Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«177 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"


Jazerus posted:

iirc the star trek and miscellaneous movie plinkett reviews are better and somewhat less offensive than the star wars ones

Yeah it's easy to dunk on the prequels, but I think Mike's true passion is trek and you can tell how sad he is that the TNG movies range from mediocre to trash. I'd say nemesis is worse than the prequels.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mokinokaro
Sep 11, 2001

At the end of everything, hold onto anything


Grimey Drawer

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah it's easy to dunk on the prequels, but I think Mike's true passion is trek and you can tell how sad he is that the TNG movies range from mediocre to trash. I'd say nemesis is worse than the prequels.

It's Insurrection for me.

And it's not that Insurrection is HORRIBLE. It just really feels like an extended, and overbudgeted episode outside of that dumb dune buggy scene.

I also can never rewatch it because I was watching it when we got the phone call about my grandfather passing.

LividLiquid
Apr 13, 2002

BITCOIN BATMAN

Mokinokaro posted:

It's Insurrection for me.

And it's not that Insurrection is HORRIBLE. It just really feels like an extended, and overbudgeted episode outside of that dumb dune buggy scene.
That was Nemesis. Dune Buggy was Nemesis.

Also, I totally get not wanting to watch a serial killer review movies and be terrible about women, but portrayal isn't condoning. Mr. Plinkett is not a hero. He's the villain of those reviews. It's like watching Silence of the Lambs and thinking it approves of eating people.

That being said, no narrative project RLM has ever produced has ever featured a woman with a job outside of sex work, so... yeah. Big fan, but they've got problems.

They weirdly poo poo on labor unions sometimes, for instance.

Farmer Crack-Ass
Jan 2, 2001

one stripe on the sleeve means lieutenant moose to you, asshole

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah it's easy to dunk on the prequels, but I think Mike's true passion is trek and you can tell how sad he is that the TNG movies range from mediocre to trash. I'd say nemesis is worse than the prequels.

Nemesis is easily worse than any of the prequels. John Logan makes George Lucas look like a goddamn writing genius, and Stuart Baird makes George Lucas look like a goddamn directing genius. I swear that movie would make a hell of a lot more sense if Logan admitted he was deliberately trying to troll Trek fans with that movie. It is aggressively stupid.

Frionnel
May 7, 2010

Friends are what make testing worth it.

I never really cared much about Plinkett's Trek reviews, it just feels like half an hour of Mike pointing out extremely minor details that ARE WRONG. They never go into full in depth analysis mode like the Star Wars reviews.

Anyway, to me RLM means Best of the Worst mostly. I watch Half in the Bag only when it's about a movie i care so i can see what these hack frauds are saying.

Cingulate posted:

I literally joined SA cause supermechagodzilla is awesome although I disagree with their ideas on Round Spaceships.

Christ almighty.

Frionnel fucked around with this message at Jan 11, 2018 around 06:41

8one6
May 20, 2012

When in doubt, err on the side of Awesome!


The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The TV IV > The Orville: RedLetter Media Gen-Chat


Frionnel posted:

...
Anyway, to me RLM means Best of the Worst mostly. I watch Half in the Bag only when it's about a movie i care so i can see what these hack frauds are saying.
...

I'm pretty much the same with RLM. I like The Nerd Crew (when it doesn't make me painfully reflect on my own failings as a podcaster.)

Jazerus
May 24, 2011

I'm from another time, another world. I don't even know what you people eat for lunch.



Frionnel posted:

I never really cared much about Plinkett's Trek reviews, it just feels like half an hour of Mike pointing out extremely minor details that ARE WRONG. They never go into full in depth analysis mode like the Star Wars reviews.

i will never not laugh at picard casually throwing his prized, irreplaceable ancient pottery around the wreck of his office like it's nothing interesting

Tunicate
May 15, 2012



Jazerus posted:

i will never not laugh at picard casually throwing his prized, irreplaceable ancient pottery around the wreck of his office like it's nothing interesting

it's all replicated copies, you don't keep the originals next to a distressingly unstable atomic bomb

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012



Baronjutter posted:

It's really weird to sit down and try to explain or deconstruct why something tickles your funny bone, but Orville is between series so gently caress it.

