Their content is beyond the pale stale. Who the fuck wants to watch an hour long re:View of Back to the Future?

Me, I watched it.

>>212151823 (OP)
Fuck you 4Chan, you weird psy-op, data gathering fuckshow. Stop building threads off my comments and pictures you fucking AI demon.

>>212151823 (OP)
I don't understand the point of these segments when the outcome is "yup it's still really good" like it would be better to point out serious flaws and give a different perspective at movies deemed good or bad not just agree with the mainstream opinion

>>212151983
endless criticism for the sake of criticism is fake and gay
when something is good, call it good
when something is bad, like the batman, call it bad

>>212151823 (OP)
RLM have basically become movie prop curators

>>212151823 (OP)
It's an eighteen year old youtube channel. If you're expecting it to be fresh that's on you.

>>212151899
I don't believe you.

>>212152011
>endless criticism for the sake of criticism is fake and gay
That wasn't my point. Read my post again. I am not saying they should shit on that. I am saying if they aren't bringing anything new to the table don't bother and I specifically mentioned good AND bad movies meaning they could also find praise in something that was historically seen as bad

>>212151983
Because highlighting what works is as important as picking apart what doesn't. And they start at the beginning by saying its a hard movie to talk about because its basically perfect unless you want to be an asshole trying to complain about the temporal mechanics of the series.

>>212152054
Keeping the channel fresh is part of RLM's job.

>>212152087
>its basically perfect
Then don't bother. We all know it's good. We all know why it's good. This was just an unnecessary movie.

>>212152011
Why do they seethe about Lucas so much then?

>>212151983
>point out serious flaws and give a different perspective at movies deemed good or bad not just agree with the mainstream opinion
This is a terrible idea. No wonder you are anonymous.

>>212152132
They have done this with some movies in the past though and I am anonymous because this is an anonymous board

>>212152103
According to whom?

>>212152119
Read the first sentence.
Are you mentally retarded, or a bot?

>>212152200
According to me.
Thaddeus Q. Reidleyder-Metia VI, esq.

>>212152214
I read. My point stands

>>212152119
>We all know it's good.
True
>We all know why it's good.
Most of us do, but those who don't should have it spelled out and their heads banged against it so they don't forget.

>>212152200
According to anyone who runs a show. This is known to everyone who isn't a retard. This is on you for not knowing that. You retard.

>>212152277
I think most people know its good just because its structured well and tells a good story and has a very good cast. It's actually not complicated new movies lack all that + politics ruin it. Hell I have seen the BTTF Broadway play and it has politics and race shit and changed plot points for racial sensitivity which completely ruins it.

>>212152277
>Most of us do
I don't think it was a great review, but there are a lot of times where you can take a movie that's universally agreed to be good, and still explain a lot of the reasons WHY it was good. Things you might not have noticed, but your brain did.
Steven Soderberg used to have a blog where he talked about random bits of film making. The one that always stood out to me was his bit about cinematography. A lot of people might know that is about how a shot is framed and shot, etc. but he goes a little deeper. He took the opening of raiders, pulled out all the sound, made it black and white, and you just watched that opening bit set to generic orchestral music, with everything stripped out except for the picture, framing, and lighting you understand every piece of information you need to know through the visual language of how it is shot. And once you can start to look at movies with that context you can star to appreciate film on a new level beyond the literal narrative.

>>212151983
>Opinion must be controversial

>>212152454
Yea if you want to make an interesting show sure but I am not advocating for being contrarian for contrarian sake they need to be honest about it. I think their predator 2 review did that well

>>212152410
I compare this review to their Tremors and Total Recall ones where they really have almost no complaints about the original movie and it's mostly just them going through and detailing why it's good and why it works (and why some sequels/remakes/etc. don't): Most of which usually boils down to talking about the importance of structure, setups and payoffs, and planning and effective use of resources.

Modern directors who focus too much on subverting expectations or trying to fix poor planning with sloppy VFX should take note.

>>212151975
We're not watching you any more.

>>212151823 (OP)
>Their content is beyond the pale stale.
So you keep saying, Arjun, but it's about as good as it's always been. Why are you so emotionally invested in this?

LOOK AT ME! IT'S ME!
BUH-BUH-BOP!
WHAAAAAAT?

>>212152633
Nothing wrong with subverting expectations, part of what makes the empire strikes back stand out, especially back when star wars was just the OT is that if you hadn't seen it before you get a gut punch because the good guys don't win at the end. Its dark without being grim, but the narrative of the movie has a satisfying climax, but everyone is at a much much lower point than where they started, and they're burdened by the character growth. They live, lessons are learned, and they find a newly tempered resolve in the face of the setback, which is a great moment for any hero, but narratively that's the point of the second act, and not the post climax denouement.
And while it wraps up its narrative nicely, it leaves plenty of solid threads that can be picked up (rescuing han, luke's knowledge of vader, leia realizing she has a deeper connection with luke, lando's redemption, etc).

>>212151823 (OP)
I do

>>212151823 (OP)
Did Jay get hair transplant and dental surgery and beard transplant over the years? Because if you go watch old videos he looks really gross and ugly like a weird hilbilly

>>212151823 (OP)
I watched it twice

>>212152925
I think he just started taking care of himself and grooming his beard into something besides that gross scraggly chinstrap.

