Support NeoGAF

[Astral Dog]

BTW, this review is overly long, spends too much time trying to talk about how OG GB was a masterpiece and they didn't like the type of humor GB16 was using. Also, who really gives a fuck about product placement.

I mean bitching about product placement is like sharp knees level of discourse.

They discounted the homages, like they were a bad thing. They seemed upset it was a reboot instead of a continuation.

They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up. You don't think it's funny, fine. Good for you.

Product placement would have been fine if they at least acknowledge it on the movie, not talk about it, but just a bit of self awareness.

As it is looks dumb

 

[biggersmaller]

I mean bitching about product placement is like sharp knees level of discourse.

There is such a thing as seamless product placement. This was shit. If they are in NYC and eating Papa Johns, why not set up shop above a Leeann Chins?

 

[BlueTsunami]

BTW, this review is overly long, spends too much time trying to talk about how OG GB was a masterpiece and they didn't like the type of humor GB16 was using. Also, who really gives a fuck about product placement.

I mean bitching about product placement is like sharp knees level of discourse.

They discounted the homages, like they were a bad thing. They seemed upset it was a reboot instead of a continuation.

They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up. You don't think it's funny, fine. Good for you.

You a Sony pony?

 

[CartridgeBlower]

At this point its just angry nerds hate fucking a dead horse

These little drive-by shitposts of always quoting the rare post that agrees with you is just as tired.

 

[yuoke]

These little drive-by shitposts of always quoting the rare post that agrees with you is just as tired.

 

[T.O.P]

They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up

You mean like @37:20 when they even re-edited some scenes to actually back up their claims? Did you even watch the damn video?

 

[Data West]

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the big action scene at the end of this movie

its almost like if they remade my dinner with andre and the last 20 minutes was this

 

[BlueTsunami]

You mean like @37:20 when they even re-edited some scenes to actually back up their claims? Did you even watch the damn video?

Editing out the babbling for some of those scenes that required a quiet beat was the most damning. It was one those things you couldn't fully appreciate until seeing an example.

 

[TheDinoman]

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

And don't forget the ultimate example:

 

[Grinchy]

And don't forget the ultimate example:

I watched it again recently, and it's actually not as bad as I remembered it being. There are some good under layers going on with the story.

Maybe it's because we've had like 5+ years of horrible superhero movies that make the old good ones seem even better. I don't know.

 

[Sony]

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

Really? I would say the degree to which a movie is liked is exactly what rotten tomatoes is for. Shitty movies can be liked.

 

[Kenstar]

Plinkett should review Boyhood next

It took 12 years to make

Really? I would say the degree to which a movie is liked is exactly what rotten tomatoes is for. Shitty movies can be liked.

Rottentomatoes is great for deciding if you should SEE a movie or not

not for which is BEST

a 100% on RT means only that everyone thought it was worth seeing, not that everyone gave it 100/100 a 51 counts just as much as a 100 when it comes to binary yes/no fresh/rotten systems

If 'Hypothetical Movie A' comes out and everyone loves it, it gets a 100% fresh. Now when it's sequel 'Hypothetical Movie B: 2 Hypothetical 2 Dubious' comes out and everyone likes it a lot but agrees the first is still better, that too will also have a 100% fresh despite everyone agreeing A was better

 

[phanphare]

Rottentomatoes is great for deciding if you should SEE a movie or not

not for which is BEST

a 100% on RT means only that everyone thought it was worth seeing, not that everyone gave it 100/100 a 51 counts just as much as a 100 when it comes to binary yes/no fresh/rotten systems

it's also a point in time snapshot that may or may not remain relevant as time passes

 

[plasmawave]

At this point its just angry nerds hate fucking a dead horse

You REALLY liked the '16 GB movie that much huh?

 

[Timu]

So I watched the movie in anticipation of the review, and one thing I feel like adding is... McCarthy's character is an asshole. And not the lovable kind of asshole like Venkman, she's a complete piece of shit.

So the backstory is... Wiig's character saw a ghost when she was a kid, and nobody believed her except McCarthy, who became her only friend. They wrote a book together (which is nice), and eventually stuff like therapy forced Wiig to try and put ghosts behind her, and that apparently caused a breakup.