I find the Plinkett character funny because he's a mix of pathetic and deranged. He's a senile old man living in filth and crippled by various disgusting ailments and the only things he has left is talking about why science fiction movies are trash and murdering people. Why is this funny? Well he's a disgusting drunk old man character, which can be funny on their own (see: Father Hackett from Father Ted). He's clearly insane/deranged as seen by the murder and his general mental state, which is funny when paired with ranting about starwars? Why is this funny? Because it puts caring about why the prequels are bad on the same level of derangement as serial killing. It hammers home that caring about starwars, especially the prequels, is madness, not something a normal-brained person should be spending so much time on. I also find it funny/entertaining because his videos actually have a lot of legit good analysis of the films despite coming out of the mouth of a barely coherent elderly crazy man. The juxtaposition is entertaining, but no matter how good the commentary you always have that voice there reminding you not to take any of this too seriously, that this entire endeavor of giving a poo poo about these movies is madness.

Luckily the Plinkett character is used sparingly and for the most part the group just plays them selves. So why do people enjoy Half in the Bag or Best of the Worst or any of their other shows? Well first of all, and what's going to be the initial deal breaker for a lot of people, is if you find these people at all charming or entertaining or relatable. For me, personally, the RLM crew reminds me very much of my early 20's when me and my friends would rent the worst movies we could find and watch them and make fun of them. They all have different tastes and personalities so I usually find the discussion interesting, and I genuinely find the way they interact with each other funny and entertaining. Mike, Jay, and Rich, specially have good chemistry together. Mike is the cynical drunk, Rich is the fat picky nerd with the laugh of an angel, Jay is the "cool nerd" who likes indie movies and italian horrors you probably haven't heard of. If I didn't find these people entertaining on their own, I wouldn't watch their stuff. Beyond that it's watching people you find enjoyable talking about a subject you're interested in.

They are also great at mocking and satirizing the poo poo out of nerd-shill culture and the hype and marketing machines attached to it all. I don't know if this is some "it's about ethics in nerd movie journalism!" thing, but I find their satire on nerd panel shows spot on and very entertaining. When I watch a RLM review I at least can know its their own honest opinions, not those of the people signing their cheques or giving them exclusive early access.

Sometimes talking about stuff like this in depth can be interesting. I met a guy who said his favourite star trek was Voyager, Janeway was the best captain. This boggled my mind, here's a guy I respect who has such an absolutely insane opinion about star trek. So we actually got into it, and it turned out it almost entirely stemmed from the fact that Janeway reminded him of his mom. He was raised by a tough single mom in a large and difficult household so Voyager and Janeway reminded him of his childhood and the mother he admired. I don't want to get into what sort of childhood someone has that could be compared to Voyager, but at least I got why he liked Voyager so much after he explained it. I think RLM might just remind a lot of people of their own friend group of nerds they had when growing up, sitting around riffing on bad movies and arguing and nitpicking about the latest episode of DS9. Or maybe they never had that, so these guys are like their imaginary internet nerd friends they wish they had? But that doesn't hold up entirely because I know several total non-nerds who really enjoy RLM, they think the guys are hilarious and really like their reviews, so there's some sort of broader appeal at work.

I can certainly see why people wouldn't like them or find them entertaining though, but surely you can see why some people might enjoy seeing people they find relatable/entertaining reviewing movies?
No, and the more I learn about RLM, the less I understand how anyone might enjoy it. I didn't know about the bones/chained-up women gag, and it seems painfully unfunny. (I'm not making a moral claim. I'm saying, it's not in the least funny.)
I'm also not saying "I can understand how terrible people might like it". I can't understand how anyone might like it.

I totally get the Voyager/Janeway mom line. It's a very typically human explanation for why someone might like something. It won't convince anyone else, but it's not puzzling either.

Ok, question. What's the point of listening to nerds explain to you why something you've both seen is bad (or perhaps even good)? I like SMG because while I almost never agree with them, it's almost always an angle I've never heard of before. Most movie critics you'd read to decide if you want to see the film. What's the role of RLM? Is it that they're enjoyable in themselves? How enjoyable is it to, compared, The Orville itself? Does it enrichen your experience of The Orville?

8one6
May 20, 2012

When in doubt, err on the side of Awesome!


Cingulate posted:

No, and the more I learn about RLM, the less I understand how anyone might enjoy it. I didn't know about the bones/chained-up women gag, and it seems painfully unfunny. (I'm not making a moral claim. I'm saying, it's not in the least funny.)
I'm also not saying "I can understand how terrible people might like it". I can't understand how anyone might like it.
...

