A Critique of Red Letter Media’s Bigoted Content (See Staff Post)

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,138
I see the pattern, that many people believe, that any kind of major representation is good representation. And RLM's angle, that those are just marketing tricks, are seen as problematic in this thread. You can disagree with them, but i just don't see, what makes them bigots.
That's not RLM's angle. Just one of their excuses. It doesn't explain why they apparently took offense to Brie Larson, why they've said in the past that only people "obsessed with diversity" even care about diversity efforts, and it certainly doesn't explain why they're singularly sensitive to "marketing tricks" when a non-white male is given the spotlight (like somehow marketing has had nothing to do with the prominence of white dudes in Hollywood cinema...).

This is their angle: a fundamental skepticism of the idea that representation is a thing we should strive for. The main issue for RLM isn't the limited/compromised nature of corporate diversity efforts, but the fact that any conscious attempt to make cinema more diverse apparently feels to them like an infiltration of their hobby by nefarious forces (whether it be corporations or people "obsessed with diversity").

I don't know that RLM are bigots, but they certainly seem to have a white centrist perspective straight from the South Park school of comedy and criticism. At the very least, as shown throughout this thread, that has certainly put them in alignment with bigots a few too many times.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,719
I don't really get this "not good diversity because it's too cynical".
From my PoV I learned this was a shit excuse when wondering about blackspoitation movies that looked like utter trash and then learning that these movies were actually the only ones providing real acting career to minority actors while you had white actors doing blackface because of course.
I don't think I've ever seen this kind of concern ever be genuine and not thinly veiled racism or sexism.
 

Bradbury

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,094
I don't really get this "not good diversity because it's too cynical".
From my PoV I learned this was a shit excuse when wondering about blackspoitation movies that looked like utter trash and then learning that these movies were actually the only ones providing real acting career to minority actors while you had white actors doing blackface because of course.
I don't think I've ever seen this kind of concern ever be genuine and not thinly veiled racism or sexism.
It´s funny that the only people that I ever seen using that argument are "enlighted" white people like RLM
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,707
I think a lot of these racist distraction tactics are recognizable because they draw the question of "wait, why does this interfere with that?"

Someone responds to Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter. To which you have to go, wait, if all lives matter, then black lives do as well. So why would it have to become a controversial statement?

Someone responds to a minority talking about an insistence of racism with "if you care about that, why don't you deal with all of this other racism". To which you have to go, wait, if we want to deal with all of racism we'll have to deal with all of the instances of it eventually. Why would would you take issue with speaking about one if you actually care about solving it all?

Someone responds to representation with proper representation. To which you have to go, wait, proper representation still demands representation. Why would we push to remove that instead of pushing to increase and improve it?
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,719
It´s funny that the only people that I ever seen using that argument are "enlighted" white people like RLM
That's because they want the "best" for the roles/characters.
And clearly the "best" can only be a white heterosexual guy otherwise it's shameless pandering!

I think a lot of these racist distraction tactics are recognizable because they draw the question of "wait, why does this interfere with that?"

Someone responds to Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter. To which you have to go, wait, if all lives matter, then black lives do as well. So why would it have to become a controversial statement?

Someone responds to a minority talking about an insistence of racism with "if you care about that, why don't you deal with all of this other racism". To which you have to go, wait, if we want to deal with all of racism we'll have to deal with all of the instances of it eventually. Why would would you take issue with speaking about one if you actually care about solving it all?

Someone responds to representation with proper representation. To which you have to go, wait, proper representation still demands representation. Why would we push to remove that instead of pushing to increase and improve it?
One day we'll reach decent representation when mediocre performances is not used as a cudgel against the demographic of the performer.
We can have 634236353.45454786346 bad white leads and it'll be because the actor is bad, but if there's just a minority that have the problem of not being perfect that means that's really the fault of shameless pandering somehow.
 

Metal B

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,396
That's not RLM's angle. Just one of their excuses. It doesn't explain why they apparently took offense to Brie Larson, why they've said in the past that only people "obsessed with diversity" even care about diversity efforts, and it certainly doesn't explain why they're singularly sensitive to "marketing tricks" when a non-white male is given the spotlight (like somehow marketing has had nothing to do with the prominence of white dudes in Hollywood cinema...).