Setting the backstory aside, the movie begins with McCarthy violating Wiig's half of the book they wrote together by publishing it, using Wiig's name and picture, against Wiig's explicit non-consent (Wiig says she "burned both copies", aka one copy was made for Wiig and another for McCarthy. Wiig revoked and then burned McCarthy's copy, but not before McCarthy secretly made a third copy), simply because McCarthy wants a new mini-fridge for her lab.

This apparent cry for attention forces Wiig to come around to try and speak to McCarthy. Nope, McCarthy tries to throw her out of the building.

Wiig explains that this intrusion is badly timed and that it could ruin her shot at tenure, aka the green light which allows her to research anything she wants at the university's expense, without getting fired. Rather than seeing what a gift that could be for their friendship and their fringe research, if only McCarthy temporarily stops violating Wiig's rights for a fucking fridge, McCarthy says "Nope, fuck your life. Now step over here. Hah! Queef joke! For a moment there, I really had you interested in paranormal science again. Fuck you."

And then there's the lead Wiig drops in McCarthy's lap. Nope. Fuck you, you can't come along. McCarthy is not interested in restoring their friendship or Wiig's interest in the paranormal. Wiig only tags along by blackmailing McCarthy, pointing out that they need Wiig to gain entry.

Then a ghost pukes on Wiig, and Wiig conclusively believes in the paranormal again. Yay! Conflict resolved? McCarthy posts Wiig's face all over youtube without telling her, and not only costs her the shot at tenure, but now Wiig is straight-up fired.

McCarthy: "That's fine (that I ruined your life without asking, when you asked me to do the exact opposite). Just join us in this shithole university. They throw money at anything you want" (except fridges, apparently). Oh wait, McCarthy is wrong, and now she's thrown out too.

This is apparently the end of their mended-relationship story, until the very end of the movie when Wiig literally jumps into hell to pull McCarthy back out, because McCarthy is such a precious friend. Is that the ultimate resolution that this movie needed to run with? That McCarthy is such an amazing friend that Wiig needs to go to the ends of the Earth to beg McCarthy's forgiveness for that fight that we never saw but can infer was about Wiig giving in to the weight of the world and being wrong about ghosts not existing? Also, why does McCarthy believe so strongly in ghosts anyways? Was it because her willingness to believe helped her form a bond of friendship (that was too weak to survive without their exclusive shared interest)?

Mr Plinkett pointed out how all the background characters in the movie were shit, making it hard to care if the world lives or dies, but the movie literally asked McCarthy's character what was worth saving in the world, what was worth living for, and all McCarthy could come up with was that weaksauce soup from the Chinese food restaurant, which the movie went out of it's way to hammer home was pathetic. That's how terrible McCarthy's character is. She just reunited with her best friend, and the only trace of positivity she can see in the entire world is a lukewarm cup of yellow liquid.

Yes, Melissa McCarthy is god awful in this movie and she's one of the worst things about it. From her jokes to her motives, she's just terrible.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Yes, Melissa McCarthy is god awful in this movie and she's one of the worst things about it. From her jokes to her motives, she's just terrible.

Let me guess, does she fall over in this movie more than once?
Cause fat people falling over is hilarious. Apparently. It really is. To someone. Someone who knows more about "what is funny" than me. I'm no expert but trust me. It's funny. I may not be laughing but it is. Just saying.

 

[Skiptastic]

And don't forget the ultimate example:

But that shows RT doing exactly the right thing: recommending people go see an above average film (one which I admittedly love). Average score 8/10, 87% Fresh. That's good stuff right there.

 

[Sapiens]

That's not an objective metric. That's your subjective feeling on Hollywood. As has been discussed many times in this thread, calling Ghostbusters "critically reviled" is one thing that actually is demonstrably incorrect.



Their half in the bag review of that great film was bad enough.

How is a movie making not money not an objective judgement of its quality?

 

[Inferno313]

How is a movie making not money not an objective judgement of its quality?

Blade Runner didn't make money. The Iron Giant didn't make money. Any number of wonderful films didn't make money.

By that same metric, Transformers is an objective masterpiece.

 

[Grinchy]

Yes, Melissa McCarthy is god awful in this movie and she's one of the worst things about it. From her jokes to her motives, she's just terrible.

