RLM RED LETTER MEDIA

File: 8d7839b97d9847e6b97ce702a6d15887.jpg (13KB, 240x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 240x194px

>>86113586
helo fren u frogot to put the link to the vidoe

>>86113586
I WANT A CUTE AVATAR SLUT FROM HIS TITANIC REVIEW

>>86113843
based frenposter

>>86113586
I think Titanic should be higher up, it's one of my favourites.

Hack frauds

File: top cruise.jpg (4MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3024x4032px

>>86113843
>86113586
I just link do that shit as a goof on the hack fraud media guy.

So what he's saying is Ghostbusters is TFA

Real Plinkett Power rankings

>god tier
Star Wars: The Fraud Awakens -- Yet another review of The Force Awakens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N0_GdI8TWE

>shit tier
everything else

Is it me or does Plinkett sound extra fucked up this time?

>>86113586
the star trek reviews are underrated

>>86114047
Have you seen Mike and his beer gut recently?

>Baby's Day Out that low

Virtual Friend Thread #30786.

Get a life.

>>86114207
Welcome to 4chan.

>>86114035
now. Sjw faggot. He mainly focused on specific instances of bad comedy and annoying shit, and how it conflicted with the tone of the og. TFA is almost the opposite of that. Aside from racist virginal edgefags that sit the unoccupied tables in lunch, nobody gives a shit about how triggered and terrified you are by women and black guys. TFA was produced by the best production heads in the business, and is probably the best chance for a reboot after the PT dumpster fire.

Ghostbuster was an annoying MUH WOMYN protagonists feminismism marketing, trying to sell a terrible movie. TFA is Disney trying to expand their demo while still making well-done movies.

the difference been the 2 is one is unwatchabe shit, and the other is a legitimately dwell done space adventure movie that only bothers sjw-right fags.

We get it nobody will fuck you. Nobody's fault but years ere

this one was so boring. i almost wanted to stop watching it mid way through it because it wasn't funny.

>>86114378
I was mostly shocked by how terrible this movie looks. I don't get the boring complaints, sounds like you're desperately scrambling for shit to bitch about.

File: mike excied.png (437KB, 395x515px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 395x515px

>>86113843
oh you meant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHUV8QLpEAc

>>86114419
>desperately scrambling for shit to bitch about.
/tv/ in a nutshell

Unfunny shit

>>86113931
yeah I like the Titanic, but it reminded me of the avatar one, where other than pointing out shitty scenes, historical revisionism, and relatively excusable goofs, it was mostly just him pointing out why the movie worked so well.

It's good but I've always preferred the autistic elaborate detail of him getting weird abou this that he fucking hates

How long until we get articles calling RLM a misogynist?

>>86114312
listen Mike you gotta accept TFA was just not very well done.

>>86114764
If this review had come up last year he would've been crucified. However, it's the current year and SJWs have given up on defending Ghostbusters (2016). Never forget that SJWs are extremely fickle, they very quickly move from one controversy to another.

>>86114747
I can see where you're coming from but I actually enjoyed the parts where he explains why it works. I just like listening to him analyze a film, no matter whether he's explaining why it's good or shit. The only part of the review I don't like is the fleshlight bit, I've never really liked customer service jokes like that.

>>86113586
Did Mike forget that Bill was contractually forced to be in this movie and that GB2 sucked, hence GB3 wasn't likely to be good nor did GB need sequels in the first place?

File: 1453093210388.png (313KB, 701x394px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 701x394px

>Thinks Daisey Ridley is charismatic and Kristin Wiig is funny.

Are you ready to admit he's a pleb?

>>86114052
>the star trek reviews are underrated

They're not actually. They're mostly insufferable nerd nitpicking rather than legitimate analysis.

fuck off you tracing jew pos

File: google employees.jpg (104KB, 988x680px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 988x680px

>>86114812
This, they moved onto the guy going that possibly, maybe, that women didn't get into coding, possibly, maybe, due to biological differences. He got fired for 'inappropriate out of date stereotypes' when his argument was 'men and women are BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT'. Which is true. That is not out of date, or a stereotype. It's fact. He didn't even say that it's true only that it /may/ be true.

