I feel I have to explain myself: Spoony does not hate everything, and not everyone hates Spoony. And then I proceed to hate on Saints Row 4.
Revision: Someone raised a very good point: I said that Pacific Rim was good, stupid, loud fun, and that’s all it should have been. It’s robots punching; it’s meant to be stupid and fun. And then immediately afterward, I said that “it’s not Shakespeare” is not a valid argument for why a film is entertaining. Very good point. I’ll try to explain.
I said that in regards to not having to explain plot holes. As in, “why don’t they just leave town?” “Oh come on, it’s a robot movie; it’s not Shakespeare.” It’s perhaps a minor distinction, but I think to clarify my stance here, I’m saying that “it’s not Shakespeare” is often used as an excuse, not as an argument. A movie should play to its strengths, but being stupid or silly does not excuse it from being poorly made. Pacific Rim was well-made; World’s End was poorly-written.