Red Letter Media

[Mola Ram]

The point is that art doesn't have the same clearly defined lines. Come on, this isn't hard.

My God, I'm arguing with Garth Marenghi.

 

[Flexo]

Cooking has very clear and defined rules, because otherwise you can be sick or dead. Art doesn't have the same rigid limitations.
We'd still be stuck watching silent black-and-whites if the rules weren't meant to be broken.

Per your logic then, we're all still cooking over fire in caves because cooking has rules we can't break.

That's how autistic and dumb you sound.

The point is that art doesn't have the same clearly defined lines. Come on, this isn't hard.

Here let me help you out:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/literary-devices/metaphor/

My God, I'm arguing with Garth Marenghi.

View attachment 8244290

Only without the talent.

"I know writers who use subtext and they're all cowards."

The point is that art doesn't have the same clearly defined lines. Come on, this isn't hard.

"I can make a painting with colors invisible to the human eye!"
"I can make a song at pitches beyond what the human ear can hear!"

Sure. There aren't any clearly defined lines to art.

 

[Idiotron]

Your cooking experimentation is within the rules. You can't substitute water with bleach, like Flexo's example.
Art doesn't have the same rigid rules. And if it did we'd never have sound or color pictures.

You can't substitute a film reel with toilet paper when filming a movie.
There are strict rules to many artforms too.

 

[#lurker]

The point, which I will reiterate again, is that art rules are subjective in a way that are unlike cooking. The rules are made to be and should be broken, even if it comes at the expense of potential enjoyment, because anything less is cookie-cutter shit.
It's better to try something new and fail than do the same old boring shit you've seen before.

Cooking is entirely different in that respect.

I'll leave it there since you guys are unable to argue in good faith.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

Newest video is out, another ‘What are next’

https://youtube.com/watch?v=u0JNJOVG1VA
I miss ‘Fuck you it’s January’

Edit: the only decent movie mentioned is the new Besson Dracula movie, which is actually fantastic.

This was fantastic. I love when they do something ultra cynical like this. The best part was after I watched the video I went on a social media site and immediately saw this shit.



I have a feeling this one is going to get clipped and used to respond to stuff like this often.

 

[Flexo]

The point, which I will reiterate again, is that art rules are subjective in a way that are unlike cooking. The rules are made to be and should be broken, even if it comes at the expense of potential enjoyment, because anything less is cookie-cutter shit.
It's better to try something new and fail than do the same old boring shit you've seen before.

Cooking is entirely different in that respect.

I'm pretty sure Humans are where they are today because people were constantly trying something new and experimenting.

"Is this edible?"
"Let's find out!"

Though we can keep playing your autism game. "Hey I experimented with this recipe by adding liquid soap instead of butter to the recipe. Anything less is cookie-cutter."

Hey, why even bother writing something in a known language? You know what you should do? Write something in a completely made up language yourself.

Oh you wrote your book in English? That's such cookie-cutter shit.

I'll leave it there since you guys are unable to argue in good faith.

Let me put it this way: YOU are the one arguing entirely in bad faith. You immediately go to the extremes of cooking to try and "debunk" an analogy. Well if you want to play that game, we can do the exact same and point out that there are extremes which render "art" completely inept (like being invisible or unreadable or unlistenable).

The point everyone is trying to explain to you is that even within the extremes, there are "rules" for what does and doesn't taste good, why stories do and don't work.

It's Chesterton's fence - you can experiment with the recipe, you can change up the formula, but only once you understand why the parts do what they do. Change strictly for its own sake is idiocy and how people end up making wasteful mistakes everybody could have told them was going to fail.

 

[Mola Ram]

Oh you wrote your book in English? That's such cookie-cutter shit.

James Joyce and whoever wrote the Voynich Manuscript await lavish apologies.

 

[Flexo]

James Joyce and whoever wrote the Voynich Manuscript await lavish apologies.

Did James Joyce really die or just implode one day after going too far up his own asshole?

 

[Mola Ram]

Did James Joyce really die or just implode one day after going too far up his own asshole?

The love letters to his wife strongly suggest the latter.

EDIT: I actually really like Dubliners. Finnegans Wake is maybe the most pretentious waste of time produced by modern 20th century literature. I want to give Ulysses a shot someday, though.

 

[#lurker]

I know I said I'm done, but

"Is this edible?"

Now use this analogy on a movie script. Tell me where the lines are for "edible"? Not according to you or another's opinion, but clearly defined.

Though we can keep playing your autism game. "Hey I experimented with this recipe by adding liquid soap instead of butter to the recipe. Anything less is cookie-cutter."

You're arguing against yourself and showing how cooking is unlike art. Nobody (unless they are suicidal) is arguing to include liquid soap into a recipe, yet people will continue to argue what's "right" in art until the end of time.
The ultimate irony is that your previous examples about having inaudible sound and invisible colors is exactly what people like yourself were trying to defend during the silent era. And if people had listened we'd still be stuck watching silent black-and-whites.

 

[Starman John]

Hey, at least we are not discussing how Mike Stoklasa is responsible for the destruction of Star Wars for the 4828482th time.