She's the worst thing in every movie she's in that isn't St. Vincent.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

How is a movie making not money not an objective judgement of its quality?

Clearly Avatar is the greatest film ever made.

 

[Pizza]

Just finished it, I agreed with pretty much all the criticism they laid out.

Imbsurprised he didn't mention the fact that the movie actually didn't have a dance number in it at the end, but maybe it was in the extended cut he mentioned he watched. Everyone just pointing was super weird and out of place

After watching that, I think I feel like the main issue is that the movie wasn't structured enough. It should've had more time to breathe: his suggestions for the three scenes and the scene they recut were honestly way better. There were some adlib jokes I liked, but he was right that they were drowned out by the 50 other conversations they had

"Did you check for a body in there?"

"Uh... yeah"

Would've worked way better than the wholendialogue they had

 

[Krogan]

These little drive-by shitposts of always quoting the rare post that agrees with you is just as tired.

What else can a poster do when they have admitted to not watching the review?

 

[Zabka]

Just finished it, I agreed with pretty much all the criticism they laid out.

Imbsurprised he didn't mention the fact that the movie actually didn't have a dance number in it at the end, but maybe it was in the extended cut he mentioned he watched. Everyone just pointing was super weird and out of place

After watching that, I think I feel like the main issue is that the movie wasn't structured enough. It should've had more time to breathe: his suggestions for the three scenes and the scene they recut were honestly way better. There were some adlib jokes I liked, but he was right that they were drowned out by the 50 other conversations they had

"Did you check for a body in there?"

"Uh... yeah"

Would've worked way better than the wholendialogue they had

Yup it's in there.

 

[Staf]

I'm shocked that no one has made a gif out of "REMEMBER SCARFACE?" yet.

 

[Sapiens]

Clearly Avatar is the greatest film ever made.

From a money making perspective? Yes.

Also, which forum was it that places a huge amount of importance on BO each week?

 

[rashbeep]

They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up.

jesus christ

 

[NervousXtian]

Are people who think the video is good the only ones who are allowed to post in here or something?

No shit this.. it's like being attacked by a cult up in here.

Nah, they did though. An hour's worth of pretty detailed analysis, comparing and contrasting, all of which has been discussed in this thread. If you're either unequipped to undertand the video or just flat out pretending all the above isn't there despite all the discussion there of in this thread then that's on you.

No, they played played noises to downplay the new movie every time they made a point about the new movie not being funny and the old one being fun.

Different style of comedy for sure between the two. They didn't prove anything other than they like different styles of comedy. You see what you want in the video.. RLM isn't as funny or smart as you want them to be.

Honestly, it sounds like the people who used to worship Nunziata or Faraci back in the day, despite all their flaws being out in the open.

You mean like @37:20 when they even re-edited some scenes to actually back up their claims? Did you even watch the damn video?

Yes I did.

My opinions on the video aren't allowed in this thread? Do we need it to be circle jerk in here?



..And I haven't seen the damn Emoji movie.

 

[Yukinari]

My opinions on the video aren't allowed in this thread? Do we need it to be circle jerk in here?



..And I haven't seen the damn Emoji movie.

What post is the context for your tag then.

You playing devils advocate for it or saying reviewers are being too harsh or something?

Cause if so then yes you deserve that.

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

Like Casino Royale is an example of a film that's just as egregious. Yet, no one really gives a shit about it.

1. It wasn't as agregious(what like 2 Sony Ericsson's and a Ford Mondeo vs a whole Times Square worth of ads plus them using branded products all the time)

2. It didn't suck. It was a good movie and people just looked past it.

 

[LakeEarth]

1. It wasn't as agregious(what like 2 Sony Ericsson's and a Ford Mondeo vs a whole Times Square worth of ads plus them using branded products all the time)

2. It didn't suck. It was a good movie and people just looked past it.

Yeah, using Sony products sticks out but at least the use of the items themselves were relevant to the plot. It isn't the Pringles 'gag' where she literally says their slogan for no apparent reason.

 

[bananafactory]

Product placement would have been fine if they at least acknowledge it on the movie, not talk about it, but just a bit of self awareness.

As it is looks dumb

Product placement is usually a really dumb, nitpicky complaint. Iron Man 1 has one of the most blatant examples (Burger King) and it never gets brought up.

