit through a long video however, these people will look at the length and use that as an explanation for why the video is bad, in a somewhat
pathetic way of dismissing the video and any point it makes.
So now I want to explain why YouTubers would make such long videos. The simple explanation is this. The length of the video allows the creator to explain his or her points thoroughly and completely, elaborating on everything in order to explain their points in a strong manner.
Take this thread for example. I needed this many tweets to deconstruct this argument completely and utterly, because I am tired of seeing this argument, and I wanted to explain exactly what was wrong with it.
The same will apply for let’s say Mauler’s TLJ critique. This trilogy of videos explains in great detail exactly what is wrong with TLJ, and the length of the videos allows Mauler to explain why each of the flaws he brings up matters, how much it affects the film, etc.
In conclusion, this argument that long videos are bad is a poor one that barely explains any actual issues, because it’s stems from people who haven’t watched the video are not willing to watch it.
