Rick and Morty: The Hypothesis of Contradiction

[Robovski]

My problem with Channel Awesome was that I did not care for the character drama. I liked to listen to reviews, and have people's personalities effect their reviews, but I did not care for any of the storylines or skits.

My big problem with the RLM style reviews is the "let's analyze everything that is wrong with this disappointing movie" shtick. Most of the time, when a movie disappoints, there are a few reasons that explain it. Finding every single flaw tends to negate that.

For example, the big problems with The Phantom Menace is that it takes place before the major events that people really cared to find out about in the prequel, the major conflict is not particularly interesting and gets resolved essentially by accident, and the big cool villain does not really have much in the way of motivation or do much to advance the bad guys' plots (basically, he is there to have a lightsaber fight). Nitpicking every little thing that is wrong obscures that.

Is this in the right topic thread G-Man?

[Thebestoftherest]

My problem with Channel Awesome was that I did not care for the character drama. I liked to listen to reviews, and have people's personalities effect their reviews, but I did not care for any of the storylines or skits.

My big problem with the RLM style reviews is the "let's analyze everything that is wrong with this disappointing movie" shtick. Most of the time, when a movie disappoints, there are a few reasons that explain it. Finding every single flaw tends to negate that.

For example, the big problems with The Phantom Menace is that it takes place before the major events that people really cared to find out about in the prequel, the major conflict is not particularly interesting and gets resolved essentially by accident, and the big cool villain does not really have much in the way of motivation or do much to advance the bad guys' plots (basically, he is there to have a lightsaber fight). Nitpicking every little thing that is wrong obscures that.

It doesn't help that Doug Walker skits take so long and it usually one maybe a quick joke then right into the next one, and care very little if it actually work with the damn movie

[ozduck]

That quick little indirect mention of Jimmy Savile in the Episode 5 section amused more more than it probably should have.

[ThatThingISentYa]

Kind of surprised how negative people here are on the show, especially given that Chuck seems to be enjoying it.

Rick & Morty's humor is very dark, very referential and self-referential, and very very juvenile. If one or all of those things don't appeal to you then the fact that the humor is well-executed won't help because the show is designed to deliver a kind of joke that you dislike. For people who do like that kind of humor it is reliably funny for exactly the same reason.

It reminds me of Chuck's review of Repo: the Genetic Opera, which I incidentally also like.

That's why I think it fits that love-it-or-hate-it label. If you enjoy some or all of the elements, it's wall-to-wall and so gives you a heaping portion of what you came for. If you don't... well I'm afraid you're in for the creeping sensation of your ass numbing and the certain knowledge that on your deathbed when you list your regrets the time spent watching Repo will be in your top five.

Anyway that's just my 2¢.

[AndrewGPaul]

DArk humour’s fine, juvenile is fine (nothing wrong with a good knob gag), overly referential jokes fall flat to anyone who’s not seen the same material as the writers, which usually means me. Especially material about US schools.

However, I’m more shallow than that; the voices are dreadful and I find them unpleasant to listen to, even in the clips in these videos. I’d never manage a whole episode. It’s one of my problems with a lot of the anime series Chuck’s done, too - the female voices really annoy me.

[Cheerilee]

Is this in the right topic thread G-Man?

Nostalgia Critic and RLM were namedropped on the first page as examples of (like Rick) "they're right because they're cynical".

For NC, I would say that Doug was never a good critic, he was just in the right place at the right time, cashing in on endless nostalgia value, while coasting on his name recognition until a bunch of people realized that he was a bad person. He's negative because nitpicking is the easiest form of criticism, and him putting out several videos per-week probably contributes to that (since he doesn't have time to make a thoughtful argument). And Doug never grew or got better.

For RLM, the Mr. Plinkett character comes from Mike, and Mike was in a position of deeply loving Star Trek (and Star Wars), and being deeply disappointed by the TNG movies (and the Star Wars Prequels). His rage built until he decided to start making hour-long essays on youtube about his myriad of complaints with those movies (which wasn't really a thing that existed until he started the trend). And those videos are good criticism, good enough for Roger Ebert to suggest that Mike/RLM should get into film criticism as a career. And since then, Mike/RLM has been different. The "Titanic" review, for example, was basically a love letter to that movie. And Plinkett was basically retired as RLM focused on regular movie reviews. For good or bad, other youtube channels have basically picked up Mr. Plinkett's torch and run with it. When Mike returns to Mr. Plinkett, he's basically just doing a bit, for fanservice or obligation.