These types of 'issues' are only relevant if someone doesn't like the film.

 

[NervousXtian]

What post is the context for your tag then.

You playing devils advocate for it or saying reviewers are being too harsh or something?

Cause if so then yes you deserve that.

I'm not playing devil's advocate it though, I haven't seen it nor plan to see it. Whether it was good or not in the context of my post there didn't matter. A movie like it, or Angry Birds, or whatever, isn't really going to be given a fair chance in this the RT environment of today where critics just want to get that zinger out and have internet cred. I mean, do you not believe that to be true?

People pretend to hate or like shit all the time.. if everyone who used to talk shit about Nickelback actually hated Nickelback they wouldn't have been so popular.

Do you honestly not think a lot of the hate for something that admittedly was a harmless average movie like GB16 is because it became "cool" to hate on GB16. People use the oh but the original film was so good and blah blah blah... nah man.. that's not the reason, because a lot of the people up in here weren't even around to watch that shit when it came out.

I think the worst part of the internet in the 10's is the damn bandwagon train being in full swing. The 00's internet seemed to have a lot more divergent opinions but there was so many more active boards and blogs that you really could see all sides of things.

Now shits more homogeneous, so we see less divergent opinions from multiple sides and more people just conforming to what they think they need too.

 

[yuoke]

Product placement is usually a really dumb, nitpicky complaint. Iron Man 1 has one of the most blatant examples (Burger King) and it never gets brought up.

These types of 'issues' are only relevant if someone doesn't like the film.

At least Tony didn't say "have it your way" and look into the camera.

She was eating pringles and said the slogan.

 

[NervousXtian]

At least Tony didn't say "have it your way" and look into the camera.

She was eating pringles and said the slogan.

That's the fucking joke though.

Sharp knees man, like you really give a shit until someone told you that you should give a shit.

 

[water_wendi]

GB16 is unfunny garbage. Thats all that needs to be said.

 

[yuoke]

I'm not playing devil's advocate it though, I haven't seen it nor plan to see it. Whether it was good or not in the context of my post there didn't matter. A movie like it, or Angry Birds, or whatever, isn't really going to be given a fair chance in this the RT environment of today where critics just want to get that zinger out and have internet cred. I mean, do you not believe that to be true?

People pretend to hate or like shit all the time.. if everyone who used to talk shit about Nickelback actually hated Nickelback they wouldn't have been so popular.

Do you honestly not think a lot of the hate for something that admittedly was a harmless average movie like GB16 is because it became "cool" to hate on GB16. People use the oh but the original film was so good and blah blah blah... nah man.. that's not the reason, because a lot of the people up in here weren't even around to watch that shit when it came out.

I think the worst part of the internet in the 10's is the damn bandwagon train being in full swing. The 00's internet seemed to have a lot more divergent opinions but there was so many more active boards and blogs that you really could see all sides of things.

Now shits more homogeneous, so we see less divergent opinions from multiple sides and more people just conforming to what they think they need too.

The hate has absolutely nothing to do with them remaking a beloved 80's classic into a movie with low brow generic judd apatow type humor like queefs, adlibbing random stuff to be random, and literally hitting the logo in the balls.

I'm sure people would be fine if let's say next year back to the future was remade, with bad jokes, tons of bad cgi, and the rock playing Doc and Zac efron playing marty.

That's the fucking joke though.

Sharp knees man, like you really give a shit until someone told you that you should give a shit.

You're supposed to find jokes funny though, and not cringy.

 

[phanphare]

Yes I did.

My opinions on the video aren't allowed in this thread? Do we need it to be circle jerk in here?



..And I haven't seen the damn Emoji movie.

opinions are cool, the thread doesn't need to be a circle jerk. you can read through it to see that.

you were making a point that was straight up false and got called for it. just own it and move on.

Product placement is usually a really dumb, nitpicky complaint. Iron Man 1 has one of the most blatant examples (Burger King) and it never gets brought up.

These types of 'issues' are only relevant if someone doesn't like the film.

this may or may not be seen as hand-waving away that particular product placement but there is at least a nice story behind the Burger King thing in regards to RDJ and getting sober. that's probably why it never gets brought up as a negative.

