Highly recommend the Leap of Faith documentary. Friedkan is a crazy person, and he really put that crew through hell to make the first film. Can’t wait for your review of the Gods not Dead trilogy
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
Oh yeah, I haven’t seen the documentary but I have heard some of the horror stories from the making of The Exorcist. The dude was a freaking psychopath. While editing this video i unironically got myself hyped for doing the Gods Not Dead saga XD those movies are hilarious
@Klamp20XX
7 ай бұрын
I’ve been looking forward to this…
@cyrodiil4353
7 ай бұрын
Would love to see you guys review the God's Not Dead trilogy. Also, just learned that it's a trilogy, since I only thought there was two movies.
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
I just learned from Wikipedia that there are actually 4 movies with a 5th on the way! They just keep pumping those out
@richardadesmond
7 ай бұрын
This was a lot of fun, guys. Well said. Yes, please do the God's Not Dead trilogy...more laughs!
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
I learned editing the video that there are four with a fifth on the way, which I am of course taking as a sign from God that we need to watch the entire saga
@sterlingkart9562
7 ай бұрын
Nothing hurts more than them casting Leslie Odom Jr of Hamilton in this damn movie 😂😂😂
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
He’s got great potential! But the damn dialogue they gave him…
@danielchimenti8773
7 ай бұрын
CAT!
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
That is Pepper! She really likes attention
@evansmith9263
7 ай бұрын
As a response to a point you made in the video about older legacy characters, I think the issue is less that the characters aren't as fit and charismatic as they were when they were young, it's more that they never seem to have aged well. Writers these days seem to believe you turn 55 and automatically become cynical, purposeless, charmless, just waiting to die. It's such an unimaginative trope and I hate that so many great charactees are falling victim to it.
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
Maybe I am just failing to think of more examples of this, but the only ones coming to mind of what you are talking about are Indy and Luke Skywalker. In Luke’s case I think that his outlook is narratively justified and if the Last Jedi was made by smarter people could have been really interesting. As it stands, Luke is the best part of TLJ despite how terrible most of that movie is. With Indy I do get the criticism, and that’s just a bad movie with essentially no redeeming qualities. However, I think the opposite problem is just as prevalent. So many legacy characters are relegated to being the exact same person as they were however many years ago their movie was and it is like they are sitting around waiting for a new plot to happen. Laurie Strode in Halloween, Han Solo in Star Wars, Sara Conner in Terminator, Chris MacNeal in The Exorcist. In my opinion these are worse than the “purposeless shell of their former selves” because in between the movies the characters have done nothing that doesn’t revolve around the plot of their original movie. The pass I will give for the “purposeless shell of their former selves” trope (and ultimately why I will defend it over the latter option) is that there is at least some change and potential for a character arc that is different than the arc that they had in the original movie. So while I agree that it is often lazy, my opinion is that like with any trope it comes down to the execution. Deckard in Blade Runner is this exact trope but that movie is awesome so nobody bats an eye. Anyway, hope that clarified some of my thoughts. -Alec
@evansmith9263
7 ай бұрын
@UncleMikki I would actually count Laurie Strode and Sarah Connor as examples of this due to the depressing nature of their circumstances and ensuing cynicsm. I'm glad you brought up Deckard, I was going to cite him and Logan as being examples of this trope being done well, as it suited their characters as they were originally written, and wasn't just added in the intermittent decades. Some other examples of the trope being done badly would be Fat Thor in Endgame, Keaton's Batman in The Flash, and Bale's Batman in Rises. I also agree that stagnating, or even going as far as to reverse a character's previous development to return them to their 'status quo' is an equally lazy and all-too-prevalent trope in legacy sequels. But I don't think it should be a choice between one or the other. We have examples of characters who have evolved past their initial selves without necessarily becoming husks of it. Whose age plays a factor into the plot without being viewed as inherently negative by the film. Maverick in the latest Top Gun for instance, or Tobey in the newest Spiderman. Han and Luke's portrayal in the sequels is an excellent point of reference. I dislike both of those films about equally, but if forced to choose, I would take Luke's treatment over Han's. But why should we have to choose? Why couldn't Star Wars, Halloween, Terminator, Indy, Ghostbusters etc. all get their own Maverick, or Fury Road? Leaving aside the point of Luke's character being narratively justified (I have done my upmost to leave TLJ arguments as a thing of the last decade), even if it was, my issue would more be with the decision to go with that narrative in the first place, when there is so much you can do. But I am curious as to your definition of narratively justified, does it apply only to the narrative of the current film, or the franchise as a whole? I think that's kind of a separate issue, but something that often bugs me about newly cynical characters is how whilst it might be consistent within the film, it feels inconsistent with previous installments, either because they're out of character or because it necessitates a tonal shift. I suppose to summarise, I can agree that having a previously optimistic character become cynical is slightly more interesting than them simply remaining stagnant for 30 years. But it's like you guys said, which shit is stinkier?
@UncleMikki
7 ай бұрын
This is definitely a “which shit is smellier” type of discussion. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment “why couldn’t these franchises get their own Fury Road or Maverick”. Those movies, along with the many other examples we have discussed, proved that with talented and passionate filmmakers it is possible to make very good sequels/reboots. We live in a world where mega corporations can purchase the corpses of franchises and use necromancy to reanimate them. It is a dice roll every time on whether the people they happen to hire care enough to even try to make something good, and then it’s another dice roll if the studios will let them make something good. Movies like The Exorcist Believer and Indy 5 weren’t made because passionate storytellers wanted to make something meaningful, they were made because shareholders needed a boost in profits. On top of all of that, while there are definitely movies with universes that can branch off into more stories, most of them simply don’t have that kind of sequel potential. So corporations are buying IPs to make sequels to movies that should have just been left alone forever (Ghostbusters is a great example of this, the original cast couldn’t even make a good sequel to Ghostbusters) To tie it back around to my original point in the video: this is ultimately my issue. The lazy execution of the trope is what is bad, and not necessarily the trope itself. Tropes are ultimately neutral tools, that can be good or bad depending on who is using them. This is a trope that is used frequently, and it is used by apathetic filmmakers because through audience analytic tools the powers at be have determined that it’s a safe choice to make.
@sam_bibly
7 ай бұрын
3:33 this is the second time i see you digging in there so far in this video, kevin. i see you trying hard to resist the urge, too. try harder!
Пікірлер: 18