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
wtfNeedSignUp said:
idk what to think about "Mr. Plinkett Talks About Halloween Ends", I'm still not sure even if it's a parody or not of contrarian video essays that try to forcefully find symbolism and allegory while ignoring everything in the plot that doesn't fit.
Click to expand...
It's Reddit Letter Media. Mike always hides behind the Plinkett character when he's too coward to say what he thinks (Star Wars TFA, Picard season 1).
 
Using Plinkett to defend this movie seems really pathetic to me. RLM has been pretty good on reserving Plinkett for big reviews or if a movie was egregiously shitty. To defend this movie seems like a waste to me.
 
SteelPlatedHeart said:
View attachment 3753263
Click to expand...
Who cares? That’s exactly my point. Why whine if some posters call them names, when there’s plenty of other posts that don’t. As long as you can still post your differing opinion it shouldn’t matter. You needing to defend them at every turn and police the thread is as weird as needing to insult them, it’s the same coin.

This isn’t their Reddit.
 
6856FE0E-24A3-4E5F-99A8-A35FE8630D2E.jpeg
 
Doctor of Autism said:
That's only because Rich didn't want to bother with the rest of it, and dragged Mike to watch season 2 to mess with him.
Click to expand...
TBH, even the Plinkett review of Picard was not nearly as good as it could have been. To prove it, I'll talk about one specific scene in it and how it completely misunderstands Picard as a character.


I can't find the full scene, but suffice it to say that this Romulan Senator gets mad enough at Picard to challenge him to a sword fight. Picard kinda fights him before giving up and then Elnor sucker-slices the Senator to death.

So, Picard's skills since TNG has always been diplomacy and management i.e. people reading skills. Now, in TNG times, Picard was actually okay with threatening other people if it represented Federation interests. He was polite about it, often indirect about his threats, but it was clear that he was putting up a show of strength when he did. But if someone called him a fucker to his face, he'll tell him to fuck right off to match that hostility. Why? Because he was a big picture kind of character who understood politics.

[

Even Wesley understood that if someone was calling him a twat, he'd call him a twat right back to get some grudging respect.


He wouldn't do this weird, weak pleading that he's doing in ST: Picard. Showing contrition in front of an obviously belligerent senator only riles the senator up because it looks weak. It also shows Picard had a myopic understanding of politics (which was shown in the first episode as well) by making a claim of duty when the Federation has no such claim on the Romulan Star Empire, a sovereign--often aggressive--state. Throwing the sword away only reinforces that belief as an act of cowardice, not mercy. Mind you that the only skill Picard has as an old man is his understanding of other people. By showing him fail at a basic skill, it diminishes him as a character completely; he no longer is able to read the room well enough to deescalate a situation.

If an old TNG writer was writing this scene, real Picard would have reminded that senator that he did offer to help and then shift blame to the senator for obviously rejecting it. The contempt would have gotten him to back down because Picard would have been right. Even if it didn't, Real Picard would still project a show of strength and not lose face, which is what a duel is really about in the end. Maybe Picard would get stabbed in a non-vital area or whatever to end the conflict as fast as possible, but not outright surrender and look like a bitch-ass.

RLM doesn't even touch on how Picard as a character was completely buggered. Not even action Picard missed the point this badly.
 
byuu said:
Nooo! My simulated friends betrayed me by praising a movie I hate. Now I have to break up with them.
Click to expand...
Play that clip of the guy talking about Captain marvel but it cuts out as soon as he says "I haven't seen it, but"
 
E: The Plinkett shit was weird, but it tends to be used when Mike wants to get more rigorous on discussing things. Either nitpicking shit to death (like the Trek movie reviews) or doing a longform anal-sis, like with the Prequels or Titanic.

Feels more like a crutch than anything.

The Token Ethnic said:
A lot of the arguments they make for Halloween Ends are the same justifications that others bring up regarding Star Trek, Star Wars or any other franchise that has a prequel/spin-off/reboot that challenges tropes, subverts expectations, etc. The fact that Corey gets a pass is interesting, because he'd be the perfect excuse to showcase the character as some chud or incel in any other slasher flick. I don't get how he's shown as an empathetic character. Funny how they brought in the Mr. Plinkett voice to go over the homages and themes. They pull a quote about the triangle symbolism from some new age spiritual blog:
Click to expand...

I think the difference between the shit with Star Trek et al. is that the subversion doesn't serve any sort of purpose beyond being a gimmick. I liken it to a wrestling writer, Vince Russo, who would do nonsensical 'shocking' "swerves" that were essentially for the hope of garnering a big TV rating. Give people something to talk about, who gives a shit about narrative, established rules, etc.

With Star Trek/Star Wars you have to ask, what the fuck is the point of doing that? Rian Johnson's brilliant dismissal of the rules of storytelling didn't serve any purpose beyond the idea of giving something 'shocking' for people to talk about as they filed out of the theater. Even the shocking reveal in Empire served a purpose besides just being a twist: it explains why Vader didn't just murder Luke like he did with Obi-Wan in the first movie (although that decision did cause a bit of retconning.)

With Halloween Ends, they were critical about how the film was trying to be something different but how it ultimately failed to do so. Not every movie you enjoy has to be "perfect", as Mike would say, and I think the enjoyment they got out of it was seeing the potential that was there for something different, which is why I think we got a deep dive from Plinkett on the symbolism, recurring themes, etc.

And it's an interesting situation. Slasher/horror films have been more or less stuck in a rut for like 40ish years now. On the one hand, you can take the argument that Mike has taken with Trek and desire things to stay within its niche. On the other, you can look at it from the perspective of capeshit movies. The same story beats have been done to death, why not try something new?

BlueSpark said:
Glad that people in this thread are coming to the realization that Mike and Jay (and Rich and the rest) are just dimwits with an undeserved sense of intelligence that look down on people who are no dumber than they are.

They sometimes make funny content when they're ragging on shit but they're ultimately what they accuse other people of being: pseudo-intellectuals and manchildren with simplistic tastes.

Hopefully at some point in the future two braincells in one of their heads can collide and they'll realize that Half in the Bag is only entertaining when they critize things and nobody cares about their retarded opinions on the garbage they enjoy.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're geniuses or anything, but I always find what they say interesting because they clearly understand the craft of making a film and utilizing the medium a hell of a lot better than me. They've stumbled on some shit when it comes to broader storytelling things and/or are either unaware of details or misinterpret shit, but it's nice getting that kind of perspective on YouTube that isn't an autistic 8 hour analysis of Spider-Man: The Animated Series (or whatever.)

They're just film school dudes who like to get drunk and bullshit about movies and sometimes come up with really salient points or observations. Sounds like you're taking their shit way too seriously, dude.
 
Last edited:
Tepes Thot said:
Who cares? That’s exactly my point. Why whine if some posters call them names, when there’s plenty of other posts that don’t. As long as you can still post your differing opinion it shouldn’t matter. You needing to defend them at every turn and police the thread is as weird as needing to insult them, it’s the same coin.

This isn’t their Reddit.
Click to expand...
There are two Reddit threads here: RLM and Rekieta.
 
byuu said:
Nooo! My simulated friends betrayed me by praising a movie I hate. Now I have to break up with them.
Click to expand...
I don't care about the film, it is just that it was one of the weirdest internet reviews I've seen lately. Way too reaching and very condescending on the subject of a franchise film that strays way too far from what the audience came to see. From how it sounds you can remove Michael Myers and replace it with a random murder hobo and the plot for 90% of it will be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom