RedLetterMedia - Star Trek Picard

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But I think they make a respectable effort to come across lucid, and don't result to pessimistic arguments involving their work.

Keep in mind RLM caught a lot of flak for not doing this very thing to 2009 Star Trek, with Mike daring to say he liked it at the time. I don't know why he took that position, but I think a problem RLM runs into is the audience they breed, and it's one that feeds on pessimism because of the tone they've set. I look back on shows like MST3K and the first ten years of the Simpsons, and what I love about them is that they were both skewering and decent in ways that made them more endearing compared to, say, rewatching a good deal of South Park when the shock was much of the appeal.

The deal with the Star Trek movie is that they specifically reviewed ST and SW movies as the whole shtick essentially. It's not that they needed to sink their teeth into some nitpicking, it's just a movie that's tied to their brand for comedy sake, which is what all of their videos are first. They're not 'orthodox' reviews, I tend to contend. Comparing franchise movies within the realm of the franchise is not of the most formal practices, I presume.

Decent style comedy isn't particularly common. I'm not saying gross out humor is the essence of comedy now (and RLM is pretty vulgar), but of the most popular comedy in like media in general, it's mostly vulgar. So I mean right here you're pointing to two crowning achievements in comedy imo that are set apart from the norm.

[Link8909]

But I think they make a respectable effort to come across lucid, and don't result to pessimistic arguments involving their work.

Keep in mind RLM caught a lot of flak for not doing this very thing to 2009 Star Trek, with Mike daring to say he liked it at the time. I don't know why he took that position, but I think a problem RLM runs into is the audience they breed, and it's one that feeds on pessimism because of the tone they've set. I look back on shows like MST3K and the first ten years of the Simpsons, and what I love about them is that they were both skewering and decent in ways that made them more endearing compared to, say, rewatching a good deal of South Park when the shock was much of the appeal.

The deal with the Star Trek movie is that they specifically reviewed ST and SW movies as the whole shtick essentially. It's not that they needed to sink their teeth into some nitpicking, it's just a movie that's tied to their brand for comedy sake, which is what all of their videos are first. They're not 'orthodox' reviews, I tend to contend. Comparing franchise movies within the realm of the franchise is not of the most formal practices, I presume.

Decent style comedy isn't particularly common. I'm not saying gross out humor is the essence of comedy now (and RLM is pretty vulgar), but of the most popular comedy in like media in general, it's mostly vulgar. So I mean right here you're pointing to two crowning achievements in comedy imo that are set apart from the norm.

While I’m not against vulgar humor (I really enjoy Harley Quinn and Frankie Boyle’s material when he was on Mock The Week) it’s not my personal favourite, and shows like South Park that do it to get a reaction I don’t even bother watching, same thing with RedLetterMedia, Nostalgia Critic and any other channel that follows the angry reviewer or click-bait video shtick.

For me personally the points that those type of videos convey can be summed up with “This is a bad thing and you should feel bad for liking it!”, and what they believe is that negativity equals honesty and cynicism equals intelligence, and end up saying the same things over and over, in the end I personally just tune them out.

My personal favorite reviewers are both SFDebris and Linkara and both for the same reasons, they are both very funny and entertaining, both able to articulate their points of view very well, both have a lot of experience and knowledge in what they talk about and are willing to say when they do not, they both present thoughtful insights and information because of the amount of research their put into their reviews; but for me personally, they both get me to think more, not just about what they are covering but about any other works, and with all that they both convey positive messages through their respective shows, that we can all be better people.

Some other shows I like for those same reasons are both Silver-Quill and Firebrand who mostly review My Little Pony Friendship is Magic content, (I strongly recommend two of Silver-Quill’s videos After the Fact: Get a Life! and Fluttershy Micro Supplement Video), Ross’s Game Dungeon and CinemaWins are also great channels for those same reasons, while I don’t watch all of their content, Renegade Cut, FilmJoy and Steve Shives are really thought provoking, The Thought Theater did a really great video on Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker, entertainment wise Movie Nights Star Trek reviews and JobbytheHony’s toy reviews are hilarious, and in terms of learning about different shows, Gerry Anderson Primer’s, Chris McFeely’s Transformers: The Basics and Certifiably Ingame’s Star Trek videos are all great stuff.

Every one of these people I’ve mentioned I recommend watching if anyone ever has the time.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

For me personally the points that those type of videos convey can be summed up with “This is a bad thing and you should feel bad for liking it!”, and what they believe is that negativity equals honesty and cynicism equals intelligence, and end up saying the same things over and over, in the end I personally just tune them out.

A lot of videos of the like have misleading articulations and interpretations of scenes that I don't think warrant formal plot criticism. I believe the whole objective opinion stance is frequent among people here. The further a piece deviates from a formal thesis approach the more open to uncertainty in the integrity of the overall and subsequent points. Just how much a producer depends on and abuses logical criterium depends on the person, which is overall influenced more or less by how much comedy is a fundamental purpose of the video.

Some videos tend to take the arguments they pose very seriously, while some will be receptive to others' opinion and maybe even be humble about their own opinions. Though it's all kind of part of the ruse as far as these videos being largely for anything from entertainment to shameless catharsis, at least among some people I think.