This is their angle: a fundamental skepticism of the idea that representation is a thing we should strive for. The main issue for RLM isn't the limited/compromised nature of corporate diversity efforts, but the fact that any conscious attempt to make cinema more diverse apparently feels to them like an infiltration of their hobby by nefarious forces (whether it be corporations or "people obsessed with diversity").
Because that's what everybody in the mainstream was talking about at that time and they make money by covering the newest geek movies. That's there thing, even so they don't really enjoy those movies that much anymore. But they still have to talk about those and there opinion is, that studios use diversity for there marking of blockbuster movies.
When they actually talk about movies they like (which are mostly smaller, older or trash movies), they don't go in any topic about diversity or have any problems with any of those topics. Seeing Best of the Worst, they are truly disguised by sexism, abuse, racism, etc and still talk about fraud in the movie industry.

I don't know that RLM are bigots, but they certainly seem to have a white centrist perspective straight from the South Park school of comedy and criticism. At the very least, as shown throughout this thread, that has certainly put them in alignment with bigots a few too many times.
They aren't centrist, they are clearly anti-capitalism and don't like scams and marketing tricks, which only make white old men richer.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,036
Because that's what everybody in the mainstream was talking about at that time and they make money by covering the newest geek movies. That's there thing, even so they don't really enjoy those movies that much anymore.

they are clearly anti-capitalism and don't like scams and marketing tricks
They produce clickbait hot takes for money

"We don't like marketing tricks here's 3 videos on how SONY is manufacturing fake outrage and sexism!!!11 Support our Patreon. Don't forget to like and subscribe!"
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,719
They aren't centrist, they are clearly anti-capitalism and don't like scams and marketing tricks, which only make white old men richer.
If you think denying anyone but white men roles isn't just making white old men richer, boy is the bridge I have to sell you so clean
 

Metal B

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,396
They produce clickbait hot takes for money
They clearly don't manipulate anybody thinking, that watching and paying for there videos, will counter racism or sexism.

If you think denying anyone but white men roles isn't just making white old men richer, boy is the bridge I have to sell you so clean
Who talks about actors? The people in the back and on the top of the movie industries make the real money here.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,719
What's the difference?
Can't you see?
Unless the corporations lose money, representation is pandering.
Which means that in the real world real representation must never happen because if it's making money it's pandering so there should never be any incentive for the situation to improve.
Who talks about actors? The people in the back and on the top of the movie industries make the real money here.
What do you think is achieved by making representation a disincentive?
It just means that only white actors should get lead roles.
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,894
I see the pattern, that many people believe, that any kind of major representation is good representation. And RLM's angle, that those are just marketing tricks, are seen as problematic in this thread. You can disagree with them, but i just don't see, what makes them bigots.
Nah, that's weak bullshit. Of course representation is marketed. What are they supposed to do, keep it quiet and let minorities accidentally discover they're represented in media? It's a ridiculous and hilariously disingenuous dogwhistle for "straight white men are default and you need a good reason to deviate from it." This has been something they do constantly, especially Mike. It's very obvious that these "jokes" are in fact Mike's personal opinions on the matters, and they're intensely ignorant and bigoted in that "What I'm not hurting anyone it's just my OPINION" manner that mediocre white dudes hide behind all the time. I mean there's zero reason to do an extended "did you assume Godzilla's gender" joke mocking gender identity unless you are actively irritated by the existence and visibility of trans and genderfluid people. That's the whole joke, and it's clearly Mike giving his honest opinion in the guise of one of the most tired, hackneyed "jokes" imaginable about the subject.

I feel like a lot of it is Mike and his similarly-minded buddy Rich, while Jay sort of plays Richard Hammond and giggles along or just stays out of it since he's not the boss. Then again that might be my bias showing, since I have some small amount of respect for Jay, if only because when Max Landis showed up Mike shifted entirely into "buddy up to the Hollywood guy" mode while Jay remained exactly as unimpressed by Max as anyone who sat through American Ultra should be.
 

