RLM - Half in the Bag does STID [SPOILERS]

[M'Sharak]

Oh boy. They are not angry in any way. Nor are they "fanboys" (Mike and Rich are Trek fans, sure, but they're certainly not fanatic about it). Maybe you should at least try to watch the damn review. It's funny and insightful. It's 40 minutes long, because they had fun talking about it for that length. It's just like seeing the movie with a bunch of friends and talking about it afterwards over a few drinks. I sure discussed the movie a whole lot longer than 40 minutes with my buddies.

So please, get over it. It's just a bunch of guys talking about a movie. They didn't hate it and they didn't love it. And if you're interested, they tell you why. If you're not, fine. But man, why hate on them like that? Some act like they charge you money for watching their damn videos.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not really a fan of reviews on video (or of anything on video when text would suffice, for that matter.) In my experience, many of the YouTube reviewers do seem to be angry or ranty a lot and the majority of them go on for far too long. Most of them are terrible at expressing themselves clearly and concisely, and all but a handful are just plain poor reviewers besides.

That said, I did manage (a couple of years back) to get through the RLM/Plinkett review of Star Trek and found that he actually did have a lot of insightful things to say about the movie and demonstrated a fair depth of knowledge about filmmaking. The first couple of Star Wars reviews he did were similarly insightful.

However, the signal-to-noise ratio in even the Star Trek review was poor, and in other Plinkett reviews I've checked out it's utterly atrocious. While his criticism may be sound, the "Plinkett" character shtick is badly in the way; it's simply not worth it to me to invest that much time in wading through so much dross, and my sampling of the first couple of "Half in the Bag" sessions did nothing to improve that impression. Yes, it's probably the characterization which sets him apart from any other reasonably-competent reviewer, but it's not something I find very entertaining - certainly not enough so that I'd willingly suffer through forty minutes' worth in order to glean five or ten minutes of actual review content. If he'd provide a separate link to a text review with all of the shtick excised, I might be willing to give that a try.

 

[Michael]

^ Thanks for that response. I can understand not wanting to watch a video of guys talking about a movie. For me personally, the people at RLM have found the perfect mixture of satire, comedy, all-out craziness and actual insight. They are all very passionate about movies and movie making, and it shows. They know what they're talking about, and they do it in a manner, which I, personally, love. Their videos are well-edited, well-written and funny. I don't need more.

As for this particular review: I would say the STID episode is more or less 90 percent actual review, with only a very tiny portion being non-related comedy material. So I guess you wouldn't be disappointed watching this. It's the internet equivalent of a conversation about the movie with friends. One certainly doesn't have to like that. But I sure do.

 

[Shazam!]

I usually like RLM, but this one was like a cliche of every bs criticism of AbramsTrek:

as for the "dumb script/story" stuff, I liked how the one guy pointed out that Khan in TWOK WASN'T all that smart(kept falling for obvious tricks)

Why do you 'like' hearing criticism of old Trek but dismiss criticism of nu-Trek as BS?

 

[Amaris]

6 months from now most of you guys will be agreeing with almost everything these guys are saying. This movie is well directed and excellent visually... but the script and story logic is about as well written as if you took a room full of 3rd graders and asked them what they wanted to see in a star trek movie.
It IS Star Trek: Fast and Furious. The plot made no sense and has as much substance as the Transformer movies. Which is none.
I do like the movie. And I am resigned to the fact that this is the type of Star Trek we will be getting from now on. But man, I am tired of seeing people defend this movie as if its a great movie and a real thriller brain teaser of a movie. Take Mission Impossible and Fast and Furious and mash them together and add some Star Trek and you have Star Trek Into Darkness

Respectfully, No.

I was told something similar when I saw Star Trek (2009). It has been 4 years, and I still love the movie, and I still consider it well made on all fronts.

I like Into Darkness better than I do ST09, in no small part due to the newer incarnation of Khan. I don't expect that to change too much over the next six months.

 

[rafterman1701]

Wow at the anger/hate on display on a forum over people who discussed the movie on video rather than through text like we're doing now. Look, if you disagree, that's cool, but I'm with these guys 100%. Their views fall nicely in line with mine so it's nice to hear their thoughts.

I think we all need to agree that not everyone will love these new movies and not everyone will hate them. But the attitude that people who dislike them are "fanboys who can't get over their nostalgia" is asinine. People can have legit complaints about the film.

The point about "dumb" comes up a lot. Whenever someone says the new movies are dumb, the comeback now is "Trek was always dumb." That's just reductive and untrue.

And they went on for forty five minutes because there was stuff to talk about. We're going to be on this forum for months or years talking about the movie, so why get on them for how long they talked?

And it was not a rant. Please don't overuse that word. I'd prefer it if you listened and countered their points. Then we can have a discussion about the film.

 

[M'Sharak]

^ Thanks for that response. I can understand not wanting to watch a video of guys talking about a movie. For me personally, the people at RLM have found the perfect mixture of satire, comedy, all-out craziness and actual insight. They are all very passionate about movies and movie making, and it shows. They know what they're talking about, and they do it in a manner, which I, personally, love. Their videos are well-edited, well-written and funny. I don't need more.

