It really was one of the biggest snubs and one of the reasons I think the Oscars are irrelevant. Though I agree with many of the winners this year, I also think a few of them won more because of subject matter than the work as a whole or of the individuals who won.
Sad that Mint isn’t continuing their sponsorship, but thanks to keeping the line open and finding even more impressive sponsorship! She’s Toni Collette from Hereditary and she’s listening!
I love getting nachos when I go to the movies, except when I went to see A Quiet Place, and had to sit there sucking my nachos rather than chewing them because they're so loud xD
Your response to the Chris Stuckmann question was perfect and one of many reasons why you really are an absolute God. Best movie critic of all time. ❤️🤘
Saying it again for the algorithm, but I'm very disappointed in Mint Mobile. Given Dan's general surprise, my takeaway is either that their marketing/PR team is shady or they're cutting the budget unexpectedly. I'd love to know if other channels were doing a hotline and if those relationships are continuing.
There is a difference between a critic and a reviewer. I don't think a filmmaker should be a reviewer, but they must learn how to be a critic, even if they don't share their opinions.
Thanks Dan. The hotline was a great initiative. 80% of questions I found interesting. Glad that the Toni Colette in Hereditary version of the hotline will live on!
Talking about the question at 30:00, I follow a great travel channel called Bright Sun Travels, and a couple of weeks ago, the host and his partner went to Disney for one day, and totaled the expenses. Not having gone since the late 90s, I was blown away at how different and more expensive going to Disney has become.
It sucks!! I’ve been concerned about the nickel & dime’ing in the parks for a while now but have had my concerns brushed off as “it’s just one of their many divisions”. Seeing Disney’s film & tv start tanking makes me think that maybe there really is a crash coming with the company. Or at least a boiling point that will require big changes to course correct
13:25 Letterboxd has bigger impact in terms of widening the the reach of film criticism, but it is not considered mainstream in the way Rotten Tomatoes are considered.
I agree, and I think it is becoming more mainstream - it exploded over the last 2 years or so and seems to still be growing rapidly. On Letterboxd, you can curate your experience (e.g. via who you follow) and I find that's been the best experience I've had in getting the overall viewpoint of a particular film, especially from people with similar interests/values.
On remakes: Some movies can be remade and it comes out better than the original. It entirely depends on how iconic & timeless the original is. Roadhouse was good in it's time, but it can be improved upon with modern standards of action & humor. Something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy being remade? Yeah, not so much.
Before Chris Stuckmann, in recent years, there was Dan Trachtenberg. He was a movie/tv/video-game critic on The Totally Rad Show, which was an excellent video podcast in the days before RU-vid became super-popular. He also stopped reviewing movies when he moved into directing features (he was directing commercials before) and started taking more meetings with producers and studios. He felt like producers might hold it against him if he gave a negative review to their most recent films or just that it would lead to awkward moments when he was basically on a job interview.
I highly recommend keeping the hotline going. It's great for engagement! Why scrap that opportunity to engage viewers? Just do it once a month. Edit! My thoughts exactly!
Re: your channel starting at the beginning of covid, as much as I loved SJ (and wish there was still onscreen panel discussions) I pivoted to your channel immediately. This was actually a therapeutic move, as seeing SJU on zoom was a reminder of the pandemic, whereas your new setup was a welcome distraction from it, regardless of the charts news all being about covid... Oh, I did enjoy the final remote Scoops McGee appearance.
Would you ever do a podcast episode with Robert Meyer Burnett? I’m sure your paths have crossed at some point in the movie talk space. His long form podcasts on his RU-vid channel have been enjoyable, and I think you two would make for a great conversation.
Honestly Mint, this is the first time I've skipped TO the ads, rather than OVER the ads. Best use of an ad time ever - if I wasn't being salty, I'd go mint for my next phone change. Tony Collette Hotline sounds awesome though
“The Critical Drinker” is also releasing short film which he wrote but didn’t direct.. and he’s using his RU-vid channel to help finance and promote the film.
But unlike stuntman as far he’s announced he’s not going to start only reviewing movies he likes. Literally something Stuckman said in his announcement video.
But he is also willing to criticize the industry when it needs to be called out. Chris is not willing to do that because he is afraid of losing a possible job.
@@HPv1000 Right, and realistically speaking, he's going to be relegated exclusively to short-film, straight-to-DVD, Daily Wire-tier content because of it.
