Support NeoGAF

[JCHandsom]

Again, my point is not "my opinion can never be wrong" it's "opinions about art can't really ever be wrong."

There's more interesting ways to discuss films than trying to convince the other person that you have better tastes than they do or that your opinions are more correct.

That's correct, but opinions about art can be superficial or poorly founded. If someone came up to me and said "I liked Ghostbusters 2016 because I find Chris Hemsworth attractive," they're absolutely within their right to do so, but there isn't a whole lot of room for me to discuss the film beyond Chris Hemsworth's attractiveness if they aren't interested in considering all the other factors at play.

I've had my mind changed about films, games, and shows plenty of times because of different opinions that had compelling arguments behind them. I used to defend Metroid: Other M because it "gave Samus a character," until I discussed the issue with someone and realized that she already had a character that was in fact being contradicted. The phrase "I didn't think of it that way" is, for me, one of the most powerful tools for intellectual development. I think the subjective nature of art (i.e. there is no one "correct" answer to the question of whether or not a film is good or bad) is what makes discussions of quality so great, because it means everyone's argument is forced to stand against each other and everyone gets a good mental workout considering new perspectives.

 

[Inferno313]

That's correct, but opinions about art can be superficial or poorly founded. If someone came up to me and said "I liked Ghostbusters 2016 because I find Chris Hemsworth attractive," they're absolutely within their right to do so, but there isn't a whole lot of room for me to discuss the film beyond Chris Hemsworth's attractiveness if they aren't interested in considering all the other factors at play.

I've had my mind changed about films, games, and shows plenty of times because of different opinions that had compelling arguments behind them. I used to defend Metroid: Other M because it "gave Samus a character," until I discussed the issue with someone and realized that she already had a character that was in fact being contradicted. The phrase "I didn't think of it that way" is, for me, one of the most powerful tools for intellectual development. I think the subjective nature of art (i.e. there is no one "correct" answer to the question of whether or not a film is good or bad) is what makes discussions of quality so great, because it means everyone's argument is forced to stand against each other and everyone gets a good mental workout considering new perspectives.

Agreed completely.

 

[Nekketsu Kõha]

Not salt. I just think their videos are way too long for the amount of actual coherent points given within.

They could cover the same ground in 10 minutes, and it'd be a better piece.

And the new Ghostbusters movie can be summed up by one honest trailers.

 

[Inferno313]

And the new Ghostbusters movie can be summed up by one honest trailers.

I like honest trailers a lot. I think they're kind of way better at this shit than RLM, honestly.

 

[phanphare]

Not salt. I just think their videos are way too long for the amount of actual coherent points given within.

They could cover the same ground in 10 minutes, and it'd be a better piece.

I disagree and I think this review is proof of that

they did such a good job of showing why things were wrong, how they have been done better in the past, and how they could have been done better in this movie

the review itself would have been worse off if they didn't show their work, so to speak

things like highlighting the dialogue heavy bits, contrasting them with the original movie where things were allowed room to breathe, and editing the scenes to show how they could have been better

all of that would have been lost if it was just a 10 minute "hey here's some reasons why this movie was bad"

 

[rashbeep]

Any time I watch a review where the reviewer just shits on the movie I ask myself if the review is better, more clever, funnier, or more entertaining than the movie it's shitting on and the answer is almost invariably no.

the answer is yes to all above

i couldn't even finish the 3rd act of GB 2016.

 

[Violence Jack]

Ghostbusters 2 is a disappointingly lazy retread that I can still somewhat enjoy, since it still makes me laugh several times thanks to some inspired gags (amongst some lesser ones, everything with Louis in the third act ehhh).

Ghostbusters 2016 didn't make me laugh once and was utterly insufferable to sit through. Guess I'm out of my fucking mind then

Same thing here. I can recognize the many, many faults of GB2, but it's still an entertaining, dumb fun movie. My wife and I both found GB 2016 hard to sit through as it wasn't funny, had a bad villain, too much ad-libbing, and really felt like a pointless reboot. I did like the visuals and Kate McKinnon for the most part.