CAPT. Rainbowbeard
Apr 5, 2012
My incredible shitposting will not transform the xbone into a good console


Lipstick Apathy

Sometimes the GoonMind (which totally doesn't exist, is a hoax, etc,) gravitates towards some stuff, eh guys?

What I'm saying is, take a nap. We won't put the brain worm in while you sleep, promise.

After The War
Apr 12, 2005

I fought in
the Old Revolution
on the side of
the Ghosts and the King


CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:

What I'm saying is, take a nap. We won't put the brain worm in while you sleep, promise.

We seek cuddly coexistance.

Maera Sior
Jan 5, 2012



Cingulate posted:

What's the role of RLM?
As someone who enjoyed all of the Plinkett reviews, they're very good at pointing out what is exactly wrong with the films they're covering, both from a nitpicky standpoint ("Why did X say Y?") and from a storytelling/directorial standpoint (their Episode III review will always be the best for me). They're very good at using the source material to back up what they're saying instead of making blanket statements and hoping you agree.

Kurieg
Jul 19, 2012



My problems with nemesis are that they killed off data so that he could "age" even though they already showed that he could in all good things. The dune buggy scene. And the manual control Gravis flight stick because why.

I did like them trying to expand on the Romulans beyond backstabbing villains.

Frionnel
May 7, 2010

Friends are what make testing worth it.

Jazerus posted:

i will never not laugh at picard casually throwing his prized, irreplaceable ancient pottery around the wreck of his office like it's nothing interesting

Oh yeah, i won't deny some parts of them are very funny

CPColin
Sep 9, 2003

Big ol' smile.

Grimey Drawer

Kurieg posted:

And the manual control Gravis flight stick because why.

That's Insurrection. The two movies are so offensively bland, they're merging in everybody's brains!

The Bloop
Jul 5, 2004

The icequake is a cover-up







If you're going to kill of Data just loving do it





The worst crime of all is not calling back to Pop Goes the Weasel if they were doing a Data's Katra is-it-or-isn't-it bit

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012



Maera Sior posted:

As someone who enjoyed all of the Plinkett reviews, they're very good at pointing out what is exactly wrong with the films they're covering, both from a nitpicky standpoint ("Why did X say Y?") and from a storytelling/directorial standpoint (their Episode III review will always be the best for me). They're very good at using the source material to back up what they're saying instead of making blanket statements and hoping you agree.
My question was, what does that do that for you? Why is that a role that needs to be fulfilled/that you enjoy seeing fulfilled?

eth0.n
Jun 1, 2012


Cingulate posted:

My question was, what does that do that for you? Why is that a role that needs to be fulfilled/that you enjoy seeing fulfilled?

Same thing any good reviewer does? Expresses ideas and insights about a subject I might not think of or fully realize myself. I knew I didn't like the prequels going into the Plinkette reviews. But they did a good job clarifying why.

Tom Guycot
Oct 15, 2008

Chief of Governors


I just enjoy RLM for the best of the worst/wheel of the worst type stuff. Its charmingly unpretentious like I'm just seeing some friends laughing and picking at bad movies.

I don't know how I can explain humor other than saying watching Rich try to explain the plot of a horrible movie never fails to make me smile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KolenE1GCyg

or listening to them describe the stupid wookipedia info on darth vader's suit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVzc20Bm8Xo



I can't speak to the Plinket stuff since I've never really watched that but, they're just kinda shlubby sarcastic people talking stuff in a humorous way .

bring back old gbs
Feb 28, 2007

why donald duck never wears pants but he puts a towel on his waist after the shower?

- Jerry Seinfeld

Cingulate posted:

I like SMG because while I almost never agree with them, it's almost always an angle I've never heard of before. Most movie critics you'd read to decide if you want to see the film. What's the role of RLM? Is it that they're enjoyable in themselves? How enjoyable is it to, compared, The Orville itself? Does it enrichen your experience of The Orville?
dayum, a powerful lack of introspection on display. i'd call you a robot but they arent that dumb

Baronjutter
Dec 31, 2007

"Tiny Trains"


Cingulate posted:

My question was, what does that do that for you? Why is that a role that needs to be fulfilled/that you enjoy seeing fulfilled?