Agar25

Member
Apr 12, 2018
5,505
Any and all media should be held accountable for having trash views... that said some of y’all make it reaaaally difficult to have any sort of dialogue. What’s the point of having a “critique” thread when it’s just going to turn into a “you’re either with us or against us” , which is what some of you are clearly aiming for
 

A.By

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,216
Can't you see?
Unless the corporations lose money, representation is pandering.
Which means that in the real world real representation must never happen because if it's making money it's pandering so there should never be any incentive for the situation to improve.
Oh, right
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,440
USA
Nah, that's weak bullshit. Of course representation is marketed. What are they supposed to do, keep it quiet and let minorities accidentally discover they're represented in media? It's a ridiculous and hilariously disingenuous dogwhistle for "straight white men are default and you need a good reason to deviate from it." This has been something they do constantly, especially Mike. It's very obvious that these "jokes" are in fact Mike's personal opinions on the matters, and they're intensely ignorant and bigoted in that "What I'm not hurting anyone it's just my OPINION" manner that mediocre white dudes hide behind all the time. I mean there's zero reason to do an extended "did you assume Godzilla's gender" joke mocking gender identity unless you are actively irritated by the existence and visibility of trans and genderfluid people. That's the whole joke, and it's clearly Mike giving his honest opinion in the guise of one of the most tired, hackneyed "jokes" imaginable about the subject.

I feel like a lot of it is Mike and his similarly-minded buddy Rich, while Jay sort of plays Richard Hammond and giggles along or just stays out of it since he's not the boss. Then again that might be my bias showing, since I have some small amount of respect for Jay, if only because when Max Landis showed up Mike shifted entirely into "buddy up to the Hollywood guy" mode while Jay remained exactly as unimpressed by Max as anyone who sat through American Ultra should be.
Great post. But..

Jay engages in the same shit. There's a bit in the OP where him and Rich openly mock left politics and women.

All of them suck, the distinction of who is worse or not as bad is meaningless.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,138
Because that's what everybody in the mainstream was talking about at that time and they make money by covering the newest geek movies. That's there thing, even so they don't really enjoy those movies that much anymore. But they still have to talk about those and there opinion is, that studios use diversity for there marking of blockbuster movies.
When they actually talk about movies they like (which are mostly smaller, older or trash movies), they don't go in any topic about diversity or have any problems with any of those topics. Seeing Best of the Worst, they are truly disguised by sexism, abuse, racism, etc and still talk about fraud in the movie industry.


They aren't centrist, they are clearly anti-capitalism and don't like scams and marketing tricks, which only make white old men richer.
The juxtaposition of these two lines sums up this entire post:

Because that's what everybody in the mainstream was talking about at that time and they make money by covering the newest geek movies.

. . .

They aren't centrist, they are clearly anti-capitalism and don't like scams and marketing tricks, which only make white old men richer.


Oh, I see excelsiorlef made the same observation. Haha.
 

Pata Hikari

Member
Jan 15, 2018
2,001
I don't know that RLM are bigots, but they certainly seem to have a white centrist perspective straight from the South Park school of comedy and criticism. At the very least, as shown throughout this thread, that has certainly put them in alignment with bigots a few too many times.
But that is literally just "bigots, but they make sure not to say the N word."
 
May 9, 2019
90
Australia
Can't you see?
Unless the corporations lose money, representation is pandering.
Which means that in the real world real representation must never happen because if it's making money it's pandering so there should never be any incentive for the situation to improve.
Yeah that's not at all what I said. I'm talking about when movie studios know they have a terrible film on their hands like ghostbusters 2016 so go all in marketing it like its a political act of defiance against angry white boys to show up and support their product placement heavy piece of trash.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,036
Yeah that's not at all what I said. I'm talking about when movie studios know they have a terrible film on their hands like ghostbusters 2016 so go all in marketing it like its a political act of defiance to angry white boys to show up and support their product placement heavy piece of trash.
Dude you have the timeline backwards the sexism and racism against GB 2016 came first.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,719
Yeah that's not at all what I said. I'm talking about when movie studios know they have a terrible film on their hands like ghostbusters 2016 so go all in marketing it like its a political act of defiance to the alt-right to show up and support their product placement heavy piece of trash.
Do you really think people work on projects like movies or games and really don't try to make the best product they can with what they have?
Like are we seriously having that conversation right now?
And why the fuck do you give a shit if a company is willing to waste cash on giving minorities jobs?
 