Then again, when Google literally lists the following people as employees, the guy was looking to be fired I guess to get severance pay and to sue Google for unfair dismissal.

>>86115002
Ridley is charismatic. She is. This does not equate being a good actress, but she has charisma. She isn't a blank stare like the people in Rogue One. She attempts to have a personality. Wiig is funny in certain stuff. She wasn't in Ghostbuster which is literally his point. That they put 4 actors in a situation where they couldn't actually do anything because of a shit script and a shit director. Though the fact he blamed Bill Murray for it sucking makes me think it's Pinketts view rather than Mikes. I honestly don't see how Murray was at fault for the entire shitshow, especially when GB2 wasn't very good, GB did not need a sequel, prequel or reboot. That any sequel, prequel or reboot was going to suck because at best they could match GB, while the likely result is it's dog shit. Also why the fuck did Sony have a trailer of '30 Years ago, 4 men saved New York' and then not actually have any mention of that or anything? Ghostbusters is an example on how to not do reboots, how not to direct, how not to act and how not to create a film. So some good can come out of this.

>>86115396
isn't that what Plinkett reviews are? Essentially insane autistic nitpicking with attempted humour?

>>86115525
What?

>>86113586
how much for your masterpiece good sir?

>>86114036
So true

Please never stop posting this. I'm so tired of people sucking RLM for being hacks

>>86115609
>isn't that what Plinkett reviews are? Essentially insane autistic nitpicking with attempted humour?

No? Not at all? They mostly address legitimate and issues with movies, their structure, how they generally work (or don't work)

The Trek reviews focus on inane, unimportant bullshit, verging on "not mah Star Trek" level complaints and things that don't perfectly mesh with what some Star Trek tv series said.

File: for what purpose.gif (620KB, 498x404px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 498x404px

>>86115609
>gay
>communist
>works for Google
>communist

>>86115770
>They mostly address legitimate and issues with movies, their structure, how they generally work (or don't work)

You're kidding, right? The prequel reviews were nothing but nitpicking while TFA soft-peddled the whole thing.

>>86115770
Yeah but Mike is a Star Trek fanboy so it'd translate into that, is what I mean. But there is always some autistic nitpicking in all of his reviews, just maybe more in those.

>original prequels plinkett > Star wars: the fraud awakens >star trek plinkett >>>>>>>>>>>>>> filler plinkett made every 2 years because we're the money >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ring theory jj Abrams fellatio

>Feig called The Wizard of Oz "some Disney movie"

I'd be shocked but I've seen that happen on this board too.

>>86115960
mfw star wars is just some disney movie now

>>86115839
To be fair, TFA was how stuff that is 'new' but also 'for the fans' should be done.The problem is Rey and that's it. I'd argue there is nothing else wrong with the film bar she is inexplicably powerful. However if the rumours of the next film are right (that she's basically one of the Gods of the Force reborn) then it would explain her insane abilities. That's why I hate films like that. Where you call bullshit on X or Y, only for it to be answered 2 films later why X or Y didn't happen.

I had hoped she'd form The Knights of Rey, then go evil, corrupt half the Jedi she trained and her daughter (adopted or otherwise) leads the Jedi side and they all kill each other.

>>86115960
Except we're not Hollywood directors with several Hollywood films under our belts, in the buisness, having to know legal stuff and working with hundreds of millions of dollars. Plus on here there is a high chance it's people shitposting. That guy honestly didn't know. It's HIS FUCKING FILM. HE IS DIRECTING IT. He should know what fucking song is used and where it's from BECAUSE HE IS DIRECTING IT. He also WROTE THE FUCKING THING. Feig was either trying to be funny or is a retard. You'd have thought they'd have edited that out and have him read out where it's from to not look like an incompetent fuck, but if you're watching the commentary, you don't need to.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (95KB, 1353x761px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1353x761px

>>86114036
>100 posts of the url alone in 3 months
>same format, almost always uses the phrase hack sell out
>80% a post not linking to anybody elses comment, just pasted into every rlm thread
>start noticing patterns like "yes keep posting this your doing great work"

how fucking assblasted can you be that you spend 3 whole months shilling a video defending the force awakens

>>86113586
Baby's Day Out is #1 for me but thats cause I was obsessed with it as a kid

>>86114312
>the other is a legitimately dwell done space adventure

TFA is a shockingly safe mediocre remix of ANH that relies overmuch on coincidence in lieu of solid plot-crafting. It's not a horrible movie by any means, but it's pretty much the case-in-point for what Disney does these days: it aims low.