 

[Inferno313]

I disagree and I think this review is proof of that

they did such a good job of showing why things were wrong, how they have been done better in the past, and how they could have been done better in this movie

the review itself would have been worse off if they didn't show their work, so to speak

things like highlighting the dialogue heavy bits, contrasting them with the original movie where things were allowed room to breathe, and editing the scenes to show how they could have been better

all of that would have been lost if it was just a 10 minute "hey here's some reasons why this movie was bad"

If they'd make hour long videos praising under-appreciated films instead of tearing one down, I'd be much more interested in their output.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

If they'd make hour long videos praising under-appreciated films instead of tearing one down, I'd be much more interested in their output.

they have a series called Re:View where they rewatch films they usually like and discuss it.

Recently they did Martin by Romero which Jay and Josh really love. Each episode tends to be 20-30 minutes. So they actually do this. Of course sometimes they watch a film they don't like but discuss it with little bias, a bit of history etc... like in Re:View they talked about Bladerunner which RLM doesn't like but Jay and the canadian guest weren't offensive about it they just went over basic discussion.

 

[phanphare]

If they'd make hour long videos praising under-appreciated films instead of tearing one down, I'd be much more interested in their output.

that's a different argument altogether

my point was that if this review had been condensed down to 10 minutes like you suggested it would be worse off not better

 

[pirateluigi]

If they'd make hour long videos praising under-appreciated films instead of tearing one down, I'd be much more interested in their output.

That's what the Re:view series is for

 

[Garlador]

If they'd make hour long videos praising under-appreciated films instead of tearing one down, I'd be much more interested in their output.

Well, half the reviews tend to be talking about what made original incarnations so great and looking at the craftsmanship and talent that shaped them into the successes they are, and how the new ones fail to replicate that magic.

Glass half-full, mate.

 

[SeanC]

They're certainly not amateurs at making videos 10 times longer than they need to be, I'll give them that.

I'll agree that a lot of internet "critics" go way too long on their videos to make their point, and I'd even consider this a good 15-20 min longer than it needs to be because the Plinkett character stuff tries too hard to be funny for a good chunk of it, but this is a better example of doing long-form analysis while maintaining a good pace and moving on from argument to argument to stake its case.

It doesn't repeat itself constantly and edits in examples far better than 90% of the garbage youtubers out there. It also moves at a way better pace than a lot of other longer-vids out there, that's for sure. Well structured and edited and even thought the Plinkett character overstays his welcome, it at least manages to use it constructively to transition from topic to topic and allow callbacks to a previous joke.

I'm not a fan of overindulgence and overwriting when it comes to film reviews and analysis, I think most make their point in 20-30 minutes and the rest of their vid is just them grandstanding and repeating the same shit but in different ways, but this is one of the better examples of how to do it right.

 

[Nekketsu Kõha]

That's what the Re:view series is for

I doubt he ever visited their channel.

Also the review for Titanic wasn't tearing that movie down.

 

[Inferno313]

I doubt he ever visited their channel.

Also the review for Titanic wasn't tearing that movie down.

No need to be defensive. We're all arguing in good faith here.

I was actually a pretty big fan of RLM when I was about 16-17, as their original Prequel trilogy reviews were hitting. 4 years of film school, and a few more years of growing/developing my own tastes and thoughts regarding film, story-telling, and criticism and I've come to find that I fundamentally disagree with RLM's approach on a few basic levels.

 

[JCHandsom]

I doubt he ever visited their channel.

Also the review for Titanic wasn't tearing that movie down.

They also actually liked TFA, so their criticisms against it were oddly specific and uncompelling. It's hard to "take down" a film in the Plinkett style if the movie isn't actually outright bad.

 

[Script of the Bridge]

They also actually liked TFA, so their criticisms against it were oddly specific and uncompelling. It's hard to "take down" a film in the Plinkett style if the movie isn't actually outright bad.

Yea TFA review was a mistake tbh, I still enjoyed it but it's easily the worst one.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

They also actually liked TFA, so their criticisms against it were oddly specific and uncompelling. It's hard to "take down" a film in the Plinkett style if the movie isn't actually outright bad.

They've done Plinkett reviews from films they ultimately enjoyed but have issues with (Titanic, Star Trek) that are pretty good. But with TFA they didn't have many actual negatives, just nitpicks which is the large issue.

