Star Wars 8 shit talk

Is celebration fun? It seems like it would be a lot if waiting in line

This is my fourth one, so it's fun for me, but your experience will vary depending on whether you want to attend the big panels (with the concomitant long, uncomfortable waits), just see the exhibitor floor, meet with collectors, people watch or whatever.

Just remembered the best anecdote Hamill told about Fisher: They were doing the speeder bike scenes for ROTJ and the AD asked them not to get down in between takes to save time. Fisher kept pulling philosophy paperbacks out of her costume -- Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and so on -- and reading and highlighting them. Yanking her chain, he said, "Why do you bring those to the set when you've got the Enquirer and the Star back in your trailer?" She glared at him and said, "Because I want people to think I'm smart!"

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18010503_1421590321221281_612190387789377137_n.jpg?oh=c46d52bf765bcf787fbb62b9473613c4&oe=59816B34

My wife is in that crowd somewhere behind them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTqSkEbY_N8

Content warning: Red Letter Media doing nerd parody.

don't really understand what's going on there but i assume podcasts are bad

I think it's more YT shows trying to crassly monetize nerd fandom are bad

unless you're Chris Hardwick and laughing all the way to the fuckin bank

thing is they've been flogging this 'nerd crew' thing for several episodes. the sponsorship joke is part of it but there's also a strong anti-intellectualism, anti anybody that gets on a microphone and tries to talk thoughtfully about things. at least that's the only interpretation i can find for the glasses and the running "Me, personally..." thing. really sick of the direction these guys have decided to take over the years, but i think i've gone on about that on here recently.

Not attacking the sentiment but intellectualism is not well placed there Dr c

It's funny because at Celebration I went to a panel hosted by Dave Collins called "Rogue One: A Musical Analysis" (Collins often does music related panel) and it was really interesting. It was hardly graduate-level music theory, but he did pick out a lot of themes and explained some of the music-theoretical ideas of how they work, then went into a history of the Dies Irae, how composers have used it from Beethoven forward, and how it pops up in SW scores generally and Rogue One particularly. Really fun stuff.

And yet there's never been a panel at any of the Celebrations I've been to that does something similar from a film-theoretical standpoint, which might be equally as interesting.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

OTOH there was a Making of Rogue One panel with a hilarious gag reel not being released to the public, which included:

-- Render errors on their CGI Tarkin that made him a Cronenbergian nightmare
-- A version of the beach battle in which every shot from Baze's minigun or whatever resulted in a trooper's head exploding in a geyser of blood
-- A version of Jyn & Cassian's death on the beach done in the style of Dan Dreiberg's dream from "Watchmen," with the two turning into charred skeletons which then blow away into dust
-- The two officers in the Mon Calamari makeup -- since all their dialogue was going to be ADRed later -- filling in with lines like, "Sir, your IKEA delivery has arrived!" and "I think one of us farted!"

have you seen the nerd crews they are parodying? there are some that are just as bad as rlm portrays them.

https://youtu.be/vMtajiLLGWM?t=2m3s

omg Phil

RLM are just mining the same "performance art" cynical consumerism that passes for deepness these days.

i lol'd at the rainbow tie die shirt

have you seen the nerd crews they are parodying? there are some that are just as bad as rlm portrays them.

https://youtu.be/vMtajiLLGWM?t=2m3s

These people might wear glasses but they are idiots

the sponsorship joke is part of it but there's also a strong anti-intellectualism, anti anybody that gets on a microphone and tries to talk thoughtfully about things. at least that's the only interpretation i can find for the glasses and the running "Me, personally..." thing.

With the real fanboy vlogs, there's a level of love and attention to detail and I like that that still exists with (quasi-)artistic products. But there's also an uncritical acceptance of the gruel they're given and a hatred of any criticism that deserves to be taken down. There are a whole bunch of idiots wanting critics to be "objective" while also ignoring the many flaws of the products.

To bring it back to Star Wars, there are a number of superfans who also acknowledge the storytelling flaws in, say, ROTJ -- that ROTJ just wraps the loose ends up in a hurry. Then there are fans who want to work ewoks into a grand loops-within-loops theory of the holy sextology which is all one big film of course and how dare people criticize it.

christ that Rogue One outtakes thing sounds excellent.

The problem (well, A problem) is that RLM wants to have their cake and eat it too with regards to this fannishness - they're obviously very willing to be critical of Star Wars and the Star Wars money train, and when they're not indulging their one dude's racist tendencies and all of their "anti-PC" instincts, they can say some really sharp things about these movies.

