• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Red Letter Media |OT| of Movies, Murderers, and Pizza Rolls

I really liked this episode. Some really fun moments. I'd think that lots of the influence on today's adaptations comes from LOTR, which interestingly they barely mentioned. There were lots of films that were clearly made as a response to it.
 
I didn't care for this as much as most episodes. I'm guessing because both films were just ok. Usually they do a good job dissecting what works or didn't work in a humorous way. This time around the jist was "well, it was well made, just boring."

I'd have liked a bit more to it personally. Still not a bad way to spend 30-40 min.
 
Oh man, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief.

Never seen that movie, but it is amazing just how much of a Harry Potter ripoff it was just from the description.
 

Bluth54

Member
I'm kinda disappointed the Star Trek V review is a commentary and not a video.

Maybe I should buy the commentaries. I haven't bought any of them. Are they as good as the videos?
 

Davey Cakes

Member
I didn't care for this as much as most episodes. I'm guessing because both films were just ok. Usually they do a good job dissecting what works or didn't work in a humorous way. This time around the jist was "well, it was well made, just boring."
In a way this actually nailed the problem with these fairy tale movies. It's not that their bad (which can actually be a good thing when it comes to entertaining critic reviews), it's that they're "just ok" which makes them uninteresting to talk about.

I enjoyed the review though, and it was interesting to see how both Mike and Jay recommended both movies (to a degree). Mike's enjoyment of "Jack" was surprising.

One of the best parts was when Mike did all those action movie gestures to describe the difference between Hansel and Gretel and Jack the Giant Slayer.
 
I feel like I've been talking about the LOTR angle for some time now and how fantasy stories have to have massive battles. It felt out of place in Alice in Wonderland. Of course it has to be in Jack the Giant Slayer, and seeing huge battles in the trailers for the new Oz movie just felt stupid.
 
I now know what I dislike about red letter media:

every single clip feels like film making 101. they keep mentioning how they liked this camera angle or this shot, and all of that is pretty basic stuff, but they throw in some funny comments which makes it less pretentious. "oh yes quentin is a fantastic film maker, but it took me, maybe more than anyone else, out of a scene where he used stock sounds for doors".

then, their complaints are usually really, really subjective painted in a "this is objectively bad" light. example: in the star wars episode 1 review they ask people to describe characters from episode 1 and from the old movies. they struggle with new characters and its easy for them to describe old characters. but they didnt use jar jar for example who, while annoying, is as easily described as c3po but they chose to use amidala instead (who could also be easily described but is not as much of a character archetype compared to han solo or whatever)
 
I now know what I dislike about red letter media:

every single clip feels like film making 101. they keep mentioning how they liked this camera angle or this shot, and all of that is pretty basic stuff, but they throw in some funny comments which makes it less pretentious. "oh yes quentin is a fantastic film maker, but it took me, maybe more than anyone else, out of a scene where he used stock sounds for doors".

then, their complaints are usually really, really subjective painted in a "this is objectively bad" light. example: in the star wars episode 1 review they ask people to describe characters from episode 1 and from the old movies. they struggle with new characters and its easy for them to describe old characters. but they didnt use jar jar for example who, while annoying, is as easily described as c3po but they chose to use amidala instead (who could also be easily described but is not as much of a character archetype compared to han solo or whatever)

don't even try to compare those two characters.
 
i actually think none is better than the other in terms of annoyances, but this is only about being able to describe the character without saying what he looks like and what his position is.

as far as I'm concerned, "c3po" isn't a character trade though.
jarjar has no real character, just like anyone else. he's only providing slapstick/cartoony humour. he's like a caricature.
c3po on the other hand was stubborn, a total know-it-all and uptight. and he wasn't even a human being, just a fucking robot that had more character than anyone in the prequels.

plus: I think the fact that mike & jay keep referring to basic filmmaking rules is a solid foundation for their critique. of course it always has a subjective tone but when they point out that amidala was a poorly developed character and stuff, it's pretty much a fact regarding how narrative structures etc. are usually executed.
 

Davey Cakes

Member
If there's one thing I wanted more of in the actual review, it was talk about hypothetical fairy tale action movies. Just watched the extra footage, and it delivered!

Love more of the action-movie "speed up, slow down" gesturing by Mike.
 
I now know what I dislike about red letter media:

every single clip feels like film making 101. they keep mentioning how they liked this camera angle or this shot, and all of that is pretty basic stuff, but they throw in some funny comments which makes it less pretentious. "oh yes quentin is a fantastic film maker, but it took me, maybe more than anyone else, out of a scene where he used stock sounds for doors".