 

[JCHandsom]

They've done Plinkett reviews from films they ultimately enjoyed but have issues with (Titanic, Star Trek) that are pretty good. But with TFA they didn't have many actual negatives, just nitpicks which is the large issue.

I actually don't really watch those reviews for the same reason; their heart just isn't in it the same way it is for a Prequel or Crystal Skull.

 

[Faddy]

I can't say I still don't wish they did something different given how infrequent the Plinkett videos are, but they expounded on the HitB for GB2016 pretty well. Good lord at the product placement section, that Papa Johns Coke thing is hilarious.

Also loved Jack and Rich in their little skits.

They are infrequent because good production takes time. Doing research, writing a script, editing, having themes. It isn't just a person rambling in front of a camera which is why his reviews are good and memorable.

 

[Count Dookkake]

i'm old enough to remember when pre-scandal devin faraci went to bat for this movie like it was a modern masterpiece

lol, good times.

Like a molester priest or a wolf in sheep's clothing, a textbook example of virtue signaling.

 

[Faddy]

They also actually liked TFA, so their criticisms against it were oddly specific and uncompelling. It's hard to "take down" a film in the Plinkett style if the movie isn't actually outright bad.

I think the flaws of TFA were there to be ripped to shreds but Plinkett copped out of criticising the film like all the indulgent press. Bad acting, huge plot contrivances, weird editing, plots points inconsistent with previous films, JJ Abrams rehash syndrome and more.

 

[Foxtastical]

I think the flaws of TFA were there to be ripped to shreds but Plinkett copped out of criticising the film like all the indulgent press. Bad acting, huge plot contrivances, weird editing, plots points inconsistent with previous films, JJ Abrams rehash syndrome and more.

That sounds very unlike RLM.

 

[JCHandsom]

I think the flaws of TFA were there to be ripped to shreds but Plinkett copped out of criticising the film like all the indulgent press. Bad acting, huge plot contrivances, weird editing, plots points inconsistent with previous films, JJ Abrams rehash syndrome and more.

Maybe they just thought those weren't flaws?

 

[Nekketsu Kõha]

No need to be defensive. We're all arguing in good faith here.

I was actually a pretty big fan of RLM when I was about 16-17, as their original Prequel trilogy reviews were hitting. 4 years of film school, and a few more years of growing/developing my own tastes and thoughts regarding film, story-telling, and criticism and I've come to find that I fundamentally disagree with RLM's approach on a few basic levels.

Ok just thought then you would be more aware of movies they praised in one way or another.

Ultimately I think they do a pretty good job both being entertaining, well researched and scripted on top of being on point almost all of the time.

If I would be critical it is with their lack of foreign movies and movies that isn't mainstream enough but they still do a better job even in that department vs other YouTubers.

 

[Violence Jack]

I finally got around to seeing the review. Made me remember just how great GB1 was, and very succinctly described the problems with the new film. The cast just won't shut the hell up due to all the ad-libbing, and everything felt rushed. Nothing was given time to build. If Kevin were given the time to bond with the rest of the cast, then maybe we would've cared more when he got possessed and rescued. Then again, the villain was terrible, so it may not have helped that much. I would like to see this movie re-cut with some of the suggestions mentioned in this video.

 

[A Link to the Past]

no I mean the college pamphlet joke, I believe that was Spider Man Homecoming not TFA

I've never seen the Homecoming review though, it had to have been TFA

 

[HariKari]

That sounds very unlike RLM.

Mike was happy with TFA and didn't feel like being too harsh. It shows in the Plinkett review.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I think the flaws of TFA were there to be ripped to shreds but Plinkett copped out of criticising the film like all the indulgent press. Bad acting, huge plot contrivances, weird editing, plots points inconsistent with previous films, JJ Abrams rehash syndrome and more.

So this thread went from shitting on Ghostbusters to shitting on TFA? That's what I get for coming back to it I guess, lol.

Next up, Wonder Woman?

 

[jack_package_200]

So this thread went from shitting on Ghostbusters to shitting on TFA? That's what I get for coming back to it I guess, lol.

The rabid hate for TFA will never stop being funny to me

 

[JCHandsom]

So this thread went from shitting on Ghostbusters to shitting on TFA? That's what I get for coming back to it I guess, lol.

Next up, Wonder Woman?

Oh god that's what's gonna happen isn't it?