Pata Hikari

Member
Jan 15, 2018
2,001
The point of complaining about cynical and "forced" diversity is to hold any attempts at casting anybody who isn't straight, cis, and white to an impossibly high standard.
 

Bradbury

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,094
Yeah that's not at all what I said. I'm talking about when movie studios know they have a terrible film on their hands like ghostbusters 2016 so go all in marketing it like its a political act of defiance against angry white boys to show up and support their product placement heavy piece of trash.
The attacks on the movie literally started the day it was announced long before anything was shoot
 

A.By

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,216
Yeah that's not at all what I said. I'm talking about when movie studios know they have a terrible film on their hands like ghostbusters 2016 so go all in marketing it like its a political act of defiance against angry white boys to show up and support their product placement heavy piece of trash.
Ghostbusters 2016 was maligned from the moment it was confirmed to star four women. The notion that it was a tactic to create a defense for the movie, especially considering that the level of outrage towards a film for representation was fairly unprecedented at the time, is only feeding the people who harassed the cast and crew.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,819
The point of complaining about cynical and "forced" diversity is to hold any attempts at casting anybody who isn't straight, cis, and white to an impossibly high standard.
And it directly ignores that diversity hiring for diversity's sake is a counterbalance to the actual forced whiteness of Amercian media since the inception of film.
 

BADMAN

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,905
I've watched their stuff for a long ass time now, and yeah, there is some real problematic shit in their content. Despite feeling like they've gotten better about it over time it's definitely there and it's a bummer whenever that shit creeps into their work. I still watch their stuff off and on as I can separate the occasional problematic stuff with the rest of their content which I think is very entertaining.

But yeah, can't blame anyone for not wanting to watch their stuff.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
7,719
Obviously, I was just keeping it to the scope of the thread at hand.
You are absolutely right.
I think it's interesting that this discussion is happening regarding "forced diversity" and kind of show how the detractors would view a whole span of movie making that basically existed to provide minorities with roles and jobs because Hollywood was too chickenshit to give them a hand when they were perfectly happy stanning for literal pedos and other predators.
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,894
Great post. But..

Jay engages in the same shit. There's a bit in the OP where him and Rich openly mock left politics and women.

All of them suck, the distinction of who is worse or not as bad is meaningless.
I admit I haven't kept up much recently, having pretty much checked out after the Ghostbusters scientist video, and only watched the Godzilla one because it came up in recommendations. If Jay has fully joined in with the racist deer games, that's very disappointing, although I suppose not unexpected.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,600
'Diversity' first came up first as a cynical response to Disney pushing it as part of Star Wars, a franchise literally taking notes from Triumph Of The Will and other literal fascism stuff. In that particular case it was appropriate because of just how cynical that is. Hell, even Lindsay Ellis has made a video on Disney now literally selling "fun fascism" and the diversity pitch is just there to increase the audience.
And considering the name of the next one, it's going to be even more cynical when people walk out of the movie to realize: "it was really just about white people this whole time". Remember, this is JJ "no Asians!" Abrams we're talking about. (which incidentally, was just one of the many, many things that TLJ had to fix)

Star Wars just isn't the universe to suddenly start doing that unless there was a plan for it thematically. Like say: Finn & co restarting the Republic in a scene that mirrors the fall of it in the prequels (to thundering applause). Theme wise that would work across the trilogies: fall-rebellion-return. But if that's not there, then it's just another Game Of Thrones depiction of non-whites, and that will make the eventual disappointment feel that much worse.
(with superhero movies such a theme of 'anyone can be the hero' like in Into The Spiderverse is far more appropriate and logical to use)

Mike actually pointed out the good qualities of using it correctly in Spider-Man: Homecoming, in the form of the twist. So it's not like like they're blind to it, they're just very much outside of having any skin in the game.

When it comes to sexism however, yeah that's totally the dickfest talking on their end, and that has been fairly obvious from the start. The Captain Marvel review was a low point. Weirdly enough though, that one felt like they had watch other YouTube videos before their review to a point where it had completely tipped their bias to the wrong side.
Seriously, YouTube REALLY has an issue with Brie Larson for some reason (why? who knows). So if anything, I suspect that feedback loops factored into that one a bit.