Not really seeing where your compliant is here. I see nothing pretentious or trying to be funny about the comment you quoted.

then, their complaints are usually really, really subjective painted in a "this is objectively bad" light. example: in the star wars episode 1 review they ask people to describe characters from episode 1 and from the old movies. they struggle with new characters and its easy for them to describe old characters. but they didnt use jar jar for example who, while annoying, is as easily described as c3po but they chose to use amidala instead (who could also be easily described but is not as much of a character archetype compared to han solo or whatever)
The point they were trying to get across in this skit was that the majority of the main characters in Episode 1 are difficult to describe without using physical characteristics (or their jobs or something). What if they had included Jar Jar? He's easy to describe as a bumbling idiot and that's it. Amadala? Drawing a blank on her personality, she's a Queen and wants to protect her people. She doesn't show much more personality than that.
They might not be as IMPOSSIBLE to describe as the skit clearly makes it seem, but that doesn't make them any less dull and forgettable.

Of course that's a subjective observation, what do you expect? When you watch a video called "Why this movie sucks" do you expect to agree with every point that is brought up? There are some objectively bad things like continuity errors, plotholes, poor sets, etc, but those are pretty damn boring to talk about.
These videos are for entertainment as much as they are about expressing an opinion on their thoughts about movies.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I now know what I dislike about red letter media:

every single clip feels like film making 101. they keep mentioning how they liked this camera angle or this shot, and all of that is pretty basic stuff, but they throw in some funny comments which makes it less pretentious. "oh yes quentin is a fantastic film maker, but it took me, maybe more than anyone else, out of a scene where he used stock sounds for doors".

then, their complaints are usually really, really subjective painted in a "this is objectively bad" light. example: in the star wars episode 1 review they ask people to describe characters from episode 1 and from the old movies. they struggle with new characters and its easy for them to describe old characters. but they didnt use jar jar for example who, while annoying, is as easily described as c3po but they chose to use amidala instead (who could also be easily described but is not as much of a character archetype compared to han solo or whatever)

Wow, so wrong. So Jar Jar is easy to describe, one character out of the whole movie, yet all characters in the originals are easy to describe. Come on.

And really, "Jar Jar is dumb", is pretty much all you can say of him.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I'm kinda disappointed the Star Trek V review is a commentary and not a video.

Maybe I should buy the commentaries. I haven't bought any of them. Are they as good as the videos?

I listened to it along the movie yesterday.
 

Cheerilee

Member
Oh man, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief.

Never seen that movie, but it is amazing just how much of a Harry Potter ripoff it was just from the description.

It was produced/directed by Chris Columbus, the guy who produced/directed Harry Potter 1&2 (and wrote Gremlins and The Goonies). I expected it to be about as good as Harry Potter, even if it was never going to be a mega-hit like Harry Potter. Sadly, it wasn't even close.

Percy Jackson (as a story) doesn't really rip off Harry Potter at all, it's just pretty blatantly advertised to the Harry Potter audience. Not as badly advertised to Harry Potter's audience as Bridge to Terabithia though. The false advertising for Terabithia is enough to make people rage.


Also, LOL at The Golden Compass being a Narnia sequel. For those who don't know, The Golden Compass was written by an atheist who was feeling particularly pissed off about the religious allegory in Narnia.
 
Need opinions immediately

Are the commentary tracks worth it?

I kind of want to impulse buy the ST V one but I don't know if any of them are any good. It's nearly 11pm so time is of the essence.
 

GavinGT

Banned
Oh, ok.

I've seen a few Rifftrax commentaries and MST3k episodes in my time. I'm guessing RLM ones don't really stack up?

I watched Phantom Menace with the commentary track. Most of the commentary either felt recycled from his review or just fell flat.

I can't speak to how it stacks up to other commentary tracks, though.
 
It could be worse. The last time my spending impulse overpowered me, it was a $35 preorder for Aliens: Colonial Marines.

And I don't even regret it that much.
 

Davey Cakes

Member
Seems like a lot of people have been saying that Oz was miscast for the most part.

I knew Kunis in particular was going to be terrible in the movie, even just from the trailer.

The ending of the review got me too. I guess I'm gullible but I didn't know exactly what they were going to do.
 
I actually didn't mind Franco too much, and I'm typically not a fan. Kunis was beyond bad though, even if I disagree that she was worse after the transformation. At least afterwards she didn't just stare blankly into space nonstop.
 
Top Bottom