I didn't mention that before, but I do have to agree that the editing and overall construction on the ST09 review were quite well-done. I still think it's overlong, but that's definitely my issue.

As for this particular review: I would say the STID episode is more or less 90 percent actual review, with only a very tiny portion being non-related comedy material. So I guess you wouldn't be disappointed watching this. It's the internet equivalent of a conversation about the movie with friends. One certainly doesn't have to like that. But I sure do.

I may give it shot, then, after things have settled down a bit more. It's just a little busy, right at the moment.

[Edited to add: on a completely unrelated note, M, you may want to try looking up a group (no longer active, unfortunately) called Sleepytime Gorilla Museum. Several albums' worth of material released over a period of 10 years, plus live performances may be found on YouTube.]

 

[Greylock Crescent]

RLM reviews are meant solely for entertainment purposes. As such, YMMV. There's often a kernel of "film major" truth at the heart of the reviews, but they're more about sensationalism, generalization and hyperbole than a strict, academic or objective review (as evidenced by the unnecessary lengths of some of these reviews).

Personally, I'm at the point where a RLM video is, by default, a non-starter. I've got better things to do with my time.

 

[Amaris]

I'm a Plinkett fan. I love watching his reviews because I find them fun, entertaining, and often filled with silly moments that I find generally hilarious.

The other guys, though? Eh, not so much. If I'm spending 40 minutes watching two guys debate back and forth about a movie, I'd rather be watching Siskel & Ebert, and they managed to do a comprehensive review of three films in half the time. The RLM guys in the review above were just boring, and when you're doing a video review about a fast paced action/adventure sci-fi movie, that's just unacceptable.

 

[Ben]

I hated the movie, so it was nice to see a well thought out review that summed up a lot of my feelings about it. I hope they do a Plinkett review, too.

 

[sonak]

I usually like RLM, but this one was like a cliche of every bs criticism of AbramsTrek:

as for the "dumb script/story" stuff, I liked how the one guy pointed out that Khan in TWOK WASN'T all that smart(kept falling for obvious tricks)

Why do you 'like' hearing criticism of old Trek but dismiss criticism of nu-Trek as BS?

I don't "like" hearing criticism of old Trek(I quite like TOS and the movie series), but I don't like blatant double standards and unfairness in reviews. I also tend to roll my eyes at the now cliched "Star Trek used to be so cerebral and look what Abrams did to it!" TWOK and FC were both very much straight-forward action sci-fi movies, just like the last two movies from Abrams have been.

 

[Shazam!]

I don't like blatant double standards and unfairness in reviews. I also tend to roll my eyes at the now cliched "Star Trek used to be so cerebral and look what Abrams did to it!" TWOK and FC were both very much straight-forward action sci-fi movies, just like the last two movies from Abrams have been.

By admitting that Khan wasn't 'all that' in TWOK either, I don't see where the double standard is.

You are allowed to compare movies within the same genre and find one better than the other.

 

[Anticitizen]

And they went on for forty five minutes because there was stuff to talk about. We're going to be on this forum for months or years talking about the movie, so why get on them for how long they talked?

Bravo.

The reason why it was so long is because it was an in-depth discussion. It's not your typical spoiler-free movie review - they go over their impressions from all elements of the film, in a non-scripted casual way. I enjoy watching their discussions, and I more or less agree with their opinions on this one.

I also tend to roll my eyes at the now cliched "Star Trek used to be so cerebral and look what Abrams did to it!" TWOK and FC were both very much straight-forward action sci-fi movies, just like the last two movies from Abrams have been.

TWOK was at least coherent. My favorite part of this review was when the one guy was asked to describe the plot in detail, and the other two guys can't help but start snickering at the ridiculousness of it. If he had been summarizing The Wrath of Khan they wouldn't be laughing, because TWOK isn't mindless gibberish - despite whether you feel that it was 'cerebral' or not, it at least has a taut, believable storyline.

 

[sonak]

And they went on for forty five minutes because there was stuff to talk about. We're going to be on this forum for months or years talking about the movie, so why get on them for how long they talked?

Bravo.

The reason why it was so long is because it was an in-depth discussion. It's not your typical spoiler-free movie review - they go over their impressions from all elements of the film, in a non-scripted casual way. I enjoy watching their discussions, and I more or less agree with their opinions on this one.

I also tend to roll my eyes at the now cliched "Star Trek used to be so cerebral and look what Abrams did to it!" TWOK and FC were both very much straight-forward action sci-fi movies, just like the last two movies from Abrams have been.