In the world of movie reviews there's a ton of subjectivity, so by finding reviewers who have similar tastes as your self you have a better chance at learning if it's a movie you might enjoy seeing or best steer clear of. There's conservative christian movie reviewers who other christian conservatives watch to get that sort of perspective on movies and warn people of potential spiritual hazards in the movie, maybe liberal Hollywood rated this movie G but did you know it encourages paganism, magic, and disobedience of ones parents? There's feminist movie review sites that look at media through that lens, and so on and so on for all sorts of different artistic, political, or demographic lenses. Most people want to find a source that matches their own tastes so the reviews are relevant to them, they just want to learn if the movie is good or bad or worth their time/money to see. Or they want someone they see as a peer telling them their opinions on the movie were in fact correct and good, and putting their general gut reactions to the movie into better words and explaining why they probably felt how they did.

Like maybe you went to a movie a lot of your friends and critics said is great, but you hated it and aren't 100% sure why. You then find a review that manages to perfectly explain your feelings and now you've learned why a bunch of scenes bothered you so much and why you found the ending so unsatisfying while other's didn't. You've found someone who has similar reactions to movies as your self, but understands film much better so can explain the "why" in ways you might not have thought. The RLM guys often do this for me, and even if we had very different takes on a movie I'm understanding why people who aren't totally alien to me might have liked/disliked something. I'm not going to get anything relevant or even entertaining from a hyper-christian movie reviewer other than maybe a chuckle at "lol crazy people who think finding dory is satanist brainwashing" or what ever, and I feel much the same way reading SMG's zizekian nose scratchings. It might be funny to laugh at how I think the person's though-process about movies is absolutely insane but it's not something I'm going to seek out because their perspectives and tastes are so unlike my own. When looking for movie reviews I'm looking for: people with similar tastes as my self, people who aren't paid shills, people who's screen presence or writing style I find enjoyable. For me, personally, RLM has been the best match so far. I understand if someone doesn't like them because they don't at all agree with their opinions or way of looking at movies, or find their personalities repulsive, or hate the little skits they do, that's 100% understandable for me as I'm not a robot.

There Bias Two
Jan 13, 2009



Baronjutter posted:

In the world of movie reviews there's a ton of subjectivity, so by finding reviewers who have similar tastes as your self you have a better chance at learning if it's a movie you might enjoy seeing or best steer clear of. There's conservative christian movie reviewers who other christian conservatives watch to get that sort of perspective on movies and warn people of potential spiritual hazards in the movie, maybe liberal Hollywood rated this movie G but did you know it encourages paganism, magic, and disobedience of ones parents? There's feminist movie review sites that look at media through that lens, and so on and so on for all sorts of different artistic, political, or demographic lenses. Most people want to find a source that matches their own tastes so the reviews are relevant to them, they just want to learn if the movie is good or bad or worth their time/money to see. Or they want someone they see as a peer telling them their opinions on the movie were in fact correct and good, and putting their general gut reactions to the movie into better words and explaining why they probably felt how they did.

Like maybe you went to a movie a lot of your friends and critics said is great, but you hated it and aren't 100% sure why. You then find a review that manages to perfectly explain your feelings and now you've learned why a bunch of scenes bothered you so much and why you found the ending so unsatisfying while other's didn't. You've found someone who has similar reactions to movies as your self, but understands film much better so can explain the "why" in ways you might not have thought. The RLM guys often do this for me, and even if we had very different takes on a movie I'm understanding why people who aren't totally alien to me might have liked/disliked something. I'm not going to get anything relevant or even entertaining from a hyper-christian movie reviewer other than maybe a chuckle at "lol crazy people who think finding dory is satanist brainwashing" or what ever, and I feel much the same way reading SMG's zizekian nose scratchings. It might be funny to laugh at how I think the person's though-process about movies is absolutely insane but it's not something I'm going to seek out because their perspectives and tastes are so unlike my own. When looking for movie reviews I'm looking for: people with similar tastes as my self, people who aren't paid shills, people who's screen presence or writing style I find enjoyable. For me, personally, RLM has been the best match so far. I understand if someone doesn't like them because they don't at all agree with their opinions or way of looking at movies, or find their personalities repulsive, or hate the little skits they do, that's 100% understandable for me as I'm not a robot.

Or sometimes the opposite is true. I often like reading perspectives that are completely different from mine, because sometimes they point out new layers to the subject that I can better appreciate.

