CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion - Page 41

post #2001 of 2058

Their arguments are almost always ones I can understand and respect, even if I don't agree with them.

post #2002 of 2058

 I did agree that the miniseries didn't age well. Tim Curry was awesome, but the second part was weak.

post #2003 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

Their arguments are almost always ones I can understand and respect, even if I don't agree with them.

I find it fascinating that Mike and Jay make no attempt to disguise how disconnected they feel from the rest of any given movie's audience. They actively dislike the rest of the audience, and seem to take it as a personal insult when a movie is made with a large audience in mind. I imagine that their idea of that words like "art" and "culture" mean is a lot less democratic than mine (and my professors' as well; this isn't a college-educated versus non-educated thing).

Despite this, they're still such clear communicators and have such a good rapport with one another that the critique never seems to come out of left field. I'm like you. They're able to make me at least see where they're coming from, even when that doesn't mean that I agree with them.
post #2004 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


I find it fascinating that Mike and Jay make no attempt to disguise how disconnected they feel from the rest of any given movie's audience. They actively dislike the rest of the audience, and seem to take it as a personal insult when a movie is made with a large audience in mind. I imagine that their idea of that words like "art" and "culture" mean is a lot less democratic than mine (and my professors' as well; this isn't a college-educated versus non-educated thing).

Despite this, they're still such clear communicators and have such a good rapport with one another that the critique never seems to come out of left field. I'm like you. They're able to make me at least see where they're coming from, even when that doesn't mean that I agree with them.


They've got strong points-of-view and opinions, and that's what I want from film discussion.

 

And there are plenty of times when they get it absolutely, dead-on correct... like their BOYHOOD review...

post #2005 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

 

And there are plenty of times when they get it absolutely, dead-on correct... like their BOYHOOD review...

 

Interesting that you say that, given that their Boyhood review is one of the few times (maybe the ONLY time) that I can recall myself just flat out disagreeing with them entirely.  

post #2006 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

 

Interesting that you say that, given that their Boyhood review is one of the few times (maybe the ONLY time) that I can recall myself just flat out disagreeing with them entirely.  


Oh, I know I am in the minority on BOYHOOD (along with Mike and Jay).  I can't stand that movie for a number of reasons, most of which they lay out quite well in their review.  Short version: great gimmick, subpar/boring substance.

 

But that's just me!

post #2007 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 


Oh, I know I am in the minority on BOYHOOD (along with Mike and Jay).  I can't stand that movie for a number of reasons, most of which they lay out quite well in their review.  Short version: great gimmick, subpar/boring substance.

 

But that's just me!

 

Obviously films should be expressive enough that the themes/scenes/characters resonate with a large variety of people.  It may very well be that Boyhood is a film that perhaps an overly narrow subset of people "get"/appreciate.  That being said, I have to wonder if Mike and Jay:

 

1.)Have kids ... particularly if they have kids and are themselves divorced or not living with the mother

2.)Came from intact, stable suburban households with mom and dad present and involved

3.)Spent their formative years living in the same general geographic area

post #2008 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

Obviously films should be expressive enough that the themes/scenes/characters resonate with a large variety of people.  It may very well be that Boyhood is a film that perhaps an overly narrow subset of people "get"/appreciate.  That being said, I have to wonder if Mike and Jay:

 

1.)Have kids ... particularly if they have kids and are themselves divorced or not living with the mother

2.)Came from intact, stable suburban households with mom and dad present and involved

3.)Spent their formative years living in the same general geographic area

I don't think we can draw too much from the answers to those questions (which for me are no, yes, and yes, for the record), but certainly our life experiences inform - but hopefully don't dictate - how we react to a film.

post #2009 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

I don't think we can draw too much from the answers to those questions (which for me are no, yes, and yes, for the record), but certainly our life experiences inform - but hopefully don't dictate - how we react to a film.

 

True.

post #2010 of 2058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


I find it fascinating that Mike and Jay make no attempt to disguise how disconnected they feel from the rest of any given movie's audience. They actively dislike the rest of the audience, and seem to take it as a personal insult when a movie is made with a large audience in mind. I imagine that their idea of that words like "art" and "culture" mean is a lot less democratic than mine (and my professors' as well; this isn't a college-educated versus non-educated thing).

Despite this, they're still such clear communicators and have such a good rapport with one another that the critique never seems to come out of left field. I'm like you. They're able to make me at least see where they're coming from, even when that doesn't mean that I agree with them.

 

I get the sense that a lot of the time they get frustrated or disgusted when movie makers commit basic errors in story telling, or (in their opinion) demonstrate contempt for their audience. 


I saw their critique of Ghostbusters 2016 as a cynical cash grab attempt which used SJW to gull or guilt trip people into supporting it (it probably worked with Boone). 


