Are you guys excited for the next Plinkett review? Do you think he will like force awakens since Mike does?

Everyone on that show is blessed

>RLM imitators will go away

Although it is not as simple as the imitators. RLM themselves do not have the ability to dissect a movie to fully understand context.
They pose themselves as the "every man's opinion" but in doing so that doesn't help clarify deeper meaning, or even some of the most common story telling techniques. It doesn't provide better understanding. For them it is the blind leading the blind.

Yes 'can confirm, I can barely get it all in my mouth.

-Jay

That's how critics have been for decades. Long before RLM came around you had guys like Ebert who wrote simple reviews.

rolls of fat arent a cock

I'm exited for the salt that will come from prequel apologists and other RLM haters when the review is stickied here

>prequel apologists
Literally the worst people on this board.

*worst people on earth

>They pose themselves as the "every man's opinion" but in doing so that doesn't help clarify deeper meaning, or even some of the most common story telling techniques. It doesn't provide better understanding

The only exception to this was Mike's Star Wars and Star Trek plinkett stuff.

That's why I don't get why it became a meme to think that was RLM's best content.

I'll take Mike dissecting a star trek movie I don't give a shit about over him and Jay saying "I thought it was okay" over and over again in Half in the Bag about capeshit.

What about Mike getting hammered?

I hope they aren't teasing about a new plinkett review. Ive been waiting so long

>Implying that isn't a roll of fat cock

How can white guys even compete!

Crashing this thread...

whos this inbred retard?

Their reviews aren't intellectual analysis but they've never pretended to be intellectuals. They're just a couple of film school graduates who enjoy talking about movies. I don't see why you think they're so cancerous, guys like Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Richard Roeper and Gene Shalit were doing this kinda reviewing decades before RLM.

What the fuck is a Plinkett?

Hey, Crazy Eyes from Orange is the New Black is on there.

give me tori black please

I guess we share the same girl?

Ebert provided several different views of a movie analyzing the movie's intended goal, and whether it had fulfilled its intent reach. This is in no way suggesting Ebert was the best, but he provided a better analytical view that RLM isn't capable of understanding.
This has nothing to do with a generational thing, but level of skill in objectively assessing content from different perspectives.

...

25-27 looks like she was busted for a dime bag of weed.

where the fuck is the new half in the bag

But RLM also will talk about the movie's intended goal and whether it had fulfilled its intent reach.

rollan

I assume they'll do the new blair witch this week

>Ebert provided several different views of a movie analyzing the movie's intended goal, and whether it had fulfilled its intent reach.
Kind of like what RLM does all the time?

retry

rell

Rolling

...

>implying Roger "The Plinkett Review of Episode 1 is the only review I'd actually pay to see" Ebert is better

lel

>Ebert provided several different views of a movie analyzing the movie's intended goal, and whether it had fulfilled its intent reach. This is in no way suggesting Ebert was the best, but he provided a better analytical view that RLM isn't capable of understanding.
Is this bait? RLM do the exact same shit. Ebert even once publicly endorsed RLM. Defending Ebert while shitting on RLM is pure hypocrisy.

>Defending Ebert while shitting on RLM is pure hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy, just autism.

It will probably be like the Star Trek reboot review

>Ebert even once publicly endorsed RLM.

Once? Times have changed, and their reviewing technique has become lax in comparison.

Ebert was paid from both TV, and newspaper.
Holding two opposing generalizations against each other doesn't reveal truth.
Some of you seem to have difficulty thinking beyond binary generalizations.
Was in no way suggesting Ebert was the best, and yet you focus on that because that is the narrow minded limitation you've set.
You simply label something that suits your dislike, then disregard whichever else you do not understand.

This is what RLM does, and you're proving my point.

>Some of you seem to have difficulty thinking beyond binary generalizations.
Oh go fuck yourself, you pretentious cunt.

Holy samefag, fuckman.

well they are Cred Forums crossposters

HOLY SHIT

HOW CAN BLACK PEOPLE EVEN COMPETE ?

They can't

>same guy keeps posting the same thread with the same images and the same posts on both Cred Forums and Cred Forums

why are you so obsessed with rlm?