The point is though is that they're the devil and ymmv.

[Beastro]

Decent style comedy isn't particularly common. I'm not saying gross out humor is the essence of comedy now (and RLM is pretty vulgar), but of the most popular comedy in like media in general, it's mostly vulgar. So I mean right here you're pointing to two crowning achievements in comedy imo that are set apart from the norm.

And is why I've largely given up on comedy going on ten years now.

For me personally the points that those type of videos convey can be summed up with “This is a bad thing and you should feel bad for liking it!”, and what they believe is that negativity equals honesty and cynicism equals intelligence, and end up saying the same things over and over, in the end I personally just tune them out.

I think it's more like Norm Macdonald's old podcast jokes section where the humour feels like a chance to see wtf they can get away with really pushing things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWzTIO51DI

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Decent style comedy isn't particularly common. I'm not saying gross out humor is the essence of comedy now (and RLM is pretty vulgar), but of the most popular comedy in like media in general, it's mostly vulgar. So I mean right here you're pointing to two crowning achievements in comedy imo that are set apart from the norm.

And is why I've largely given up on comedy going on ten years now.

I'd say the respective opposite of this issue is clapter, though I'm not sure how much of a thing this will turn into on social media.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

The Plinkett persona adds a veneer of authority somehow. Watching Re:view or Half in the Bag, they come across as regular guys with varying opinions and tastes on film. Granted they have seen and know a lot more about movies than most people, but you can take or leave their recommendations without a judgmental vibe.

Even most good blockbusters/genre films can be nitpicked to death. A show like Picard with fairly glaring flaws, whether or not it gets let off the hook can come down to whether actually enjoy the show. I thought the end of the review was a pretty good articulation of what their "real" problem with Picard is, and it only amplifies the other issues the show has. It's a perspective that resonates with a lot of Star Trek fans now.

[Beastro]

The Plinkett persona adds a veneer of authority somehow. Watching Re:view or Half in the Bag, they come across as regular guys with varying opinions and tastes on film. Granted they have seen and know a lot more about movies than most people, but you can take or leave their recommendations without a judgmental vibe.

It's the reverse for me. I find them more appealing when they drop the wisecracking act and relax to focus more on point by point issues interspersed with a tasteless joke rather than trying to think up witty comments to mock something with.

It's best done when it works with their filming back ground (IIRC, at least Mike went to film school).

An good example of that is Suburban Sasquatch where they pointed out the desperate filming techniques resulted in negatively effecting the movie. Lacking the equipment to hook the camera onto the open window of the car used in the open, for instance, required the cameraman to walk along beside the car to tape the internal driving dialogue. That then resulted in the car crawling along at walking speed for a scene that was meant to be two people driving to a location at normal driving speed that makes them seem like people trying to inch through a logging road or are searching around lost, completely incongruous with their dialogue and demeanor.

I don't know how many other similar channels do that, but I find it and their casual way of pointing that stuff out funnier than their zingers most of the time.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

The Plinkett persona adds a veneer of authority somehow. Watching Re:view or Half in the Bag, they come across as regular guys with varying opinions and tastes on film. Granted they have seen and know a lot more about movies than most people, but you can take or leave their recommendations without a judgmental vibe.

It's the reverse for me. I find them more appealing when they drop the wisecracking act and relax to focus more on point by point issues interspersed with a tasteless joke rather than trying to think up witty comments to mock something with.

It's best done when it works with their filming back ground (IIRC, at least Mike went to film school).

Oh I agree. Their planned routines/skits/humor are fairly hit and miss for me. There's good Plinkett stuff and their prequel reviews are iconic within that niche, but overall I prefer the relaxed dialogue (albeit without a lot of hope for the future of movies) with more spontaneous wit and the occasional sight gag.

Besides the raunchy humor and sharp criticisms, the thinly veiled use of a character like Plinkett suggests a sort of snideness that can almost be kind of daunting. When I eventually got around to watching non-Plinkett stuff I was pretty surprised by Mike's general affability and lack of snootiness. Granted the three main guys at least have a lot of cynicism.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The Plinkett persona adds a veneer of authority somehow. Watching Re:view or Half in the Bag, they come across as regular guys with varying opinions and tastes on film. Granted they have seen and know a lot more about movies than most people, but you can take or leave their recommendations without a judgmental vibe.

Even most good blockbusters/genre films can be nitpicked to death. A show like Picard with fairly glaring flaws, whether or not it gets let off the hook can come down to whether actually enjoy the show. I thought the end of the review was a pretty good articulation of what their "real" problem with Picard is, and it only amplifies the other issues the show has. It's a perspective that resonates with a lot of Star Trek fans now.

This style of review works more for retro media, or at least works stronger for me for what kind of tone is coming across. I don't think a concurrent digest mixes with a formal take on movies just coming out that are essentially gripes. Not saying it's not possible, but a lot of this stuff just needs light to grow for understanding a lot of the time to focus on more seeded gripes. It's a slippery surface for that matter.

Nonetheless, for Picard yeah I had a developed feeling of indifference so Plinkett was really welcome in this case.