One of modern RLM's main "cynicism" points is that they frequently say that you shouldn't think that corporations are your friends. They just want your money. Like, Disney/Marvel is feminist, but don't believe for a minute that Disney/Marvel is feminist because Disney/Marvel is woke and Disney/Marvel believes that feminism is the right thing to do. They're feminist because feminism as a business plan is working for them. If they found a good path to money in homophobia, they'd cast their wokeness aside and go homophobic (like, Mike frequently points out the "a case of the notgays" trope, when a film does something that might possibly be construed as gay, which is immediately followed by an unrelated and pointless scene that solidly establishes the characters as "not gay", to placate the homophobes in the audience. The studio absolutely knows that the homophobes are there, and it'll go out of it's way to satisfy them and take their money). Doesn't mean you can't enjoy Disney/Marvel movies for their feminism (and RLM has solidly recommended practically every single Marvel movie to cross their desk), just... stop ascribing human traits to a corporation. There are usually good people within a corporation, but those people don't run the show, the corporation is just letting them take point for the cameras, because a real person's face is more believable.

RLM's "Nerd Crew" bit exists for them to cynically satirize the corporate hijacking and commodification of nerd culture (when they see a good example of it). Because that's a real thing that they find distasteful.

If you want positivity from RLM, look to their "Re:View" series, where instead of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (or the B-movies they cover on Best of the Worst), they spotlight an older movie that's not getting much attention anymore, usually because they happened to love it.


BTW, Mike McMahan (showrunner on Star Trek: Lower Decks) won an Emmy for the "Pickle Rick" episode of Rick and Morty. I wonder if Chuck is reviewing R&M partly as background work to support his eventual Star Trek review work? It wouldn't surprise me, because Chuck is a fantastic reviewer.

[Madner Kami]

[...]

I haven't read a more fitting characterization of RLM's works in regard to them reviewing things, than what Cheerilee wrote. Thank you for breaking that lance.

As for Rick and Morty, I absolutely love the show and I am happy that Charles seems to enjoy it as well, especially given that he had to drag himself through some shows he seemingly didn't enjoy much recently.

As for the arguement that the show ist aweful, because it displays Rick as always being right... You haven't been paying much attention. Sure, Rick always wins and his observations are spot on, but his actions always come back to bite him in his arse and usually make things worse in the long run, damaging him further and further. It is very clear to me, that the man is going for a very, very unpleasent and dark ending, if he doesn't pull around (pay special attention to what leads to the happenings in season 3, episode 6 "Rest and Ricklaxation", the show spells it out very clearly) and the only thing I am afraid of is, that the show would go on too long, calcifying the development of all the characters, as it happened with the Simpsons.

[Fianna]

The thing with Rick is, yes, the show portrays him as being an awful person who's incredibly miserable; in that sense, he's not someone to emulate. However, it also portrays those traits as being a direct result of his brilliance.

Rick is miserable because he can see how truly awful and meaningless the universe is. For the same reason, he treats other people horribly, because he can see how insignificant their petty feelings are compared to said awful and meaningless universe. Characters who take moral stands or have upbeat outlooks on life? It's because they're too stupid to realize how pointless all that is. When Rick confronts them with the harshness of reality, their moral principles and sunny disposition get shattered to pieces.

So despite how harshly the show criticizes Rick, it does so in a self-aggrandizing way. He's so horrible because he's smarter than all the stupid sheep out there, and anyone who became smart enough to see the truth would turn out the same way.

[MithrandirOlorin]

My problem with Channel Awesome was that I did not care for the character drama. I liked to listen to reviews, and have people's personalities effect their reviews, but I did not care for any of the storylines or skits.

My big problem with the RLM style reviews is the "let's analyze everything that is wrong with this disappointing movie" shtick. Most of the time, when a movie disappoints, there are a few reasons that explain it. Finding every single flaw tends to negate that.

For example, the big problems with The Phantom Menace is that it takes place before the major events that people really cared to find out about in the prequel, the major conflict is not particularly interesting and gets resolved essentially by accident, and the big cool villain does not really have much in the way of motivation or do much to advance the bad guys' plots (basically, he is there to have a lightsaber fight). Nitpicking every little thing that is wrong obscures that.

Even those criticism of TPM are utterly mindless. Yes it takes place before the big stuff so we can establish what the Galaxy was like before upending it. And every Sith Apprentice of the Prequel is there to be a lesser predesacor of Vader, that they did less then Vader is the point.

The Conflict at hand is resolved by the Naboo and Gungans learning to work together.

[Madner Kami]

Rick is miserable because he can see how truly awful and meaningless the universe is. For the same reason, he treats other people horribly, because he can see how insignificant their petty feelings are compared to said awful and meaningless universe. Characters who take moral stands or have upbeat outlooks on life? It's because they're too stupid to realize how pointless all that is. When Rick confronts them with the harshness of reality, their moral principles and sunny disposition get shattered to pieces.

Watch Pickle Rick and pay attention to what happens when the psychiatrist utterly dismantles him. The reason he can go on with his bullshit is, because the people he cares about, carry on with his bullshit. I'm truely intrigued by what would happen, once Beth, Morty and Summer turn their backs on him. Completely.