Rich's questionable history is the result of having no education or hope for any other job, really (or at least back in 2008, which broke a lot of people). Nobody should be surprised there, except for him having avoided going full right for the last four years. I like to think he's just ignorant, not necessarily the worst person ever. It's worth pointing out that they did a Gremlins 2 commentary the day after the 2016 election where they referred to him as 'President Clank', which is the Trump-based character in that movie. And with clearly no love for the inspiration.


In summary, whereas this thread seems to have a very fixed idea of what RLM's content is like, warts and all, they are at worst center-left Democrats without much education or social capital to prevent them from their worst ideas.

Doesn't mean they are slowly being pushed towards the dark side of YouTube, but I think that is more a combination of algorithm and business problems than it is with their "natural" inclinations as people. I'm not saying they're good people (considering the movies they watch and the humor needed to deal with how shitty those are, being 'good' was never really in the cards), but they are still a far cry from the worst that YouTube has given a platform to.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,440
USA
I admit I haven't kept up much recently, having pretty much checked out after the Ghostbusters scientist video, and only watched the Godzilla one because it came up in recommendations. If Jay has fully joined in with the racist deer games, that's very disappointing, although I suppose not unexpected.
(:15)
Jay: Hey, why does the scientist have to be a man.. that's sexist.
Rich: I think he's gunna mansplain us.
(8:26)
[Bit about YT comments]
Rich: I still wouldn't bet on that horse.
Jay: Rich, what are you talking about, Sarah Jessica Parker wasn't in the Ghost Busters reboot.
[Horse neighing in background]
Rich: Gasp, you sexist!
From the OP, first two examples
 

Tagyhag

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,811
It's a shame, sometimes they make good points like how frustrating it is that Annihilation is one of the best female-driven movies in a while and it does shit at the box-office but other times they say some white-ass male privilege shit.

I will just say, the Canadians are a treasure.
 

thevid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
458
I once came upon their review for Wonder Woman. Straight away Mike has a weird hang-up about little girls looking up to Wonder Woman. I don't know enough about him to know if he feels the same way about little boys and Superman, but it seemed like a really odd thing to have an issue with. I don't remember the rest of the review, but I remember being bothered enough with it to never go back.
 
More bullshit from them

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,116
The whole point of the video wasn't, that sexism and racism doesn't exist or was fake in the attack of the movie, but that Sony Picture took the attacks and used them as a marketing tool. Putting oil into the fire to sell the movie (the Dan Aykroyd interview). It's a new marketing tactic now called "Woke Brands".
The whole point of their video was that the racism/sexism the cast of Ghostbusters 2016 faced was mostly overblown by Sony to sell tickets and any actual harassment they faced online was statistically insignificant. Essentially, 'people don't care about women/minorities replacing historically white male roles in media so stop trying to divide us Sony'. They briefly touch on the large online harassment campaign Leslie Jones faced explicitly because she was a black women in Ghostbusters but only to make a joke.

With hindsight publishing that analysis 4 months before the 2016 election is amazing. Its just like when HitB did their condescending Box Office Number Crunching episode but didn't realize that theaters take a percentage of the profits. Its that same level of smug yet inept criticism that RLM applies to all subjects. When its them talking about bad B movies on VHS its typically great because they have experience and are somewhat of an authority on the subject.When its them trying to explain away social issues they have no idea about is when it gets embarrassing.


I think, you believe that the RLM's guys don't see value in female heroes but in male heroes instead. No, they said multiple times, that they don't care for super hero movies at all, because they don't really enjoy it. For some time they hopped multiple times, that trend would stop and just now realized, that it will not go away. They don't see much value in a female superhero, because they don't see value in any super hero movie.
Also accusing Disney in using feminism as a marketing tool (the same as above).
I'm not confused. I've been watching RLM and HitB since 2011. They will talk about any number of super hero schlock as schlock. However, when it comes to super hero/ any mainstream media starring women/minorities they go out of their way to lecture us on how minority groups don't care about representation. ' Women/minorities related to Luke Skywalker. Who cares who they cast in the lead.Just make a good movie.' When a diverse cast is in a film they dog whistle tokenism and paint it as Hollywood inorganically cashing in on a trend disregarding all historical context/the concerted effort needed to change the industry.