>ranking comedic youtube videos

please get a hobby

How can you rank them

Every Plinkett review is the same unfunny cancer you should grow out of after High School

>"UHH EMAIL ME AT MY WEBZONE FOR A PIZZA ROLL! HAHA SO RANDUM XD, PIZZA ROLLS!"

Im not even giving the new one a hate click

>all these list of the top Plinkett reviews

>no star trek reviews

Fuck all of you.

File: v3sbb.jpg (88KB, 1159x783px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1159x783px

>>86117232
>why would a character designed purely around reviewing movies stay the same

iunno man, character developer for a voice over is important. plinketts a stupid character but its not ABOUT the character, its merely a vessel for the review

File: 1489580873914.png (3MB, 1435x808px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1435x808px

>>86117232
you're so cool and mature

>>86117129
TFA aims low but does so for a reason - it was more important that it rehabilitate Star Wars from the all but ruined state that it was in than it was to make a great movie that stood alone and had high rewatch value.

It succeeded in that task completely. What happens to Star Wars very much rests on what Last Jedi does with the stage it's been given.

>>86117232
If you're watching RLM material in 2017 and not instantly skipping the skits/framing devices you're doing it wrong

>>86117517
How does presenting a paint-by-numbers, soulless imitation rehabilitate anything?

>>86117700
well since ive got the mindset of literally a child and have down syndrome, i too cant see how generating interest into a series something might generate interest into the series

>>86117700
It meets baseline expectations of what people want out of Star Wars and ISN'T SHIT like the movies that it followed that made people think Star Wars was fucking trash

You can cry about it all you want but the average person liked that movie.

>>86118179
>ISN'T SHIT

But it was.

>>86115609
Wow, 8 people who work at google have dorky SJW shit in their profiles, that must mean that google employees as a rule are like that. What an informative image. I guess I should support Trump now.

>>86118213
Nope.

>>86118348

You're replying to the same kind of psycho who flew off the handle last week when a woman at Marvel posted a picture of herself at lunch with a couple of other women who work there on her personal social media.

Literally no point trying to engage with them.

>>86117517
I agree with you about the future of the franchise, while being far brighter, very much riding on where they take things from here. Time will tell.

I still say that Disney's grown a bit too risk-averse for my tastes, but we'll see.

>>86117517
I think the mainline series has potential and as you say it's all riding on TLJ.

But the tertiary properties are getting worse. Is ANYONE looking forward to that nightmare of a Han Solo movie? That could very well be the next Ghostbusters 2016.

>>86116852
>how fucking assblasted can you be that you spend 3 whole months shilling a video defending the force awakens
t.retard who didn't watch the video, he criticizes Mike for not going far enough with his TFA criticism

>>86118515
I'm not, I didn't even read his post. I'm just making fun of the image.

>>86118692
>didn't watch the video
As no one should. Just report it for shilling and move on.

>>86116852
fucking moron who didnt watch the video

>>86118767
But shilling RLM's equally crap content is fine?

>>86113586
The Ghostbusters review was pretty great, much better than the Titanic and TFA reviews at least.

The only criticism that seemed unfair was blaming Bill Murray. I can't fault him for not wanting to do another shitty sequel.

>>86114036
this is pretty spot on

>>86116852
try watching the whole video next time including the adbreak

>>86118826
RLM is popular here whether you personally happen to like it or not, so making threads to discuss their content is not shilling, it's on topic discussion. The video you're referring to is being posted by its creator in an attempt to get his shitty channel off the ground, which is advertising and thus against the rules.