It's Jay

the video essay stuff is more influenced by Every Frame a Painting, who has only edited like, one movie

They see me rolling

You are correct about and The rest were other people, or someone else. I thought it was obviously which were me? Apparently not, and still you were wrong.

Time for insults! When you can't make a point resort to 3rd grade level tactics.

ayy lmao

>Once? Times have changed
Well, he can't endorse them again since he's fucking dead.
>and their reviewing technique has become lax in comparison.
What happened is they switched from Plinkett to Half in the Bag and HITB is more simplistic and streamlined than Plinkett.

I saw the video of Plinkett repeatedly annoyingly laughing for several minutes at some transcripts George Lucas had written as the historical outline of Darth Vader's suit creation. He seemed unable to understand that sometimes you create a complete framework for a character so that it helps guide the reactions a character might make throughout the rest of a story. It helps provide consistency to the character. The fact that Plinkett didn't understand such a simple part of character creation exposed how little he understands character development.

He was laughing because it was autistic wookipedia fanfic that was laughably stupid and silly, you self righteous fuck.

Thank you for clearing that up. Honestly I appreciate it.

The original Plinkett reviews worked so well because there was an active prequel-internet-defense-force of fanboys out there.

You don't really see that with TFA though - there seem to be a few people shouting about the Mary Sue stuff and the ripping off of ANH, but most people don't think it was a horribly done movie or anything.

Makes me wonder if RLM will end up defending the movie, though I don't see how that could be funny or entertaining in any way.

>The original Plinkett reviews worked so well because there was an active prequel-internet-defense-force of fanboys out there

Proof? There really wasn't.

The plinkett reviews were amazing and well-received because they articulated the lameness of the movies better than anyone had before. We knew we didn't like the prequels, but plinkett helped us understand why

not trying to be offensive but
do you have the 'tism?

I've read claims that JJ Abrams admits that Rey having her JEDI powers so quickly, and effectively was a mistake.
If this is true, which it seems it is, this might mean they'll have to walk backwards on what she can do, and make up some bullshit that Luke was guiding her to have those abilities the whole time.

Jack, stopping pretending you are Jay

And you should find better sites to viral market, Cred Forums is a cesspool

Not officially, but I have noted peaks, and lows.

That term is thrown out loosely, so hard to say to how frequent, and to what extent.

>JJ Abrams admits that Rey having her JEDI powers so quickly, and effectively was a mistake.

No one knows if this it true?

No. The only mistake Abrams admits to is Leia hugging Rey instead of Chewbacca.

They were definitely out there, Im talking before Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr, on message board communities, mostly while the movies were still being filmed.

That's what made it weird. People would talk about how bad the movies were and delusional fanboys would pop up. An old-ass example here:

ign.com/boards/threads/slight-problem-in-my-opinion.18004052/#post-18163239

You must be very insecure about your intelligence. You just said a whole lot of stuff that barely means anything but somehow you found a way to come off as pretentious

They were laughing at the extended universe you dumb cunt.

Muh emperor palpatine surgical reconstruction center really informs the character

I don't really want a review of the movie so much as a review of Bob Iger-era Disney's practices. That would be an area one could shed some potentially interesting light on. And there has been a lot of controversy over the studio system in the Marvel movies and Rogue One.

Chairmen lmao

Also years later the guy was still in denial -

ign.com/boards/threads/red-letter-medias-rots-review-is-up.198901023/#post-199148821

>You guys do realize that the guy making these awesome videos is just making fun of the chronic complainers right?

>None of his points are valid, they are all childish and stupid.

>I saw the video of Plinkett repeatedly annoyingly laughing for several minutes at some transcripts George Lucas had written as the historical outline of Darth Vader's suit creation.
You mean Mike, and Rich.

>Every Frame a Painting
That guy is a fucking moron though. I assumed only idiots on the SomethingAwful film board actually took him seriously.

>pretentious
>You just said a whole lot of stuff that barely means anything

Same for you.

>You must be very insecure about your intelligence.

Sometimes if I missed something, but not always. In my experience it is possible to shift from feeling secure to insecure depending on many factors. Humans are not robots that maintain a solid absolute one node state of being.
If you do not understand something perhaps I didn't thinking it out carefully enough to make it easy for you to understand, or perhaps what I have state requires more thought than you're willing to allow yourself.

Ultimately my life goes on unchanged.