Star Wars 8 shit talk

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".

^^^

would be interesting to see them acknowledge this, but of course they won't. can't bite the hand that feeds!

the strange ppl andrew knows are also most of them ilxors or former ilxors i suspect

Not so! Though Pete is a paragon of the form, of course.

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"

I was being rhetorical, of course I know why they don't do it. But my broader point is that by failing to deviate from these movies, they're no better than the vloggers and sequels they deride.

cogs in the machinery etc.

but they are better because they are consuming from a distance. they are consuming with detachment, with an air of intellectual superiority, simply through the act of claiming that it is beneath them. they are "putting on a performance" to use the very popular modern excuse. their fans are implicit in this. they get the joke. they joke is that they are above whatever it is they are doing. it's the same po-mo "what is authenticity" dance favored by pretentious musicians and artists, only dumbed down to the Walmart checkout line.

the Father John Misty thread is over there

not sure i'd take directions to threads from Οὖτις today

heyo

For the record, no, they did not review Moonlight.

FWIW I think there are models where they could broaden their coverage a bit without necessarily screwing themselves or biting the hand that feeds or whatever. The F This Movie model might fit the bill for example - podcasts are dedicated to a specific movie, usually a big geek crowd-pleaser, but the opening twenty-ish minutes are a roundup where the host asks the guest host what they've seen lately and you get some conversation going around kind of whatever - minor new movies, old things they just saw, etc. It's not a perfect show or anything but that tactic does kind of broaden the coverage quite a bit.

Of course some people will just skip past to the main movie - offering an out to the kind of geek that really only just wants to click in, hear if the podcasters agreed/disagreed with their own hot-take, and click back out - but they'd still get their clicks and maybe the main conversation would even be enriched by this bigger discussion going on. I mean idk why I'm trying to back-seat drive their show when I have so many beefs with them but it's a whole genre of shows like this.

I'm just a little surprised they never even accidentally invoke or reference a movie outside their bullseye. They could stick to their usual fare forever, that's fine, but it's weird that even when they're ripping on stuff their examples always seem to be directly related to the movie at hand. So a big complaint about a new Star Trek might be how it's not as good as an old Star Trek, though better than the last Star Trek. A new Alien movie is discussed almost exclusively in the context of old Alien movies. They can go deep on Star Wars, but only how it fails or succeeds compared to old Star Wars. I don't know if this is intentional, some sort of hyper-myopic discipline, but it's just so ... circular. They do do annual (I think?) catch up episodes that tackle other movies outside their typical purview, but it's obviously rushed.

I actually like the show and reviews and observations, but can't quite figure them out, and don't always feel it's exclusively cynicism at work. Like, sometimes Mike will reveal some massive gap in his knowledge, and I think, you're a professional film geek who went to film school who watches movies for a living, and you haven't seen x?

"man that new Star Wars was so far inferior to Gunga Din"