 

[TheTylerDurden]

Oh god that's what's gonna happen isn't it?

Sword ready.

 

[Bluth54]

I haven't had time to watch it honestly, been sick and working as much as I can. Will probably this weekend when I'm clear-headed.

I can imagine its probably an exaggeration of the "greatness" of GB1 and the "heinousness" of GB2016. Like there is some massive gulf between the films.

Ghostbusters is a horror (sci fi?) film with a comedy layer.

Ghostbusters 2016 is a comedy film with a horror layer.

They're two completely different films. GB2016 is supposed to be an off-the-cuff, ad-lib movie, its Feig's style. There's nothing wrong with that. As reviews and box office showed (even though it grossed practically as much as GB1 and Sony porked the fuck out of its budget, so probably lost money).

And I loved Ghostbusters 2 as a kid, but anyone saying its better than GB2016 is out of their fucking minds, or just obsessed with the original crew and blind to all else.

*I don't know where you're getting the opinion = fact thing about me from but I would never make such a blind statement... when I said it in the other thread was a direct joke at another poster and I even stated that later

Ghostbusters 2 has many problems but it's way better than 2016 could ever hope to be. Just the courtroom scene alone blows anything from 2016 out of the water.

 

[Raziel]

 

[PedroPanache]

What I love about the original is the playful group dynamic of Venkman, Egon and Ray. The juxtaposition of Ray's child-like innocence and enthusiasm, Egon's awkward, cerebral, unfiltered observations and the dry, sardonic asides of Venkman turns their interactions into a goldmine of comedy. The 2016 remake was flat in comparison, because the girls all viewed each other equally, there were no jokes to be made in that sense, and we lost potential comedy moments like Venkman's "go get her, Ray" or his playful knocking on the table to spook Egon at the start. Furthermore, there's no little moments like Egon and Venkman haggling with the real estate lady, only for Ray to burst their bubble. These moments are all possible because their roles are tightly defined and their interactions are all predicated on each character's role in the group hierarchy. Why is it so funny that Venkman got slimed? Because he's the asshole of the group; further comedy ensues from Ray and Egon's reaction. Venkman sits at the top of the hierarchy, so when something funny happens at his expense, it's amplifies the comedy.

This is why the original works so well and it's also why the remake falls apart. Now, please, Sony, if you're still intent on making this into a franchise, at least get Tina Fey in there next time.

Ghostbusters 2 has many problems but it's way better than 2016 could ever hope to be. Just the courtroom scene alone blows anything from 2016 out of the water.

There's nothing in the remake that's as beautifully crafted, laugh out loud funny and as quotable as the courtroom scene in Ghostbusters 2. Sure, the third act falls apart, but prior to that, it's a decent film with one outstanding comedy set-piece. Rick Moranis steals the movie as their idiotic lawyer.

Because one time I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you.

 

[davepoobond]

So this thread went from shitting on Ghostbusters to shitting on TFA? That's what I get for coming back to it I guess, lol.

Next up, Wonder Woman?

Don't you mean Wonder Woman: Chris Pine's Crazy Adventure!

 

[Grinchy]

Yea TFA review was a mistake tbh, I still enjoyed it but it's easily the worst one.

The one they did for Titanic was the same way. They actually liked the movie for the most part.

I prefer the Plinkett reviews where they actively hate a movie that is just objectively terrible. That's probably why this Ghostbusters one was still able to be good.

 

[54-46!]

Is this how you spell contrarian ?

 

[T.O.P]

 

[QuantumZebra]

The one they did for Titanic was the same way. They actually liked the movie for the most part.

I prefer the Plinkett reviews where they actively hate a movie that is just objectively terrible. That's probably why this Ghostbusters one was still able to be good.

Opinions = facts when it comes to GB2016

Fuck what the consensus of critics and majority of the audience (even WITH being brigaded by MRAs and nerd-raging GB fans) thinks:

Sorry to pop that bubble buddy

Sword ready.

And my spear!

 

[phanphare]

The one they did for Titanic was the same way. They actually liked the movie for the most part.

I prefer the Plinkett reviews where they actively hate a movie that is just objectively terrible. That's probably why this Ghostbusters one was still able to be good.