Also, Mike and Jay can cry me a river complaining about super hero movies on HitB. They've been doing it for almost a decade and the show has gotten progressively worse. They've nearly completely abandoned any type of interesting framing device to ground the show. They could talk about different/interesting movies but they do the show on super hero stuff cause it'll give them the clicks. Its just as cynical as Adam Sandler at this point.

The same think, they accuse Georg Lucas of using the "only all black cast"-angle as a marketing tool to sell his movie. A white guy making a movie about the achievements of black people and try to sell it as progressive.

I see the pattern, that many people believe, that any kind of major representation is good representation. And RLM's angle, that those are just marketing tricks, are seen as problematic in this thread. You can disagree with them, but i just don't see, what makes them bigots.
All Hollywood is marketing tricks. This isn't new or novel observation. My point in highlighting the Red Tails review is that the crews ( mainly Mikes) perspective is so dated and insular that its almost useless in discussing modern topics.

For example , here is an all time whataboutism quote from Mike during their Annihilation review. He's trying to point out the hypocrisy in the media on why they didn't champion a female lead, mid budget, hard R ,sci-fi film like Annahilation in the same way they did Black Panther.

Mike: You've got people creaming in their pants over silly comic book movies about changing the world and then here quietly you have a science fiction horror drama that completely failed. With all the talk that this is the the time for women, the uprising of women in Hollywood you know women don't get enough roles, women need positive role models. And they're like this is it on a fucking silver platter and no one talked about it.
Jay is so baffled by the bad whataboutism take that he has to explain it to Mike.

Jay: I think a part of it is when they say that they want these movies you know to have representation and equal screen time for everybody they're talking about the mass appeal movies.
I was so baffled that Mike didn't understand that a 200 million dollar four quadrant black directed/led super hero movie would get more press coverage than a 40 million dollar niche, hard R, Cronenberg-esque sci-fi film. Its almost as if established white female movie stars have a history of leading mid budget sci-fi movies in Hollywood (Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster,Scarlett Johanson,Sandra Bullock,Amy Adams, Natalie Portman ect) and Black Panther/Wonder Woman was something unprecedented.

This was the point I had to tap out on RLM content. They are either stupid or malicious. Both are dangerous when they have such a large audience.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2018
2,810
I find that RLM has the consistently highest number of film reviews I enjoy watching - genisys, their horrror movie reviews...paul mart mall cop. I can even rewatch them and have it just churn in the background.

here's who I watch on youtube

Jeremy Jahns: Short about 3 minutes.
Breakfast all day - they used to be a different channel but that shut but i like all 4 of the guys (+Kirstie) who talk on it
Mark Kermode
+ RLM

I recognise some of the issues that people can see in their content but their take on cinema quite often aligns with mine. They're also more critical than most people and I like the re:views look at older cinema too. The recent into the mouth of madness one is great. The only thing I can say I don't even enjoy about RLM is when they skip talking current movies out; as I'd like to hear them talk about it in lieu of the horrible black tape / shitty best of the worst episodes.
 
Last edited:

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,707
Okay, on further consideration, I'm on board with the proper representation forced diversity thing. Any character that isn't up to snuff should be removed so not to improperly depict the demographics they represent.

Let's start with straight white men since that's probably where we can affect things the most just by setting up the criteria. Let's take a level that a straight white man character needs to reach in order to be in a movie or television show. I can't think of a better example of the top of my head, so lets go with Atticus Finch. We measure how good the character is and we go, sorry buddy, you haven't written any straight white men as good as Atticus Finch. That means you don't get to have any. Those are the rules.

Then when we're all done with that we can start going down the list. Straight white women can be next. Sorry Brie Larson, your uppity body language is making women look bad. You can't be in the movie now.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2018
2,810
I'm not confused. I've been watching RLM and HitB since 2011. They will talk about any number of super hero schlock as schlock. However, when it comes to super hero/ any mainstream media starring women/minorities they go out of their way to lecture us on how minority groups don't care about representation. ' Women/minorities related to Luke Skywalker. Who cares who they cast in the lead.Just make a good movie.' When a diverse cast is in a film they dog whistle tokenism and paint it as Hollywood inorganically cashing in on a trend disregarding all historical context/the concerted effort needed to change the industry.