 

[NervousXtian]

opinions are cool, the thread doesn't need to be a circle jerk. you can read through it to see that.

you were making a point that was straight up false and got called for it. just own it and move on.



this may or may not be seen as hand-waving away that particular product placement but there is at least a nice story behind the Burger King thing in regards to RDJ and getting sober. that's probably why it never gets brought up as a negative.

It wasn't false. They backed up the this isn't funny but showing and old clip vs a new clip. Honestly some of the old clips weren't funny and the new clips were.

I personally thought the queef joke was funny, they didn't.

People like different sorts of humor. That's not making a point. You can't say my opinion is right because this is funny and this isn't... because that's still subjective.

His hate on Feig included haha F&G was boring for fuck's sake.

Nobody knows that RDJ story, so stop it.. nobody give's a shit about product placement until they use it against something they don't already like.

I say it's sharp knees, because if you watch a movie and groan at product placement then it's like the dude in the Jennifer Lawrence thread saying he's puking. Get over yourself.

 

[yuoke]

It wasn't false. They backed up the this isn't funny but showing and old clip vs a new clip. Honestly some of the old clips weren't funny and the new clips were.

I personally thought the queef joke was funny, they didn't.

People like different sorts of humor. That's not making a point. You can't say my opinion is right because this is funny and this isn't... because that's still subjective.

His hate on Feig included haha F&G was boring for fuck's sake.

Nobody knows that RDJ story, so stop it.. nobody give's a shit about product placement until they use it against something they don't already like.

I say it's sharp knees, because if you watch a movie and groan at product placement then it's like the dude in the Jennifer Lawrence thread saying he's puking. Get over yourself.

Actually, a lot of people do know the RDJ story. He is the one of the most famous actors int he world right now and everyone knows his backstory. The burger king story has become pretty famous the last few years.

Plus, it was incorporated into the movie better. It was in character for tony to want a cheeseburger immediately coming back from being a terrorist captive. He wanted one fast, so they went to BK because it's fast food.

 

[BassForever]

That's the fucking joke though.

Sharp knees man, like you really give a shit until someone told you that you should give a shit.

So the joke is she's eating pringles and said the slogan? Oh man that's hilarious!

I don't have an issue if product placement is there and they don't draw attention to it. Going back to Ironman, yes Rdj is eating Burger King when he declares he's going to shut down his weapons development program, but watch the scene again. It makes sense that stark would want an America cheeseburger after being held in captivity first and foremost. It fits his character wanting it asap and eatin it like a slop during the press conference. Just like McKinnon eating chips while checking out a ghost makes sense to inform her quirky character. The difference is the burger being from burger king is never called attention to, you could replace the burger king logo with any burger franchise or even a generic logo and the scene would play out exactly the same. If you swap out pringles for any other chip brand or a generic bag of chips suddenly the "once you pop" line makes no sense and the "joke" is ruined.

It says a lot more about you if you can't see the difference in those examples.

 

[NervousXtian]

Actually, a lot of people do know the RDJ story. He is the one of the most famous actors int he world right now and everyone knows his backstory. The burger king story has become pretty famous the last few years.

Plus, it was incorporated into the movie better. It was in character for tony to want a cheeseburger immediately coming back from being a terrorist captive. He wanted one fast, so they went to BK because it's fast food.

Dude, you're defending it there because you liked the movie.

I mean, look at your 2nd paragraph. How is that worse than pringles. It's not.

You liked one movie, not the other. Just admit that is why you even care.

So the joke is she's eating pringles and said the slogan? Oh man that's hilarious!

I don't have an issue if product placement is there and they don't draw attention to it. Going back to Ironman, yes Rdj is eating Burger King when he declares he's going to shut down his weapons development program, but watch the scene again. It makes sense that stark would want an America cheeseburger after being held in captivity first and foremost. It fits his character wanting it asap and eatin it like a slop during the press conference. Just like McKinnon eating chips while checking out a ghost makes sense to inform her quirky character. The difference is the burger being from burger king is never called attention to, you could replace the burger king logo with any burger franchise or even a generic logo and the scene would play out exactly the same. If you swap out pringles for any other chip brand or a generic bag of chips suddenly the "once you pop" line makes no sense and the "joke" is ruined.

It says a lot more about you if you can't see the difference in those examples.