I actually prefer when he has mixed feelings about a movie and generally enjoys many things about it, it's just that TFA one was bad. The Titanic one is probably my favorite review of his. he brings up why it worked, why it didn't work, goes into detail about some of the cool things about the movie like its production and the history and all that. it was good stuff.

though I do also enjoy when he critiques bad movies like GB2016 and the Star Wars prequels

they both scratch an itch I just find it more interesting when he's going into detail about the good and the bad in equal measure

 

[crisdecuba]

I think the flaws of TFA were there to be ripped to shreds but Plinkett copped out of criticising the film like all the indulgent press. Bad acting, huge plot contrivances, weird editing, plots points inconsistent with previous films, JJ Abrams rehash syndrome and more.

Maybe he didn't see those flaws as flaws or as flawed as you saw them?

 

[Betty]

Opinions = facts when it comes to GB2016

Fuck what the consensus of critics and majority of the audience (even WITH being brigaded by MRAs and nerd-raging GB fans) thinks:

Sorry to pop that bubble buddy

Again, Rotten Tomatoes isn't perfect for measuring how good or liked a film is.

 

[Inferno313]

Again, Rotten Tomatoes isn't perfect for measuring how good or liked a film is.

How is not accurate at measuring how liked a film is by critics? It's just a percentage and an average?

If you can't understand that a sample size of 9 reviews for Sharknado means that the score might not be reflective of the wider discourse around that film, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[The Fatal Englishman]

Opinions = facts when it comes to GB2016
Fuck what the consensus of critics and majority of the audience (even WITH being brigaded by MRAs and nerd-raging GB fans) thinks:

Are you really under the impression that there wasn't a massive pushback from the GB 2016 defence force?

This movie, another soulless Hollywood reboot rife with product placement at that, became a ridiculous political sticking point for internet agitators. The problem was that the other side was so morally objectionable that the mainstream press felt like they had had to give the movie some credit.

 

[Sapiens]

If I were a rotten tomatoes registered critic and I had witnessed all the racism and hatred surrounding this film, I would have probably rated it favourably as well just to not be associated with that crowd and try to make something positive come out of this mess.

While the film is objectively terrible ( and I would love to start cataloging the likes and dislikes of gaffers that fell over themselves felating it), I just feel terrible for everyone involved, and the least one could do for them is at least give the film a passing grade.

All that fresh rating means is that a bunch of people have it pitty 3/5 scores. My opinion anyway.

It's a hard film to watch, but what was more embarrassing was all the people who were preemptively hating it.

Paul Feig deserved the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Inferno313]

If I were a rotten tomatoes registered critic and I had witnessed all the racism and hatred surrounding this film, I would have probably rated it favourably as well just to not be associated with that crowd and try to make something positive come out of this mess.

While the film is objectively terrible ( and I would love to start cataloging the likes and dislikes of gaffers that fell over themselves felating it), I just feel terrible for everyone involved, and the least one could do for them is at least give the film a passing grade.

All that fresh rating means is that a bunch of people have it pitty 3/5 scores. My opinion anyway.

It's a hard film to watch, but what was more embarrassing was all the people who were preemptively hating it.

Paul Feig deserved the benefit of the doubt.

On what metric are you deeming it to be "objectively" terrible?

 

[Pyramid head]

And I loved Ghostbusters 2 as a kid, but anyone saying its better than GB2016 is out of their fucking minds, or just obsessed with the original crew and blind to all else.

It's true that GB2 is orders of magnitude worse than the original, but GB2016 is exponentially worse again.
GB2 at least had good characters, a few decent jokes which landed and solid performances with weak material. 2016 had absolutely nothing. No jokes, no script, no chemistry, no good scenes and 'characters' which would be stretched thin over a 2 minute skit. That movie was fucking work to sit through.

 

[Sapiens]

On what metric are you deeming it to be "objectively" terrible?

Big Hollywood filmmaking is like a machine, with thousands of moving parts. Sometimes that machine produces well structured, profitable and critically well received films like Ghostbusters and Robocop. Sometimes, it makes critically reviled, poorly structured and unprofitable films like Ghostbusters and Robocop.

 

[Sapiens]

Ghostbusters 2 and Answer the Call are both terrible and fall below the threshold of caring to make any sorts of comparisons of which is more horrible.