The Lord Bude
May 23, 2007

I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT CORTANA WILL BE A CIRCLE AND NOT THE ACTUAL SEXY WOMAN FROM THE GAME.


Actually there are very few things on the internet more entertaining than reading movie reviews by religious nutjobs. You can just picture the mouth frothing.

Peachfart
Jan 21, 2017



Cingulate posted:

No, and the more I learn about RLM, the less I understand how anyone might enjoy it. I didn't know about the bones/chained-up women gag, and it seems painfully unfunny. (I'm not making a moral claim. I'm saying, it's not in the least funny.)
I'm also not saying "I can understand how terrible people might like it". I can't understand how anyone might like it.

I totally get the Voyager/Janeway mom line. It's a very typically human explanation for why someone might like something. It won't convince anyone else, but it's not puzzling either.

Ok, question. What's the point of listening to nerds explain to you why something you've both seen is bad (or perhaps even good)? I like SMG because while I almost never agree with them, it's almost always an angle I've never heard of before. Most movie critics you'd read to decide if you want to see the film. What's the role of RLM? Is it that they're enjoyable in themselves? How enjoyable is it to, compared, The Orville itself? Does it enrichen your experience of The Orville?

Is there a level 2 version of ?

Measly Twerp
Nov 5, 2009



Peachfart posted:

Is there a level 2 version of ?


?

Cingulate
Oct 23, 2012



eth0.n posted:

Same thing any good reviewer does? Expresses ideas and insights about a subject I might not think of or fully realize myself. I knew I didn't like the prequels going into the Plinkette reviews. But they did a good job clarifying why.
My point is, from what I've gathered, people watch RLM after already having seen Star Wars 500 times. Then, the RLM people explain to them various details about the thing they've already seen 500 times. To the extent I've gotten that right, that's rather different from most reviews.

There's also a post-movie review reading where your entire perspective shifts. But this does not seem to be the same thing either, as it doesn't depend on long lists of details and wookipedia.


Baronjutter posted:

In the world of movie reviews there's a ton of subjectivity, so by finding reviewers who have similar tastes as your self you have a better chance at learning if it's a movie you might enjoy seeing or best steer clear of. There's conservative christian movie reviewers who other christian conservatives watch to get that sort of perspective on movies and warn people of potential spiritual hazards in the movie, maybe liberal Hollywood rated this movie G but did you know it encourages paganism, magic, and disobedience of ones parents? There's feminist movie review sites that look at media through that lens, and so on and so on for all sorts of different artistic, political, or demographic lenses. Most people want to find a source that matches their own tastes so the reviews are relevant to them, they just want to learn if the movie is good or bad or worth their time/money to see. Or they want someone they see as a peer telling them their opinions on the movie were in fact correct and good, and putting their general gut reactions to the movie into better words and explaining why they probably felt how they did.

Like maybe you went to a movie a lot of your friends and critics said is great, but you hated it and aren't 100% sure why. You then find a review that manages to perfectly explain your feelings and now you've learned why a bunch of scenes bothered you so much and why you found the ending so unsatisfying while other's didn't. You've found someone who has similar reactions to movies as your self, but understands film much better so can explain the "why" in ways you might not have thought. The RLM guys often do this for me, and even if we had very different takes on a movie I'm understanding why people who aren't totally alien to me might have liked/disliked something. I'm not going to get anything relevant or even entertaining from a hyper-christian movie reviewer other than maybe a chuckle at "lol crazy people who think finding dory is satanist brainwashing" or what ever, and I feel much the same way reading SMG's zizekian nose scratchings. It might be funny to laugh at how I think the person's though-process about movies is absolutely insane but it's not something I'm going to seek out because their perspectives and tastes are so unlike my own. When looking for movie reviews I'm looking for: people with similar tastes as my self, people who aren't paid shills, people who's screen presence or writing style I find enjoyable. For me, personally, RLM has been the best match so far. I understand if someone doesn't like them because they don't at all agree with their opinions or way of looking at movies, or find their personalities repulsive, or hate the little skits they do, that's 100% understandable for me as I'm not a robot.
Man, I'm really sorry, because you keep writing these very nice and considerate and gentle explanations, and I'm just sitting here making fish noises.

Here, I get everything you're saying and it makes sense and is very interesting, and then you say you find RLM's style "enjoyable", and, yeah, I'm lost again.
And the more nice and gentle explanations you're writing, the worse it gets, because it widens the gap between where I'm with you (everything you're saying outside of your enjoyment of RLM), and your enjoyment of RLM.