 

[Prester John]

Hey, at least we are not discussing how Mike Stoklasa is responsible for the destruction of Star Wars for the 4828482th time.

"I wonder what HIS story is????"

 

[#lurker]

100% true and honest last post on this subject (promise!)
Yes, cooking and art are similar on superficial levels. But cooking has more clearly defined "hard fails," whereas art is infinitely more subjective. And no, I'm not some faggot who thinks taping a banana to a wall is art, but in the context of this argument we're talking about movie scripts and there aren't rights and wrongs in the same way cooking has rights and wrongs.

To get out of the weeds, I'll say this;
Red Letter Media's argument (and by extension yours) is that Jingle All the Way sucks because it didn't follow norms and expectations and thus failed. My argument is that despite being a bad film, Jingle All the Way is so-bad-it's-good because they broke the rules, and stays culturally relevant thanks to it, instead of being another cookie-cutter Christmas movie that people forgot about after a week. You have to give the film credit that it's still talked about 30 years later. I don't think you would say the same of RLM's directed version, yet they live for the "rules." Fuck the rules!

 

[Well Intentioned]

And if it did we'd never have sound or color pictures.

Technical limitations aren't a 'rule.'

Respectfully, I just don't agree at all. You're (proverbial you) still trying to shoehorn art into cookie-cutter packages. At most you could say the film didn't succeed, but they go a step further than that.
The opposite end, defying expectations for the sake of it, can also be just as bad. But I just hate the idea that film should have "rules." Mike is guilty of this throughout his many film reviews and it's something that always annoyed me.

And yes, I realize the silliness of having this discussion around Jingle All the Way of all movies.

Edit: Couldn't finish that new "What Are Next?" video. Terrible.

And to hop onto this discussion.

Mike has a very specific way of understanding film and narrative structure, likely whatever he had remembered/picked up while in film school.

It is part of why he veers away from the 'creepy sex pest movies' that Jay likes and why so many people in this thread and elsewhere get frustrated.

Yes, Mike, you absolutely can construct a narrative in the way you enjoy and prefer and it does work really really well, which is why it is utilized in so many narratives. But there are other ways to tell a story. Instead of a straightforward narrative, maybe you have an unreliable narrator. Or it can be a collection of semi-related stories like Pulp Fiction. Or it could be an indigestible mess of CGI like the Wachowsky Brothers Speed Racer. Etc.

But the flip side is that there are still basic fundamental rules you need to utilize for 'art' or 'film' or whatever. People who try to argue otherwise generally don't understand the medium they are talking about, are immature, or are trying to romanticize art/artists into some bullshit ideal.

Yeah, art/film is a field of creative expression, and yes, the rules are wide open. But they still exist (has there ever been a major cinematic release where everything was shot out of focus to the point it was all a blurry mess? Cue Blair Witch Project or Taken 3 or whatever jokes here.) This is a point that Mike understood in the Phantom Menace review ("unless you're [long list of directors]...you shouldn't stray too far...") and is also why Best of the Worst has had continual material, because when you break the rules and don't understand why you are breaking them you either get some of that experimental trash that sometimes comes on or objectively shit-tier stuff. The Jack Scalfani of cinema, in other words.

 

[NSJAP]

Have they ever elaborated on their absolute refusal to review anything non live action?

 

[ddlloo]

Have they ever elaborated on their absolute refusal to review anything non live action?

Animation is for kids and nerds

-Mike, Probably

 

[Gan Ying]

Have they ever elaborated on their absolute refusal to review anything non live action?

They're filmmakers (lol), not animators or artists. Without any of the filmmaking aspects they have experience or interest in, they'd pretty much only be able to talk about the plot. Not that they always give super insightful filmmaking commentary anyway, but they'd really have nothing to work with when reviewing something animated.

 

[Well Intentioned]

They're filmmakers (lol), not animators or artists. Without any of the filmmaking aspects they have experience or interest in, they'd pretty much only be able to talk about the plot. Not that they always give super insightful filmmaking commentary anyway, but they'd really have nothing to work with when reviewing something animated.

Which is funny given how much digital shit has permeated traditional filmmaking. They do bemoan the loss of practical effects, etc., but when you're watching bloated CGI shit already? I dunno.

And Ebert routinely watched/criticized animated films. And RLM ain't Ebert. Hell, they ain't even Roeper.

 

[Gan Ying]

Which is funny given how much digital shit has permeated traditional filmmaking. They do bemoan the loss of practical effects, etc., but when you're watching bloated CGI shit already? I dunno.

Yeah, which is why whenever they watch some capeshit schlock all they can really say about the effects is "it looked fine" or "it looked bad." Always in the same dismissive tone. But to be fair, what else is there even to say? For those kinds of movies they typically only talk about the plot and maybe the cultural or industry related topics. Because they're boring movies and they just review them for clicks.

 

[mlanguishi]

They should obviously do a 2 part Re:view of Rock N Rule and Heavly Metal. Would be a massive fan pleasing hit but they'll never do that.