TWOK was at least coherent. My favorite part of this review was when the one guy was asked to describe the plot in detail, and the other two guys can't help but start snickering at the ridiculousness of it. If he had been summarizing The Wrath of Khan they wouldn't be laughing, because TWOK isn't mindless gibberish - despite whether you feel that it was 'cerebral' or not, it at least has a taut, believable storyline.

yeah, except that part of the review was clearly exaggerated for comedic effect to make the movie sound dumb. You can do that with anything, including TWOK. Here, I'll give it a shot:


-So there's this planet that exploded, but it knocked ANOTHER planet into the EXACT orbit of the exploded planet. No one found out about this, and no one on the USS Reliant noticed from their charts that a whole planet was missing.
-And then these scientists have come up with this magical tech that creates functioning ecosystems from nothing at all.
-And there's this madman who can stick bugs in guys' ears and brainwash them somehow, and Kirk has an old flame and a son he didn't know about, and Khan wants revenge on Kirk even though he tried to kill Kirk, and Kirk mercifully let him go, and had nothing to do with the other planet exploding...


you can make any Trek film's plot sound kind of silly if you try. They could have done the same thing with Iron Man 3, which they both really liked.

 

[BillJ]

TWOK was at least coherent. My favorite part of this review was when the one guy was asked to describe the plot in detail, and the other two guys can't help but start snickering at the ridiculousness of it.

They simply know the audience they're playing too. Many of the people likely watching those reviews are people who simply can't let go of the Prime timeline.

It's like a conservative politician speaking to a religious crowd. They know all the notes to hit to fire the crowd up.

 

[Anticitizen]

yeah, except that part of the review was clearly exaggerated for comedic effect to make the movie sound dumb. You can do that with anything, including TWOK. Here, I'll give it a shot:


-So there's this planet that exploded, but it knocked ANOTHER planet into the EXACT orbit of the exploded planet. No one found out about this, and no one on the USS Reliant noticed from their charts that a whole planet was missing.
-And then these scientists have come up with this magical tech that creates functioning ecosystems from nothing at all.
-And there's this madman who can stick bugs in guys' ears and brainwash them somehow, and Kirk has an old flame and a son he didn't know about, and Khan wants revenge on Kirk even though he tried to kill Kirk, and Kirk mercifully let him go, and had nothing to do with the other planet exploding...

All you're doing there is making fun of the elements by rephrasing them in a silly way, not the plot. For instance, the 'magical tech' and 'the bugs which brainwash somehow' are explained well enough (in technobabble terms) that they're a non-issue in a sci-fi film. STID's very plot is what's ridiculous, not just the elements. It's a wacky, convoluted mess.

They simply know the audience they're playing too. Many of the people likely watching those reviews are people who simply can't let go of the Prime timeline.

The reviewer that had the best criticisms of the film, IMO, was Jay, the only one of the three who wasn't a Trekkie - he gave his opinions on the film as a film, not a Star Trek film. Why do you think they're playing to an audience at all? You think they're lying about how they felt about the movie?

Do you honestly believe STID to be so far above criticism that anyone who says they didn't like must be dishonest and obviously lying? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[BillJ]

Do you honestly believe STID to be so far above criticism that anyone who says they didn't like must be dishonest and obviously lying? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

No movie is above criticism and I have went over my perceived short-comings of the film in other posts.

But when they're saying this:

My favorite part of this review was when the one guy was asked to describe the plot in detail, and the other two guys can't help but start snickering at the ridiculousness of it.

Shows me they're playing to an audience because you can snicker at the ridiculousness of plot details of many, many movies, sci-fi in particular. Seriously, protomatter?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

TWOK was at least coherent. My favorite part of this review was when the one guy was asked to describe the plot in detail, and the other two guys can't help but start snickering at the ridiculousness of it. If he had been summarizing The Wrath of Khan they wouldn't be laughing, because TWOK isn't mindless gibberish - despite whether you feel that it was 'cerebral' or not, it at least has a taut, believable storyline.

I think this is disingenuous. Describe the plot for any motion picture, in detail, and it's going to sound a bit silly out of context. Just for kicks and giggles, try it with Inception. Or Avengers. Or even TWOK (seriously, trying working in the whole mind-control-space-slug component of the plot into your description without it sounding ridiculous; sure, it's explained in-film ... but so is STID's magic blood).

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of STID, but framing them in order to poke fun is done purely for the entertainment value, and not for any objective reasons. Put simply, they place a higher value on the style of their reviews than the substance. That's all fine and dandy, nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But it shouldn't be mistaken for the kind of quality reviews we got from, say, Ebert.

 

[CorporalClegg]

[...Silly shit...] are explained well enough (in technobabble terms) that they're a non-issue in a sci-fi film. STID's very plot is what's ridiculous, not just the elements. It's a wacky, convoluted mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I actually have to agree with sonak on this one.

 

[Shazam!]

So we're saying that you're not allowed to find fault in STID because other films are silly too?

 

[BillJ]

But they aren't reviewing those movies : /

Or are you saying that you're not allowed to find fault in STID because other films are silly too?

Boiling a film down to its plot points and laughing at it tells me nothing of its quality (but it tells me plenty about the quality of the "review"). So trying to use that portion of the "review" as proof of the poor quality of Star Trek Into Darkness isn't going to work.