Red Letter Media

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 257 24.0%
  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 77 7.2%
  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 460 42.9%
  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 230 21.4%
  • Tim

    Votes: 386 36.0%
  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 208 19.4%
  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 274 25.5%
  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 27 2.5%
  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 541 50.4%
  • Max Landis

    Votes: 64 6.0%

  • Total voters
    1,073
As all ways, depends on the time, place, customs and who is writing about the people in question. The Medieval era covers a period three times longer than the Early Modern era, which itself is almost unrecognizable from Columbus to Napoleon.

Certain places would definitely have been much "filthier" than others. Lime was not ubiquitious everywhere, modern global trade was not the common thing, and a village would generally only have strong access to local goods. People in Paris in 1400 may actually have been filthy compared to a rural serf under great strife in late 700s Viking Normandy because they had access to clean, fresh water and weren't surrounded by disgusting people expelling effluent on the roads. Anyone able to keep up with Islamic hygiene rules would certainly have been far cleaner than anyone else as they ritually wash after seeing a poor person cross the road. At the same time, a Cypriot would be disgusted by the idea that you wipe with your hand (then wash the hand) rather than use a briny sponge.

At the same time, it is far easier to be clean to the point you die of seasonal diseases today than ever before, yet we still have people walking around in public without shame looking like someone from Monty Python. Most of the "the Dark Ages were filthy" ideas come from the Enlightenment, both terms being used to point out what the Early Modern writers believed to a hole of progress after the collapse of the Roman Empire. In a sense, they were right. Aquaducts, public toilets, and (in places that could have them) public baths/saunas crumbled in many places because they were capital intensive. The "regression" to Feudal and tribal organisation of society meant they couldn't be maintained properly. Anyone who lived in a city with maintained Thermae or Balnae like modern Aix-le-Bains or Bath would be unlikely to have noticed much of a difference between 50 AD and 1550 AD, but someone living in what was a relative back water like Londinium would have noticed a huge difference as bathing in the river became increasingly impossible and not solved until well into the late 1800s. The cast of Monty Python were also traveling a lot- it doesn't make that much sense for everyone at Swamp Castle to be filthy during a Baronial celebration, but it makes sense for the Anarchist Communites to be while digging their mud. There are also few opportunities to wash during a siege, where water is rationed.
I just find it frustrating that people seem to think that just because in the middle ages people didn't bathe every day means that they didn't clean their faces and hair when they got mud in it or wash their clothes. Also people typically had fairly good teeth then because then didn't eat the absurdly high-sugar diet modern people have. Not to mention there is evidence that they would clean their teeth with sticks and such, Tooth decay didn't become a major problem until the early modern period, when the evil of sugar was made widely available.
 
I also found their complaint about Alexander Skarsgård and Nicole Kidman to be odd. Putting aside the fact that Robert Eggers pretty clearly wanted to keep Nicole Kidman the same for the emotional impact, I had no trouble believing Skarsgård was a dude in his early to mid 30s because he was crazily in shape and doesn't look his age at all. Looking at the ages now, Skarsgård is not that far off from Ethan Hawke, but they didn't look anywhere close in age in the movie.
 
I also found their complaint about Alexander Skarsgård and Nicole Kidman to be odd. Putting aside the fact that Robert Eggers pretty clearly wanted to keep Nicole Kidman the same for the emotional impact, I had no trouble believing Skarsgård was a dude in his early to mid 30s because he was crazily in shape and doesn't look his age at all. Looking at the ages now, Skarsgård is not that far off from Ethan Hawke, but they didn't look anywhere close in age in the movie.
I don't know if it was on purpose but I found Kidman fine acting-wise but ever since she's had all the work done recently she is fuckin' ghoulish to look at and very disconcerting. If this was deliberate or a happy coincidence as far as making the character even more sinister, congrats. But I agree it smelled of adding some STAR POWER to the flick that didn't quite gel. Surprised Bjork didn't get a shout out for nailing it in her short, strange section.
 
I thought Nicole Kidman was great in The Northman especially in "that scene" and you're being a bunch of nitpicky bitches.
 
As much as I like reviewers squirm watching terrible shows, I'd rather they talk about good Star Trek. In general, it makes me miss shows that were written by adults, but didn't have to be edgelords to do it. Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul are classic shows, but they are shows about assholes. Star Trek was very much a white-collar normie show 30 years ago.
I'm sad that Mike gave up on Star Trek because I really enjoyed the re:view he did with Rich on TNG.
 