Actually if you took the logo off the pringles can the joke still worked. Because it's a pop culture reference we all know.

Whether you think it's funny or not, doesn't matter.

 

[phanphare]

It wasn't false. They backed up the this isn't funny but showing and old clip vs a new clip. Honestly some of the old clips weren't funny and the new clips were.

I personally thought the queef joke was funny, they didn't.

People like different sorts of humor. That's not making a point. You can't say my opinion is right because this is funny and this isn't... because that's still subjective.

His hate on Feig included haha F&G was boring for fuck's sake.

Nobody knows that RDJ story, so stop it.. nobody give's a shit about product placement until they use it against something they don't already like.

I say it's sharp knees, because if you watch a movie and groan at product placement then it's like the dude in the Jennifer Lawrence thread saying he's puking. Get over yourself.

you just contradicted yourself within two sentences

here's what you said originally: "They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up."

which is false. you start this post by saying that claim wasn't false and then immediately talk about how they backed up their points contradicting your own claim that you just made in the previous sentence and previous post. humor is subjective, yes. nobody is arguing otherwise. that'd be silly. what I and others were calling you out on was the notion that they didn't back up their claims because that is false. there's nothing subjective about that either. they either did back them up or they didn't and they did. cut and dry. it's also funny that you complained the video was overly long because the reason why the video is long is because they went to great lengths to back up the points they made.

 

[Sanjuro]

Do they even make Lays Stacks anymore?

 

[yuoke]

Dude, you're defending it there because you liked the movie.

I mean, look at your 2nd paragraph. How is that worse than pringles. It's not.

You liked one movie, not the other. Just admit that is why you even care.

I outright stated why it's better used, because he didn't say the slogan of BK.

When tony walked out of the car, he didn't tell pepper "I'm glad we went to BK so I could have it my way." There was just a bag that showed BK for a second. They didn't build a whole joke or scene that was meant to market BK.

 

[NervousXtian]

you just contradicted yourself within two sentences

here's what you said originally: "They didn't provide much of anything to back anything up."

which is false. you start this post by saying that claim wasn't false and then immediately talk about how they backed up their points contradicting your own claim that you just made in the previous sentence and previous post. humor is subjective, yes. nobody is arguing otherwise. that'd be silly. what I and others were calling you out on was the notion that they didn't back up their claims because that is false. there's nothing subjective about that either. they either did back them up or they didn't and they did. cut and dry. it's also funny that you complained the video was overly long because the reason why the video is long is because they went to great lengths to back up the points they made.

If we are going to talk semantics, they yes they backed up their opinions with more opinions. So guess yeah, they did that. Then I just say I don't agree with those opinions and find many of them petty and cheap.

They are backing up opinions with opinions.

 

[Won]

I'm sorry it doesn't matter how much I like a movie, these fucking VAIO laptops just pull me out of any movie at this point.

 

[phanphare]

If we are going to talk semantics, they yes they backed up their opinions with more opinions. So guess yeah, they did that. Then I just say I don't agree with those opinions and find many of them petty and cheap.

They are backing up opinions with opinions.

were you expecting something different from a movie review? I thought that was the whole point

 

[NervousXtian]

were you expecting something different from a movie review? I thought that was the whole point

Not really, but Plinkett's and RLM get a lot of love. People say it's because they back everything up, like it proves their that RLM is right and people can have their confirmation bias internet pat on the back from each other.

I think the most interesting thing about GB16 is everything that took place around the movie... because in the end the movie was just an average reboot that was harmless.

 

[BassForever]

The sad thing is you could have very easily made a scene full of real jokes out of her eating chips without having to degrade to the lowest common denominator "remember that" reference joke.

1) make a joke about her "finding something" and it's a bag of chips

2) make a joke about them being quiet and she's crunchy the chips loudly

2.5) make a joke where she thinks they're mad at her because she didn't offer to share

3) make a joke where she suggests maybe the ghost is hungry and offers a chip

4) make the joke they made about her eating casually when they find the ghost, just without the reference

5) when the ghost barfs vomit, have her be more upset it got on the chips then it covering wig

I came up with that in like 30 seconds, any of the above would be funnier then what Sony did, because Sony wasn't trying to make a funny scene, they were trying to advertise pringles.