But they still stake their bread and butter on videos which are basically clickbait for exactly these types of fans, and focus nearly all of their coverage on the same parade of big Hollywood action/genre movies that everybody else is reviewing on their podcasts and vlog-casts and what have you. They're never fed up enough to just say "we're gonna stop doing Star Wars videos," so it's not like they're totally outside this particular entertainment economy. Beating up on the people who accept all the swag and give totally uncritical reviews of stuff is low-hanging fruit and it's a low bar for them to clear imo. I'm not the first to point this out even on ILX but it's like, if you guys are going to spend every review pointing out how every movie is cynical cash-in schlock, maybe you could... watch some non-schlocky movies? In a way it's more forgivable that the Ewok-bedsheet people don't cover independent/art-house/foreign/whatever fare because it's clear they're thrilled to death with what Hollywood is giving them.

they embrace capitalism while feigning an intellectual superiority to it. that they have little to say past critiquing how others consume this media belies that they have a lack of ideas in the first place. the pose itself has become the sole idea. it's the same thing as FJM. we aren't just consuming media anymore, flattering yourself and your consumer pose is just as important, even moreso.

Beating up on the people who accept all the swag and give totally uncritical reviews of stuff is low-hanging fruit and it's a low bar for them to clear imo

this is why it's so popular these days. you can get the swag and still act superior to getting the swag.

when the promotional machine is at its most obscene ppl want some negativity and cynicism. everyone being complicit in capitalism is irrelevant, it's just a reaction

I missed the first part of this. Is this a trade federation thing?

nah, building meter data mainly

I find RLM kind of perplexing. Like, I really do appreciate and enjoy some of their analysis, and yet ... to this day I can't tell if they actually know anything about movies. Their approach is so focused on dumb mainstream/blockbuster movies (and fanboy bait) that it just heightens their cynicism, like a self-imposed limitation. Have they ever reviewed anything seriously out of their wheelhouse? Even when they go retro, or re-view or whatever they call it, it's some '80s cult sci-fi-fi or something, and even then Mike never seems to like anything. Like, how could any film geek his age have never seen Escape from NY, let alone disliked it? He obviously doesn't like a lot of the movies they cover, for obvious reasons, but what could/would he say about, say, "Psycho," or "Bringing Up Baby," or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Throne of Blood" or "M" or something?

The only thing I'll say about their 'retro' reviews is that it IS nice to see them coming out and praising things done right from time to time. The Tremors one was not a revelation by any means, but still, since they've made their name on tearing down badly-structured and thoughtlessly-executed shit, good to know that they can recognize and call out when something's done right, when the effects and plot mechanics are worth praising. The long prequel reviews had hints of this when they'd call out smart blocking and composition in Empire or the strength of the characters in Star Wars, etc., and I feel like if they would put in the effort they could serve as a sort of covert film-school education for their "sucks/doesn't suck" audience.

But yeah, the only remotely 'weird' movie they've done so far with that is Eraserhead, and tbh I'd be happy even to see them watching, like, Bullitt or the original Magnificent Seven - if they really don't want to get out of the blockbuster rut there are non-schlock blockbusters susceptible to their style of analysis!

I'm old enough to remember that "Tremors" was hailed as an extremely well done B-movie at the time, but it was nice to see them assess it as such again.

they have a series, Best of the Worst, that is pretty good and covers a lot of stuff that is not very mainstream at all (some of the stuff they cover are weird promotional videos etc). the star wars thing was likely the effort of a bunch of people all working together on it for months whereas most of their videos are just a handful of people shooting the shit for an hours.

that said i don't think i've seen them cover a movie older than Star Wars. they are focused on a generation of films, one we are still (oppressively) in. i'm fine w people sticking to what they know and like best. everyone doesn't have to be an expert on everything. these guys talk about b-movies.

that the Ewok-bedsheet people don't cover independent/art-house/foreign/whatever fare because it's clear they're thrilled to death with what Hollywood is giving them.

Though I definitely agree with what what you're saying, this is just such an odd binary to me: the people I know who are the most up for going to see an arthouse or foreign film are also the ones who are most geeked about mainstream movies (though with a critical eye - so yes Fast & Furious, no Transformers and definitely yes to modern Star Wars).

I mean, "Liking stuff doesn't stop you liking other stuff" is basically carved over the gates of ILX.

the people I know who are the most up for going to see an arthouse or foreign film are also the ones who are most geeked about mainstream movies

you know some strange people. Have you met Dr. Morbius? Or Eric H? Or Alfred? Or Clemenza? Or any of the other more film-literate film folks around here? (to say nothing of other irl arthouse film goers)

maybe it's just the "most geeked about mainstream movies" qualifier that throws me - cuz "most geeked" about Star Wars/Marvel U/DC U crap is a *very* high bar, and those fanboys don't give a fuck about arthouse.