>>86114747
Mike really likes James Cameron (listen to their Terminator commentary), even though he's made some movies that he's not a fan of. I thought it was cool how he explored how the movie was so polarizing for audiences, since many people love it or hate it. imo one of his deepest reviews

>>86115609
Women were a mistake.

>>86118838
>The only criticism that seemed unfair was blaming Bill Murray. I can't fault him for not wanting to do another shitty sequel.
It wasn't that he -didn't- want to a sequel. It's that he had contractual power to kill this sequel, and he allowed it instead.

Mike/Plinkett was shitting on the meme that Murray is some kind of hip eccentric.

>>86118972
Cameron is objectively a great director.

>>86118938
>implying Jack didn't accidently admit he shills RLM here on Pre-Rec

>>86119163
Well if you can clearly show what posts on /tv/ are Jack advertising the channel I'll agree with you they should be reported too, but you can't.

>>86118938
Having watched his video, I can say that it's valid criticism. Make whatever defenses you want about *why* TFA is such a safe, unimaginative rehash, but only a corporate shill or a shameless fanboy would ever try to use "rehabbing a brand" in defense of unimaginative anti-art.

Anyone in this thread actually putting TFA on the same level as Ghostbusters (2016) is legitimately insane. Ghostbusters (2016) is a goddamn dumpster fire of rushed production, mismanagement, and genuine incompetence culminating in an underwritten, overlong, ploddingly paced mess of jankily edited improv and sloppily directed, uninspired CGI action sequences. For as much as TFA is an overly safe, Disney marketing-infected merchandising vehicle, it is completely competent in its structure and direction. It may fail at being a "Star Wars" movie, but it does not fail at being a space adventure movie. Ghostbusters (2016) fails at being fucking anything.

>>86115609
wait a sec, at least 2 of those 8 are guilty of nothing more than shitty fashion sense.

You actually cherrypicked a company with well over 5,000 employees, and weren't even able to come up with 8 examples of a strawman you wanted to push, so you padded the numbers with 2 people who have nothing explicitly gender-politicky at all on their profiles except for having dyed hair, which is popular among women in general.

Christ, how pathetic can you be?

>Mike pre-Ghostbusters Plinkett: Bill Murray was right to avoid Ghostbusters 3. Ghostbusters 2 sucked! No more!

>Mike post-Ghostbusters Plinkett: Bill Murray is the reason this shit exists and why we never got a proper Ghostbusters 3 sequel! Blame him!

The fuck?

>>86119649
>Bill Murray was right to avoid Ghostbusters 3. Ghostbusters 2 sucked! No more!
When did he say this?

>>86119692
Ghostbusters 2 Half in the Bag commentary

https://redlettermedia.bandcamp.com/track/ghostbusters-2-half-in-the-bag-commentary-track

>>86119692

The Ghostbusters II commentary track on bandcamp.

>>86119649
He's right in both ways. Had they done another Ghostbusters early on it probably wouldn't have done that well cause GB2 was pretty just the first movie again and the cartoon show had made it more of a kid's thing at this point. But if you're a die-hard fan of the series you can also put the blame on him for there never being another movie with the original cast because he wouldn't agree to it.

They could have made a decent Ghostbusters 3. They learned from 2 that you shouldn't just make the same movie over again. Mike's point is that the older and fatter the actors were the more it would work to the story's advantage because the Ghostbusters are fat old blue collar guys, not action stars.

>>86119649
The real brains behind the writing and production of the original Ghostbusters was Harold Ramis. When you look at production diaries and listen to the commentary tracks recorded over the years, it's pretty clear he was the guy who understood the appeal of the original movie's snappy writing better than anybody and knew how to translate Ackroyd's insanity into a lean, effective script, much like Gary Kurtz and Lawrence Kasdan did with George Lucas. He was pretty much the only chance of a follow-up film being true to the source material's tone and style.

So while it's ridiculous to claim it's Bill's fault that the film was as bad as it was, and that clearly Mike taking the piss, the underlying truth is that if Bill had not have held out until after Ramis died, the movie we got would very likely have been significantly better.

Are the RLM commentaries any good?

