Deacon@crowdeacon
I watched it.
One of the arguments is that due to a movie being made with more effort than usual and not AI, it has artistic value and therefore ought to be granted as much leeway as possible from hate and/or criticism. Otherwise, you're someone who's "just determined to be miserable" and in order for your criticism to be constructive, it needs to "encourage improvement, not share the sentiment that you should just give up because this sucks."
You are obviously very obligated to give criticism if you have problems with le media, as everyone obviously SHOULD hold the same intentions, ideals, and values over what they want to see and say, and that anyone who deviates from the rules and isn't positive gratification or leeway, is actually Wrong and Bad and isn't in their right to think otherwise.
Obviously.
Despite making an exception for Amazon Prime shows, saying that what's there sucks and is a waste of time, even when there's hundreds of human beings working-class grips, gaffers, set designers, makeup artists, and VFX technicians who are putting in grueling, 14-hour days of genuine human effort.
or some shit like that who really cares
It's also questioned why you would complain about that when you could rather direct your complaints toward corporations who replace humans with AI-generated content, since that's the greater evil? Obviously we cannot recognize the structural flaws of a hypothetically poorly executed indie project and actively oppose the corporate use of generative AI simultaneously. This is Preposterous and Unheard of.
While also saying "There is no objective right or wrong, and I'm not trying to say there is." While simultaneously spent the rest of the video trying to objectively invalidate the critics while claiming intellectual superiority and what should be reality, which obviously whenever that's true or not is entirely subjective in itself if this is consistent (which this video definitely is promise)
The actual justification for mentioning media literacy specifically addresses complaints that the movie wasn't scary enough or "didn't make any sense," with Zim's rebuttal being that it did actually makes sense other than the parts that didn't make sense, and that is intentional and therefore should tolerated and not disliked.
It is also scary because Zim is scared of the fear of the unknown, and says it is scary, so that means when you say it isn't scary, it's uhhhhhhhhh uhhhhhhhh no!
This Makes Sense.
"Media Literacy" clearly means in this context, "Agreeing with my subjective emotional reaction to a film." The conflation of understanding a piece of media with enjoying it. The perspective of "because I think it's supposed to be this way, it is that way."
While I'm not knocking Zim for simply disproving aspects of others' critiques if there are objectively incorrect assumptions from them, having improbable expectations, or exhibiting toxic behavior, most, of what Zim had to say as a defense is just faulty logic and structurally imprecise arguments with many contradictions and a lack of poignant points.
The main limiting factor, other than that, is just choosing not to actually dwell on the specifics of the arguments people are making, other than just saying, "It really does make sense." This constantly targets specifically how people feel and their subjective perception as faulty, rather than their actual reasoning behind said feelings and whether that's valid directly in the confines of the movie. This is made worse by Zim asserting and tackling the critics' subjective opinions and baseline points against their own reasoning as more correct than theirs due to Zim's own subjective justification because it felt correct for her by her own values and standards, which doesn't apply neatly to others.
She is invalidating the critic's right to have the opinion by claiming they preceived the movie "wrong" essentially.