It's not that rare. A coworker who was raving about that anime film Your Name that's wildly successful compared it to a French teen romance from the 50s (the name unfortunately escapes me) and after a minute of French film discussion she seamlessly transitioned into being excited about the new Fast & Furious movie.

I guess it's a question of being "geeked" about specific franchises or genres and being the same about film itself

feel like you guys are being deliberately obtuse about what constitutes the "most geeked" audience, specifically for Star Wars

does your coworker cosplay as an imperial stormtrooper y/n

not to my knowledge

ironically I had a stormtrooper halloween costume sitting under my work desk for a couple months after I lent it to a different coworker and was too lazy to take it home, though! maybe I should ask her if she's interested

Have you met Dr. Morbius? Or Eric H? Or Alfred? Or Clemenza?

Only one! I'm sure they're nice guys, but they're a malign influence over the film polls.

see when shakey says "most geeked" he means the people dressed as the characters in line for 24 hours before the first showing actually starts and when you guys say "most geeked" you mean people who are excited in a less specific sense so that means you are being deliberately obtuse (shakey is just being obtuse)

in what way are the people "less excited in a specific sense" MORE GEEKED than the "people dressed as characters in line for 24 hours". Because there can be ONLY ONE "most geeked"

yeah i mean i am not surprised if a large subset of the arthouse audience also goes excitedly to lots of superhero movies or whatever, but vice versa? i'm thinking noooope or else we would probably notice toni erdmann racking up $50 million at the US box office.

anyway my point was about people who make podcasts/internet shows/youtube review series, and people who spend a lot of time leaving excited comments under them. i feel comfortable saying there are a ton of such shows that really only only only tackle these blockbuster-type and "geek" movies, and rave about them (or complain only about fannish things like whether they cut out an awesome scene from the comic, or wishing we could have seen more space battle footage and explosions cause everything was so badass and awesome, or whatever). and i was saying it's not really surprising or remarkable that those people aren't giving space to anything besides multiplex-released superheroes/star wars/etc. but it's a little more annoying from people like RLM, who make such a show of being critical of and superior to most of the movies that they review. like great, i agree, transformers looks like a fucking mess. how about you review something else then? this problem's not limited to them of course, it comes with a lot of internet people who find success being snarky about pop culture. i also suspect such people's fanbases skew male and skew teens/early 20s which might also be a factor here.

i do like some of their 'best of the worst' stuff. it would benefit from much more serious editing, and kicking rich evans out of their crew. and adding the voices of women and people of color. but i've said all this before.

I assure you I did not come here to attempt to stop shakey bullying nerds.

these guys saw Snowpiercer and liked it they arent total rubes

apologies for any disingenuous reinterpretation, I value cranking at shakey over clowning cosplay nerds who are generally decent people and not all obsessives who are uncritical about film

I assure you I did not come here to attempt to stop shakey bullying nerds.

tbf I am mostly just bitter about nerd-dom's transition from a marginal culture w/a heavy DIY & countercultural context to a mainstream culture eagerly strapping on corporate feedbags, cuz I definitely remember/still enjoy the former, while the latter has become one of the most nauseatingly oppressive cultural forces ever. (could say the same thing about the tech industry - hippie mathematicians building weird shit in their garages = awesome! Techbros fleecing investors for Juicero's = good god you should all be shot)

xp

star wars killed the nerdio star

lol

everyone doesn't have to be an expert on everything. these guys talk about b-movies.

Absolutely! But one of their biggest, most redundant complaints about big Hollywood blockbusters is "oh no, it's another shitty Hollywood blockbuster." Like they are some straight-faced basement MST3K, forced to watch multiplex fare against their will. Like the "fuck you, it's January!" clips - we get it, Hollywood makes shitty movies and the year will be packed with Smurfs and Transformers sequels. But their complaints feel pretty silly when there are all sorts of "indie" movies they could review, even in Milwaukee, without going full Carl Dryer and Hou Hsiao-hsien. They recently reviewed Get Out and loved it, and that was cool, why not more like that? They reviewed "La La Land" (like it was some weird artifact), did they even review "Moonlight?" Why even waste time reviewing the Power Rangers movie or Bye Bye Man? By sticking to the usual shit-sandwich suspects they are relying on the same sort of lazy shorthand that drives Hollywood sequels. Imo.

they know what gets clicks, is why

Why even waste time reviewing the Power Rangers movie or Bye Bye Man?

because they lucked into youtube fame. it is their day job to do this, to talk about these shit movies. if they ceased all comic book and Star Wars related videos and spent a few months on a longform review of "Juliet of the Spirits" they would go bankrupt. remember that they got their big break talking about "The Phantom Menace".