With the Prequels I detect a real anger that Lucas wasn't up to par in their opinion with the OT. I mean they even had on the director of The People Vs George Lucas and spent an hour with him talking about what went wrong. 

post #2011 of 2058

post #2012 of 2058

 

post #2013 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post


Probably definitely their best episode yet.
post #2014 of 2058

Rich's "Mr. Piggy" fast food review show made me laugh.  It all made me laugh.

post #2015 of 2058

Oh God... That poor Porg...

post #2016 of 2058

This series is kinda one joke stretched out too long without enough of those tasty topical bits to keep me amused, in general.  But that three way split trailer reaction bit was wonderfully vicious. I would expect a lot of me-too movie channels changing their formats just out of shame.

post #2017 of 2058

"He's going to blow up Carrie Fisher?!  Oh that's kind of tasteless..."

post #2018 of 2058

Trailer reaction videos are so fucking lazy. Who seriously reacts that way to seeing a trailer? And if so, what medication are they taking beforehand? 

post #2019 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Trailer reaction videos are so fucking lazy. Who seriously reacts that way to seeing a trailer? And if so, what medication are they taking beforehand? 

2012. The Dark Knight Rises. And I was smoking Hash.
post #2020 of 2058

Hooray!  Jack is on BOTW again!  Aaaaand it was a mediocre episode, though Turbulence III seems like some incredible shlock.

post #2021 of 2058

Their Halloween Best of the Worst is very, VERY funny.

post #2022 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

Their Halloween Best of the Worst is very, VERY funny.


The last several minutes - the "Demonic Debate," if you will - are classic.

post #2023 of 2058

The sniffing of Josh's beard, Mike calling Jack a bitch over and over again, and then completely and entirely flip flopping on Vampire Assassin to the bafflement of everyone were all completely amazing.  Mike stole this episode and ran away with it.

post #2024 of 2058
Agreed, that was a terrific BOTW. Every comment about Rudy Ray Moore had me laughing out loud. “BITCH, ARE YOU FOR REAL?”
post #2025 of 2058

 Last week I watched the Collier review of the new season of Stranger Things. Since it was a non spoiler review they didn't give a details; they just talked about how great the show and the characters where. I didn't doubt their sincerity, but I couldn't help but think that this is what RLM is mocking with there Nerd podcast videos.

post #2026 of 2058

post #2027 of 2058

Mike's movie theater experience story was so good.  I had an equal-to-worse experience seeing BLADE RUNNER 2049.  

For the most part, I do alright.  But sometimes the audiences I end up with are just freakin' bizarre.

post #2028 of 2058

Mike’s turning into such a stick in the mud!

post #2029 of 2058

...TURNING???

post #2030 of 2058

Even more than before!

post #2031 of 2058

Rich Evans really likes Nothing But Trouble.  I can't get behind that viewpoint at all.  Everything is wrong with that movie.

 

The stinger at the very end was nice.

 

post #2032 of 2058

I saw that movie during puberty, and Demi Moore was scorching in that film.  Case closed, beta males and cucks.

post #2033 of 2058
Hormones are a helluva drug.
post #2034 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post
 

Rich Evans really likes Nothing But Trouble.  I can't get behind that viewpoint at all.  Everything is wrong with that movie.

 

The stinger at the very end was nice.

 

More like "thinks has some fun, out-there concepts, poorly realized" than "really likes."

 

It's funny them talking about it. I saw it when I was maybe 10, back when it was new-ish, and there are still bits and pieces of it seared into my brain after all these years.

post #2035 of 2058
Thread Starter 

Yeah it's a weirdly memorable film, as they point out, just a tweak or two and it's a horror movie, instead of a horrible movie. BOOM!

post #2036 of 2058

I think faint praise like this is all the praise Nothing but Trouble can ever hope for.

post #2037 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiosity Cosby View Post
 

 

More like "thinks has some fun, out-there concepts, poorly realized" than "really likes."

 

It's funny them talking about it. I saw it when I was maybe 10, back when it was new-ish, and there are still bits and pieces of it seared into my brain after all these years.

 

Fair. I just got the impression he was really into it, above and beyond what you mentioned.

 

The penis-nose-and-hot-dog scene is something I wish I could get out of my mind.  Lars Von Trier only wishes he could come with something so disturbing.

post #2038 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post
 

 

Fair. I just got the impression he was really into it, above and beyond what you mentioned.

 

The penis-nose-and-hot-dog scene is something I wish I could get out of my mind.  Lars Von Trier only wishes he could come with something so disturbing.

 

I think he wants to like it more than he actually does.

 

The thing from the movie that's probably stuck in my head more than anything, randomly? Demi Moore seeing Chevy Chase's car at the beginning and saying "What a beautiful Beemer!" To this day, when I think of BMW, I think of that line, and this movie. Probably not BMW's proudest bit of product placement.

post #2039 of 2058

 I can't disagree with the opinion that Ackroyd needs someone to work his ideas into something manageable. An early draft of Ghostbusters was so out there that the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man showed up half way  though the movie. 