>>86120553
Sort of. A lot of the time they completely lose track of what's going on in the movie and it just becomes a podcast, which is still enjoyable and means you can listen to them without the movie if you want.

>>86119152
Maybe I need to watch it again but I thought he was saying Bill Murray refusing to do GB3 is what led them to making the reboot instead.

And didn't they pressure him into promoting the movie and doing a cameo by threatening to sue for breach of contract?

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.29.02 PM.png (96KB, 272x257px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 272x257px

>>86120914
>And didn't they pressure him into promoting the movie and doing a cameo by threatening to sue for breach of contract?
Well of course they did. Look at the painful expression on his face. He clearly doesn't want to be there.

RLM is great at pulling this kind of shit out of DVD extras.

>>86121287
The clips of the crew members' completely blank faces during the improv were my favorite bits in the review.

>>86119649
To be fair I felt/feel exactly the same. I used to applaud Bill for having enough integrity to leave well enough alone and not make a shitty GB3, but in light of Ramis' death and this monstrosity I now resent him for it.

>>86121579
Yeah we'll consider how BAD Year One is and tell me Murray refusing GB3 was a bad idea.

>>86113586
accurate

File: typical studio jew.png (444KB, 748x704px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 748x704px

>>86121579
He's an old man, and they probably put a hell of a lot of pressure on him. Including threatening to publish articles like "WHY DOES BILL MURRAY HATE WOMEN" on every clickbait site in existence.

Don't let this this phony congenial act fool you. He's a pushy, hard-nosed kike. Just like everyone else in Hollywood.

>>86121873
>Including threatening to publish articles like "WHY DOES BILL MURRAY HATE WOMEN" on every clickbait site in existence.

I can't imagine that Bill Murray would ever get pushed around that easy. He's not some insecure teenager who gives a shit what people say about him.

I'll bet it was more like "What're you 70 now? Sure would be a shame to spend your last years fighting a million dollar court battle over this..."

>>86121873
I'm not saying I resent him for his cameo, I resent him for refusing to make the third movie for over 25 years which ultimately resulted in this abortion.

>>86122091
Even if there was another shitty Ghostbusters sequel in the 90s or 2000s, this film probably would have been made anyway, so its a moo point.

>>86121873
There's actually no evidence that anything like this happened. The email it's all based on is extremely short.

>In order to more fully evaluate our position if Bill Murray again declines to engage on “Ghostbusters”, AG requested that we identify “aggressive” litigation counsel with whom we can consult to evaluate our alternatives and strategize. [Harkening back to his prior employer, of course, raised the name of David Boies.]

>Personally, while I’m fine with aggressive, I think we are in much worse shape if this goes public so seems to me we should look for someone who isn’t seeking the spotlight.

>Can we discuss at some point soon to provide a suggestion or two?

>Thanks.

It's possible to interpret this as them meaning they want to try to sue him into appearing in the film, but you don't have to assume that for it to make sense. One of the obstacles to Ghostbusters 3 getting made was that Murray actually had a partial stake in the rights, and there was some fuzziness as to whether or not he'd lost it at that point. Dan Aykroyd said it was something "for the lawyers to sort out" or something to that effect. These emails could easily just be talking about what Sony would need to do if Bill Murray had some kind of legal rights they'd need to get around in order to make the movie. It probably turned out he didn't even have them anymore.

Note that "we should look for someone who isn't seeking the spotlight" is referring to the lawyers they're looking for, not an actor.

>>86122368
Except he didn't just fail to stop the thing. He agreed to be in it, and made at least that one miserable appearance to promote it.

>>86122594
That's not related to my point, I'm just pointing out that there's no evidence he did those things because of Sony threatening legal action against him.

File: 1468569918774.jpg (21KB, 457x272px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 457x272px

>>86122738
The evidence is in his Kimmel appearance.