Also, Mike and Jay can cry me a river complaining about super hero movies on HitB. They've been doing it for almost a decade and the show has gotten progressively worse. They've nearly completely abandoned any type of interesting framing device to ground the show. They could talk about different/interesting movies but they do the show on super hero stuff cause it'll give them the clicks. Its just as cynical as Adam Sandler at this point.


All Hollywood is marketing tricks. This isn't new or novel observation. My point in highlighting the Red Tails review is that the crews ( mainly Mikes) perspective is so dated and insular that its almost useless in discussing modern topics.

For example , here is an all time whataboutism quote from Mike during their Annihilation review. He's trying to point out the hypocrisy in the media on why they didn't champion a female lead, mid budget, hard R ,sci-fi film like Annahilation in the same way they did Black Panther.



Jay is so baffled by the bad whataboutism take that he has to explain it to Mike.



I was so baffled that Mike didn't understand that a 200 million dollar four quadrant black directed/led super hero movie would get more press coverage than a 40 million dollar niche, hard R, Cronenberg-esque sci-fi film. Its almost as if established white female movie stars have a history of leading mid budget sci-fi movies in Hollywood (Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster,Scarlett Johanson,Sandra Bullock,Amy Adams, Natalie Portman ect) and Black Panther/Wonder Woman was something unprecedented.

This was the point I had to tap out on RLM content. They are either stupid or malicious. Both are dangerous when they have such a large audience.
My takeaway from this is the direct opposite of yours. Their observation on this is a criticism of hollywood and how its failing women to support this movie. Their review of annihiliation is full of praise and there's 2 things here: the fact that Annihilation wasn't a big budget MCU type movie and the studio didnt have confidence in the intelligence of the film going audience so it got dumped to netflix.

Also, the thing about press coverage? Why can't annihilation as a smaller feature with an academy award winner in Natalie Portman in it get more press coverage?

Annihilation is one of the movies I really wished I got to see on the big screen.

as for ghostbusters 2016. Let's not even go there. That movie didnt tank because it was anchored by a female cast. It was ass and the comedy was ass, and the characters in it were all annoying. It is just a terrible terrible movie.

Most people say that the cinemamassacre guy is a nice guy of youtube (I've seen it posted here on ERA) - didnt he do a "I refuse to watch the new ghostbusters movie". That's way worse. He has a bigger audience. 3.3 million views.

 

Surface of Me

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,736
The whole point of their video was that the racism/sexism the cast of Ghostbusters 2016 faced was mostly overblown by Sony to sell tickets and any actual harassment they faced online was statistically insignificant. Essentially, 'people don't care about women/minorities replacing historically white male roles in media so stop trying to divide us Sony'. They briefly touch on the large online harassment campaign Leslie Jones faced explicitly because she was a black women in Ghostbusters but only to make a joke.

With hindsight publishing that analysis 4 months before the 2016 election is amazing. Its just like when HitB did their condescending Box Office Number Crunching episode but didn't realize that theaters take a percentage of the profits. Its that same level of smug yet inept criticism that RLM applies to all subjects. When its them talking about bad B movies on VHS its typically great because they have experience and are somewhat of an authority on the subject.When its them trying to explain away social issues they have no idea about is when it gets embarrassing.




I'm not confused. I've been watching RLM and HitB since 2011. They will talk about any number of super hero schlock as schlock. However, when it comes to super hero/ any mainstream media starring women/minorities they go out of their way to lecture us on how minority groups don't care about representation. ' Women/minorities related to Luke Skywalker. Who cares who they cast in the lead.Just make a good movie.' When a diverse cast is in a film they dog whistle tokenism and paint it as Hollywood inorganically cashing in on a trend disregarding all historical context/the concerted effort needed to change the industry.

Also, Mike and Jay can cry me a river complaining about super hero movies on HitB. They've been doing it for almost a decade and the show has gotten progressively worse. They've nearly completely abandoned any type of interesting framing device to ground the show. They could talk about different/interesting movies but they do the show on super hero stuff cause it'll give them the clicks. Its just as cynical as Adam Sandler at this point.


All Hollywood is marketing tricks. This isn't new or novel observation. My point in highlighting the Red Tails review is that the crews ( mainly Mikes) perspective is so dated and insular that its almost useless in discussing modern topics.