 

  I am bummed they haven't done a Half in the Bag for season 2 of Stranger Things. Maybe they will during January since that is a weak time for new releases. 

post #2040 of 2058
For reasons I can't fully articulate, having never actually seen Nothing But Trouble, young-me always had the impression that it was sort of a back-country splatstick version of Hellraiser.
post #2041 of 2058
Quote:

Weiss heads home to find an ominously thick package, its contents wrapped within the cover of a phone book. This is Aykroyd’s screenplay, titled The Return of the Blues Brothers. Its writing credit reads, “By Scriptatron GL-9000.”

 

Weiss calls Sean Daniel. “Good news,” Weiss reports. “The first draft finally got here.” It is not the typical 120-page draft. “It’s 324 pages,” Weiss says. “We have a lot of work to do.”

 

The script contains great scenes and inspired ideas but is written in a kind of free-verse style. It includes lengthy, Aykroyd-esque explications of Catholicism, recidivism—you name it. It gets meta, with separate story lines detailing the recruitment of all eight backup musicians.

 

“The script is never-ending,” Ned Tanen thinks. “It doesn’t really work. It’s like a long treatment or something”—a treatment being a detailed outline the writer produces before writing a script. The Blues Brothers is scheduled to begin shooting in two months.

 

Landis, script in hand, locks himself away. He cuts, shapes, tones. Then he cuts some more. Three weeks later, he emerges with a script that’s down to size and, as they say, shootable. More or less. It still lacks certain basics, such as stage directions.

 

Landis and Aykroyd haggle over bits the latter wants to restore or change. Aykroyd wants a scene explaining why Elwood’s car, the Bluesmobile, has magical qualities. Landis doesn’t but agrees to film it. He knows he’ll just cut it later.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/01/making-of-blues-brothers-budget-for-cocaine

 

In some alternate world with a stronger director, we utter the title Nothing But Trouble as a classic in the same sentence as The Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters.

post #2042 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

 

  I am bummed they haven't done a Half in the Bag for season 2 of Stranger Things. Maybe they will during January since that is a weak time for new releases. 

 

Wasn't the first season review sponsored by Netflix? I'd definitely like to hear their take on it but I wonder if they'll review season 2 if they aren't going to be paid for it.

post #2043 of 2058

I'm skimming thought that episode and I haven't seen any references to Netflix paying for it. Mike thinks its good, but not great. He said a second season could be problematic. That doesn't sound like a paid for endorsement. 

post #2044 of 2058
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
 

I'm skimming thought that episode and I haven't seen any references to Netflix paying for it. Mike thinks its good, but not great. He said a second season could be problematic. That doesn't sound like a paid for endorsement. 

 

No it doesn't SOUND like a paid endorsement, does it? (winks)

post #2045 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
 

I'm skimming thought that episode and I haven't seen any references to Netflix paying for it. Mike thinks its good, but not great. He said a second season could be problematic. That doesn't sound like a paid for endorsement. 

 

They didn't mention anything in the Stranger Thing review itself but they did make it clear it was a sponsored review at the end of their review of Suicide Squad (starts at 30:29) (I guess enough people left comments about it sounding like a sponsored video for them to bring it up in another video later on):

 

 

 

Also the video description for the Stranger Things review (kind of) hints at it being a sponsored thing: "Mike and Jay discuss the Netflix series Stranger Things, the first and last TV series to ever be discussed on Half in the Bag! OMG!"

post #2046 of 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

They didn't mention anything in the Stranger Thing review itself but they did make it clear it was a sponsored review at the end of their review of Suicide Squad (starts at 30:29) (I guess enough people left comments about it sounding like a sponsored video for them to bring it up in another video later on):


 

Also the video description for the Stranger Things review (kind of) hints at it being a sponsored thing: "Mike and Jay discuss the Netflix series Stranger Things, the first and last TV series to ever be discussed on Half in the Bag! OMG!"

Or, you know, humor, which they’ve been known to dabble in on occasion.
post #2047 of 2058
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

They didn't mention anything in the Stranger Things review itself but they did make a reference - that was clearly a joke - to it being a sponsored review at the end of their review of Suicide Squad...

 

 

This reply sponsored by Netflix (TM)

post #2048 of 2058

I get that they could be joking... but at 24:00 minutes into the review, "available on Netflix" flashes on the screen. I don't know why they'd include that if they weren't obligated too.

 

Either way, it doesn't really matter whether they were paid or not. It's not like they effusively praise the show or anything.

post #2049 of 2058

Ah, I don't see that here.  Must be the ad-blocker.

post #2050 of 2058
They make fun of accusations that they’re sell-outs, corporate shills, “hack frauds,” etc., on a pretty regular basis (as well as making fun of others in their line of work who actually are shills, hence their “Nerd Crew” show). Seems like an example of that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The MR. PLINKETT & RED LETTER MEDIA Discussion