Patreon Update:

quote:​

Next Shoot

Well once again, one of us is making the others watch something and next thing ya know, we're back in the black void.

It's also got a photo with three chairs, so presumably this will be a full Mike-Jay-Rich experience. No idea what it will be on, though.
 
Robert Eggers approach of historical settings with a pain staking historical accuracy mixed in with supernatural elements and treating those supernatural elements as matter of fact a part of life back then as the real world stuff is a fascinating style indeed.

It'd be cool to see him tackle feudal Japan.
 
Robert Eggers approach of historical settings with a pain staking historical accuracy mixed in with supernatural elements and treating those supernatural elements as matter of fact a part of life back then as the real world stuff is a fascinating style indeed.

It'd be cool to see him tackle feudal Japan.
I really liked the VVitch for this this reason. As Jay said, you wonder whether the titular vvitch is real or not then you discover in the first five minutes it is, it's doing something completely fucking vile, and then you experience these people's very real beliefs and attitudes break down in the face of some primordial evil.

I really love stories that either treat spiritual concepts as totally real or at least as simply another possibility, especially when so much today treats it entirely cynically. If there was some show today based on the First Crusade they'd portray everyone involved as entirely self-indulgent, lacking any piety, fucking their sisters, etc. I think the Borgias series did that to Alexander VI who was one of the most pious of the Popes in spite of his libertinism.

The only sense of supernatural experiences in media today is demonic horror shit. Devil nuns, exorcisms, etc. The VVitch at least treated the subject with maturity and substance rather than just being "ooh scary evil woman".
 
It seems like they have 100% given up on Star Wars. I would be surprised if they talked about Obi-Wan.
Jay's horny for Ewan McGregor. It'll happen.
I forgot to mention too that these depictions are probably more true to life to the past because of the supernatural elements.
If the average city person spent a week on a lonely rural farm they'd start believing in all kinds of spooky shit. As a species we're basically wired to fear the night. If you can't think of a reason to be afraid your mind will provide the fear and let you fill in the blanks.
 
Robert Eggers approach of historical settings with a pain staking historical accuracy mixed in with supernatural elements and treating those supernatural elements as matter of fact a part of life back then as the real world stuff is a fascinating style indeed.

It'd be cool to see him tackle feudal Japan.
A half naked Northman warrior fighting armored fighters isn’t exactly historical accurate I would say. I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know if they used the typical bullshit for armor „some parts iron/bronze whatever and some patty leather“ and hoch would be absolute bullshit.
It’s a nice looking Film from the trailer though.
 
A half naked Northman warrior fighting armored fighters isn’t exactly historical accurate I would say. I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know if they used the typical bullshit for armor „some parts iron/bronze whatever and some patty leather“ and hoch would be absolute bullshit.
It’s a nice looking Film from the trailer though.
Maybe you should watch the movie first before dispensing your half-assed opinion.
 
A half naked Northman warrior fighting armored fighters isn’t exactly historical accurate I would say. I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know if they used the typical bullshit for armor „some parts iron/bronze whatever and some patty leather“ and hoch would be absolute bullshit.
It’s a nice looking Film from the trailer though.
watch the movie first, you fucking faggot.
 
Jay's horny for Ewan McGregor. It'll happen.
1654687746442.png 1654687771969.png

Nah, I think Ewan is his father.
 
A half naked Northman warrior fighting armored fighters isn’t exactly historical accurate I would say. I haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know if they used the typical bullshit for armor „some parts iron/bronze whatever and some patty leather“ and hoch would be absolute bullshit.
It’s a nice looking Film from the trailer though.
This thread attracts the worst fucking morons.
 
It seems like his personal family life wasn't exactly great if he was willing to throw away his Grandmother's stuff into the garbage, so that would of increased his likelihood. Strained family relations make for prime opportunities for problems to arise in a person's ego.
If memory serves, his family had significant issues with some form or another of drugs, explaining why he almost never drinks. There have been a handful of episodes where he has maybe one little drink, but even those are relatively ancient. By all accounts, he pulled himself out of a shitty situation and wound up pretty normal, which is particularly rare for people from that background.
The more salient question is how long his friendship with Rich has delayed Mike's inevitable death from acute alcoholism.
Rich Evans is the secret to a long, healthy life even beyond his remarkable ability to hide Mike's keys.
 
I wonder if they’ll bother reviewing the new Top Gun, after their Ghostbusters and Matrix reviews they’d either call it a decent movie or a blatant disgusting nostalgia fest. I liked it, but judging by their past opinions i’d be interested to know what they thought.
 
Back
Top Bottom