For example , here is an all time whataboutism quote from Mike during their Annihilation review. He's trying to point out the hypocrisy in the media on why they didn't champion a female lead, mid budget, hard R ,sci-fi film like Annahilation in the same way they did Black Panther.



Jay is so baffled by the bad whataboutism take that he has to explain it to Mike.



I was so baffled that Mike didn't understand that a 200 million dollar four quadrant black directed/led super hero movie would get more press coverage than a 40 million dollar niche, hard R, Cronenberg-esque sci-fi film. Its almost as if established white female movie stars have a history of leading mid budget sci-fi movies in Hollywood (Sigourney Weaver, Jodie Foster,Scarlett Johanson,Sandra Bullock,Amy Adams, Natalie Portman ect) and Black Panther/Wonder Woman was something unprecedented.

This was the point I had to tap out on RLM content. They are either stupid or malicious. Both are dangerous when they have such a large audience.
Never before have I seen someone so inept at processing the words other humans speak. Bravo.
 
Oct 2, 2018
2,810
For what it's worth, this is "the Cinemassacre guy"'s best friend and business partner.

Maybe he's personally a nice guy, but what he overlooks is pretty ridiculous.
Im just saying the other guy that everyone say is a nice guy did a video where he refuses to even watch a movie. why? Because its a female anchored ghostbusters.

the era thread on Mike Matei had people posting saying the other cinema massacre guy was a "good family guy".
 

Shy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,111
As you note, not everything shitty Plinkett says is satire. What's the cutoff? How are we supposed to know when it's a serial killer being a bigot and when it's Mike?
I wasn't clear sorry.

I wasn't trying to make that point for everyone. I was speaking for myself in regards to Plinkett, because i watched so much (i stopped over a year ago, precisely because of this shit. With the expection of the other day when i watch the Re:View for In The Mouth Of Madness. Which i didn't enjoy, sadly) of their stuff. I can tell the difference between Plinkett and Mike.

I wasn't trying to force that opinion on anyone else. So i apologise if that's how i came across.
They aren't centrist, they are clearly anti-capitalism and don't like scams and marketing tricks, which only make white old men richer.
And what are these scams and tricks, you speak of ?
Okay, on further consideration, I'm on board with the proper representation forced diversity thing. Any character that isn't up to snuff should be removed so not to improperly depict the demographics they represent.

Let's start with straight white men since that's probably where we can affect things the most just by setting up the criteria. Let's take a level that a straight white man character needs to reach in order to be in a movie or television show. I can't think of a better example of the top of my head, so lets go with Atticus Finch. We measure how good the character is and we go, sorry buddy, you haven't written any straight white men as good as Atticus Finch. That means you don't get to have any. Those are the rules.

Then when we're all done with that we can start going down the list. Straight white women can be next. Sorry Brie Larson, your uppity body language is making women look bad. You can't be in the movie now.
 

beelulzebub

Member
Oct 25, 2017
948
Most people say that the cinemamassacre guy is a nice guy of youtube (I've seen it posted here on ERA) - didnt he do a "I refuse to watch the new ghostbusters movie". That's way worse. He has a bigger audience. 3.3 million views.

Yeah, this plus learning more about Mike Matei led me to drop AVGN entirely. It was ridiculous because he had made this video before the film even came out.
 

Bucca

Member
Oct 25, 2017
923
Honestly, you can just look at Rich and tell he's a shitcunt.

RLM has always been unfunny garbage, legit don't understand why anyone props them up.
 

NinjaGarden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,924
Im just saying the other guy that everyone say is a nice guy did a video where he refuses to even watch a movie. why? Because its a female anchored ghostbusters.

the era thread on Mike Matei had people posting saying the other cinema massacre guy was a "good family guy".
Can you point out the part in the video where he says he won't watch it because it's starring women?
 

Bradbury

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,094
Im just saying the other guy that everyone say is a nice guy did a video where he refuses to even watch a movie. why? Because its a female anchored ghostbusters.

the era thread on Mike Matei had people posting saying the other cinema massacre guy was a "good family guy".
he was criticized for that video. A lot. And a lot of people criticize him and his friendship with Mike. But just like with RLM people will ignore the shit he says and does and defend hin he does because he makes them laugh