>>212152086
its closer to a tribute video since this year is the movies anniversary. theres nothing else to be said about back to the future that hasnt been said before, its dearly beloved and known all over the world.

>>212152830
Subverting expectations, when done well, can be great, but subverting expectations in and of itself is not a substitute for having coherent structure and satisfying setup and payoff in your screenplay. Modern filmmakers are like cargo cultists; they replicate stuff they've seen without understanding what it is or how or why it works or doesn't.

>>212153236
>subverting expectations in and of itself is not a substitute for having coherent structure and satisfying setup and payoff in your screenplay
Counterpoint: pic related. Almost ALL of the humor in the movie is because you're set up with expectations from all the detective/cop action cliche bullshit you're used to, and the joke is how it doesn't play out that way. The shootout when the people are two feet away hiding behind trash cans ruins pretty much every shootout because I just edit that joke in. And they had a whole career out of that.
I don't think any of those things are in and of themselves "bad" you can do anything, but you've got to have some kind of style about it.
Like people can hate jump scares, but one of the best scares in cinematic history is a jump scare, in the thing, and its wonderfully set up, and incredibly earned.
Jump scares aren't the problem, neither is subverting expectations, the problem is shitty film makers and manufactured corporate product.

>>212153236
>>212153399
I think this is the thing, it depends on what you're making

In a comedy like Naked Gun the story isn't the primary thing, the humor is, so subverting expectations without consideration to the story, even to the point of breaking it, can slide because that would be part of the joke.

Modern Subverting Expectations come from people who seem to be doing it without understanding their own story, unaware that they're breaking it.

>>212151823 (OP)
Jay needs to pay off the mortgage while Mike is still lucid enough to sometimes form sentences that make sense.

>>212151823 (OP)
>*reads retarded internet review* (RLM version of posting xitter screenshots on 4chan)
>Jay laughing at everything Mike says
>"any movie that doesn't follow the same 80's boilerplate cliches is le bad"
>"this is how the movie's plot should have played out, I know this because I directed Space Cop!"
>"remember this movie from the 80s/90s??? but we're not pathetic Gen-X man-children because we make fun of those!!"

>>212151975
Thanks for posting again. This will help the data set

>>212151823 (OP)
>What are they even doing at this point?
Churning out low effort filler content to keep their patreon paypigs barely satiated but continuously hungry.

>>212151823 (OP)
>still subscribed

>>212154321
54321 nice, also one day they will die and I want to be first to know.

>>212151823 (OP)
back to the future is one of the most dull, stupid, pointless movies I've ever watched. it's reputation as a classic film is indicative of widespread retardation.

>>212154574
It's on the same level as Click (2006) and it's tiresome to hear otherwise. 6.5/10

>>212153603
>the story isn't the primary thing
Just because I want to be an argumentative bitch, I'd say what makes those ZAZ and Mel Brooks parodies work is that they DID have stories, as opposed to the era of scary movie where its just a bunch of shitty mad-tv sketches referencing previews for movies that weren't out during the films production that no one will recognize after the movies came out.
The zuckers-abrahams movies especially had strict rules about how their stupid nonsense and jokes should be in service of the plot, Frank Drebin is trying to stop a plan and when he's manhandling the queen of england its to save her from that plan.

>>212153399
Counter-counterpoint. A good spoof movie still requires structure, setup and payoff, and a thorough understanding of the genre tropes being subverted to work... if anything it requires *more* of these things than just making a standard genre film, because if you don't understand what you're spoofing and how and why these sorts of genre films are structured the way they are and the tropes common to them, the comedy is going to fall flat.

It's hard to put into words, but if I were to describe the fundamental difference between a good spoof and a bad spoof it's this: A good spoof isn't in on the joke.

>>212155037
Double counter point - the ending of blazing saddles where it breaks the fourth wall with the greatest line delivered in cinematic history
FUCK YOU! I WORK FOR MEL BROOKS! POW

>>212151823 (OP)
>>212151983
40th or whatever anniversary. People are going to watch it for the first time. They're gonna wanna talk about it. Where are they gonna go? HERE???? Even rewatchers enjoy revisting.

>>212155617
>>They're gaming the algorithm for clicks
Things really got that bad? Jeez.

>days without seething about fat balding midwesterners = 0

I was distracted by Mike's blotchy alcohol face.

>>212155793
He looks like the Stay Puft man lived in a brewery for a decade

>>212151823 (OP)
I’ve watched this movie so many times growing up it’s nuts but I rewatched after many years of not watching and I have to agree it’s basically as perfect a film as you can get. The pacing is just off the charts perfect. The tense scenes are tense with purpose, the physical acting is great and adds some nice laughs. They definitely don’t make shit like this anymore, and I doubt any living writer in Hollywood today could make a movie that comes close.

I watch it while cooking dinner. When there is no new ep, I watch an old one. With the older ones, I am at three years mark and man, the COVID years are as if from a different time-line. What a fucking joke that whole things was.

>>212153059
He just started browsing /fit/ and got it together

>>212151823 (OP)
Wtf? An hour-long review of Bttf by RLM? My sunday is saved. Thanks, Op.