File: 1466341474559.webm (2MB, 342x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 342x360px

>>86122837

>>86122837
That's not evidence, it's you putting an interpretation on something. I agree he looks like he doesn't want to be there and thinks the whole thing is stupid, but that doesn't mean he was threatened by Sony to do it. It could just as easily be the case that he did it to avoid looking bad as the only cast member who wouldn't support the new girl power movie, or maybe Sony wouldn't pay the others to come back unless Murray was participating and he did it as a favor to them. There are plenty of ways to interpret it, and assuming Sony sued him into it is actually a bigger stretch than the ones I just mentioned. If you actually think about it for a second, it's hard to imagine what kind of case they could possibly have had.

>>86114929
>>86114747
>what everyone shitting on rlm dosent get
its okay to like shit movies and its okay to like great movies, and they assuredly like some shit ones and some great ones, but for the film noob having someone actually tell you and explain HOW and WHY something works or atleast what was being attempted is neat as fuck to me. ive seen plenty a review on movies i loved that they shit on, and it dosent bug me, infact its kinda neat to know more about each movie.

File: Ghostbusters 1466209400339e.jpg (212KB, 1298x709px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1298x709px

>>86121873

>be Paul Feig an unsuccessful actor with a terrible last name
>get fired off your biggest television break as the JUST teacher on Sabrina the Teen Witch
>your pitched show about how you were a loser in high school gets greenlighted but the network hates it so Freaks and Geeks is cancelled after 10 episodes and only hipsters remember it
>try to be film director but no one watches your shitty comedies
>after Hangover becomes big success pitch to have a female ensemble in Bridesmaids and Hollywood throws you a bone
>become success overnight because normie Amerifats identify with McCarthy and show up to set with tacky faggy suits to stand out
>ride the McCarthy train by cranking out shitty "female interest" raunchy comedies because only thing that made you
>happily help Amy Pascal fuck over Ivan Reitman's beloved 80's classic and remake it into something that will piss off fans because who needs their money?
>troll fans on Twitter and use SJW's as your army against anyone who thinks the trailer looks like shit and hence the movie is shit
>online reviewers inflate Rotten Tomatoes scores but despite that no one sees your POS and it bombs
>Paul Feig will never direct another 150 million plus film in Hollywood again

File: 1465513845697.webm (3MB, 708x543px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 708x543px

Do you think he regrets anything?

>>86123347
just look at his eyes

>>86123347
Garfield, maybe

>>86116852
>defending TFA

Anon did you just not watch it?

>>86115609
>company employs over 55000 people
>8 are weirdos
the numbers actually seem pretty good

>>86115002
Daisy is charismatic and Wiig is legitimately funny. McKinnon is maybe the only more naturally funny female comedian from SNL that isn't Tina Fey or Amy Poehler.

Anybody that understands how comedy and acting works can understand how the actual cast are all talented people.

Are you ready to admit that you're an sjw that lets your political biases get in the way of your ability to appreciate stuff? The problem with the movie wasn't that the actors weren't good, it's that there was no goddamn vision or direction. Forcing a bunch of improv actors and tech exposition to carry the runtime is bad direction.

>>86122978
oh yeah I love all the plinkett reviews for the specific, in depth analysis with relevant examples to show what works to compare to why what he's talking about failed.

And I also was just talking about the Titanic review I think. Other than on like Boyhood and Rogue One have I disagreed with them on a a fundamental level. They just memed about how they watched way too many promotional things for Boyhood and never made a valid attempt to talk about the movie as anything other than fuck that guy doing something different.

And I didn't listen to the RO commentary but their half in the bag can suck my dick. I saw RO in like life changing circumstances, and they saw it wanted to like it after triggering everyone for spending half the tfa plinkett talking about fucking ring theory.

>>86123067
>Paul Feig will never direct another 150 million plus film in Hollywood again
It's his own fault for being a cuck.

Now, I know that word gets overused time and time again around here. But he literally fits every aspect of the description. He's a weak, ineffectual beta male who's desperate to please his liberal masters. It shows so clearly how he wants to be the "good little white boy", listen to his anxiety and awkwardness as he tries to sing the praises of literally everyone else who worked on the film while being as self-effacing as possible. You can tell he's quivering fear trying not to accidentally speak up and thereby offend the precious minorities whose approval he craves by showing any initiative as a white. male. whatsoever