I don't see what the big deal is, either. If Paramount wanted it distributed that way, they'd do it themselves. Anybody else who wants to distribute a movie frame by frame on Twitter, why not make your own movie for it?
The big deal is that 'culture' and 'fandom' are wired in mysterious and awkward ways to 'property'. If it was a consensus between distribution companies that audiences wait for a fandom code of conduct, we wouldn't have fans of anything, and more devastatingly to the tech bubble, we wouldn't have Tumblr.
The factor you claim is not relevant is factor #4 on that list.
This work is also transformative, as it's a new kind of work rather than a verbatim copy, though the extent to which it is transformative might be debatable. This is considered one of the most important factors, as well.
You are correct that copying the entire work weighs heavily against (but, importantly, does not preclude) a finding of fair use, but it's not clear that it actually copies the entire movie.
After all, it may cover the entire plot, but it simply does not cover the entire content. You cannot simply stitch the frames together and get the original, you'd get a slide show instead of a movie.
That aside, I'm not convinced that this would be a slam dunk for either side in court.
Now, if you will, try to define 'commentary' and 'parody' in ways that are culturally relevant to the audience. That's harder to manipulate than numbers. The definition of fair use relies heavily on the context. Is this any different from gifs on tumblr?
Who says Tumblr gifs are legal fair use? Copyright infringement may be tolerated or overlooked, but that doesn't make it not infringement.
For comparison, the Premier League has recently been going after goal highlight GIFs on certain sites, which is unfortunate, but it seems entirely within their rights.
http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1ymeff/gfycat_removi...
Probably not. This is the first time I've heard of a movie being tweeted like this. I think from a perspective of pure self-interest they probably would've been better to embrace it (retweeted?).
I think it's one of the following:
1) there's a group of people who wants it to be legal, really bad. So they fool themselves.
2) there's a group of people who knows it is illegal, but does it anyway. So they fool themselves.
QFT. (no copyright intended)
I think many feel there is an implicit social contract between content creators and the public. Art borrows from and adds to culture. Protecting artists is a good idea, but when you use those protections to stifle people messing around with your art, then I think that's going too far. People messing around with art is an important part of how culture progresses, and without the cultural context of the time Top Gun would never have existed.