I don't know if this is a great success of communication, or a great failure. Either way, have you considered becoming a kindergarten/pre/middle school teacher? Cause if you have that kind of patience explaining things IRL, you could be a true boon upon babykind.

Tighclops
Jan 23, 2008

PARTY ON, GARTH OF IZAR


I can't stand watching videos of idiot nerds reviewing things most of the time since unlike a forum like this there's no way to participate in the discussion, and gently caress that

Jazerus
May 24, 2011

I'm from another time, another world. I don't even know what you people eat for lunch.



the plinkett reviews have a good sense of comedic timing if you skip the edgy nonsense and do a good job of tying together details, backed up directly by the footage being shown, to explain why movies like the star wars prequels are less than the sum of their parts. there's more to say about why a movie is bad than a viewer can always fully articulate to themselves; it's like the difference between knowing the earth orbits the sun and understanding orbital mechanics, except much goonier

the other rlm content is definitely not that, and I too struggle to understand its appeal

bring back old gbs
Feb 28, 2007

why donald duck never wears pants but he puts a towel on his waist after the shower?

- Jerry Seinfeld

Tighclops posted:

I can't stand watching videos of idiot nerds reviewing things most of the time since unlike a forum like this there's no way to participate in the discussion, and gently caress that
On the other hand...

Cingulate posted:

Here, I get everything you're saying and it makes sense and is very interesting, and then you say you find RLM's style "enjoyable", and, yeah, I'm lost again.
Sometimes it's ok to write somebody off as worthless if you've explained a simple concept 12 times and they kindly ask you to try a 13th. You don't need a discussion with everybody, Cingulate perfectly demonstrates why.

Measly Twerp
Nov 5, 2009



The Plinkett reviews have more incommon with literary analysis than regular reviews, which is why you'd generally watch them after having seen the movie. But there's more to it than that, I watched and enjoyed them without having seen more than 1/3rd of the first prequel and I find the original movies so utterly boring I've never sat through one in a single sitting.

The people of RLM are just good at being relatable to me, and I enjoy almost everything they do.

Iron Crowned
May 6, 2003

Even in Death...


Yams Fan

Maybe you guys could talk about Red Letter Media in one of the Red Letter Media threads, instead of, you know the Orville thread

eth0.n
Jun 1, 2012


Cingulate posted:

My point is, from what I've gathered, people watch RLM after already having seen Star Wars 500 times. Then, the RLM people explain to them various details about the thing they've already seen 500 times. To the extent I've gotten that right, that's rather different from most reviews.

Just because I've watched a movie or TV show doesn't mean I've picked up on everything a reviewer does. I can't always put my feelings into words as well as a reviewer can, or pinpoint root causes of various feelings, or imagine how it could have been better as well as they can.

For example, I came out of Episode 1 disappointed. I probably felt like the characters weren't good in a general "blah" sense, but the first part of Plinkett's review does a much better job of explaining why they suck, and fall short of the OT characters.

quote:

There's also a post-movie review reading where your entire perspective shifts. But this does not seem to be the same thing either, as it doesn't depend on long lists of details and wookipedia.

To me, this is a weird CineD thing, and I don't see it anywhere else. I find these "readings" overwrought BS, and why I got tired of trying to read those threads pretty quick. I've never read a review that actually changed how much I enjoyed a piece of entertainment. In much the same way that I doubt an explanation of a joke has ever made it funny for anyone who didn't get it initially.

My interest in a review is either to set expectations for something I haven't seen yet (most mainstream movie reviews), or to help crystallize and understand how I've already reacted (e.g., Plinkett, and most TV reviews). And I read/view a lot more of the latter than the former; word-of-mouth is more what I rely on to decide whether to watch something (if it isn't an auto-watch like MCU or SW).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gynovore
Jun 17, 2009

Forget your RoboCoX or your StickyCoX or your EvilCoX, MY CoX has Blinking Bewbs!

WHY IS THIS GAME DEAD?!

Kurieg posted:

My problems with nemesis are that they killed off data so that he could "age" even though they already showed that he could in all good things. The dune buggy scene. And the manual control Gravis flight stick because why.

Personally, I envisioned the cast reading the script for Nemesis, then drawing straws to see who gets to die at the end, and Spiner wins.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«177 »