This was a great video, Dan. Even if Mint Mobile doesn’t continue sponsorship, please continue in any way that can continue this type of discourse. Cheers.
Thanks Dan for having a nicer explanation of the Chris Stuckmann nontroversy. Think it’s been at least 2-3 years since he stopped reviewing bad movies. Also, I remember Dan Trachtenberg kinda in a similar situation when he had the podcast. He put himself away from reviewing films as well when he started to work on movies.
He only made that video to make money from his Better help sponsor. Stuckman needs to realize you are either a critic or you're not. Click baiting non-reviews for views and money is just gonna piss people off.
@@ponli7532I don't think he's been clickbait-y or deceitful at all. He's said he doesn't review movies in the traditional sense anymore. He just talks about what he likes and talks about the industry from his perspective inside it.
Scott I agree. He always seems like such a magnet for bullies. As if one more negative review of Madame Webb would have really been necessary, it was already a sunk ship, big deal if someone approached it slightly differently. People are so fueled by hate that they act like not having ONE MORE negative review shitting on this movie among the 481648757 that already exist for them to bookmark just ruined their day.
@@ponli7532The betterhelp sponsorship was a bummer, but Chris was transparent years ago about the direction of his channel. He knew it would alienate some of his audience, and he thought those audience should look somewhere else. So when he made a video about Madame Web, the general expectation was to crap on the movie. But he didn't do that, and while it's fair to question the legitimacy of his profession, I don't think anyone's negative reviews offer much of value when the movie was projected to do poorly. Everyone only made reviews of Madame Web for content.
Great episode Dan. Love both Spielberg and Hitchcock, looking forward to your videos on their films. Glad you are keeping the hotline open. Have an awesome week!
In the literary world, they say that authors should not actively seek out critique and rely on reviews alone. Same with movies. It’s done, grieve if required and move on.
I especially hate if they are not reviewing the actual movie. There are so many people who won't allow themselves to like something because they don't like an actor or if the movie doesn't slavishly follow the book.
Dan I would so be interested into the Spielberg videos because he is the person who's created so much pop culture and it's fascinating to see the variety of movie that he has made. Jurassic Park is my personal favorite Spielberg film and I know Jaws is yours but a ranking to see where JP places on the ranking would be so interesting.
Great video Dan, spot on. As film lovers and filmmakers I think we need to start seeing films as they are, and be as objective as possible with them. A filmmaker is not necessarily defined by one of their films, so a film shouldn't be judged with the filmmaker in mind (in my opinion)
When the trailer question came up I immediately thought of Baby Driver! It was the first time I had seen a trailer edited that way, and the editing in the movie itself actually lived up to the trailer. I still think about the editing in that movie to this day.
We have had grilled cheese Oscars jammie jams. During the Oscars, a few of us make different types of grilled cheese sandwiches and vote on the best, whilst wearing our pyjamas. Thanks for the video, Dan!
Great point, Dan, about studios losing sight of the big picture to chase short-term gains. Yep. And by the way, that's the story of humanity. We live relatively short lives, and we want to capitalize on our opportunities for the brief time that we can. But in the process, we often end up screwing things up in the long term. It's not easy to subordinate our own urgent needs and desires for the sake of a time we may never see.
You are just some guy on my screen talking about movie stuff and I will probably never meet you in person but I dunno ... you just make my world better, Dan. 🥺
YES 100% i don't know who started the trend that directors cant say bad about other films. Okay in a way don't be a jerk like some angry youtubers (you know who they are) but when I was in film school the learning curve for all of us was to be honest if our films were good or not. But oh well if hollywood already exists with firing people who say about their films...nothing I can do i guess.
I've seen a few movies based on glowing praise from traditional critics but that praise is only valuable because I know that they are evaluating all movies and the good and bad within them. This doesn't mean someone like Stuckmann or even the channel cinema wins aren't valuable (some times there is great value in hearing someone just gush about how good something is). But just like all film criticism or conversation around film, they are just part of the conversation and I know that so I can make choices effectively for me.
Splitting the "Best Director" category into genders also doesn't work because MULTIPLE co-directors can make a film (The Matrix, etc.). And what if those directors aren't all the same gender? What if the "Daniels" from EEAAO happened to be "Daniel & Danielle?" Would the film be nominated twice just based on 1 being female? Dan's right that manufacturing a new category to highlight more women doesn't solve the underlying issue. The Top 5 of the year is just that. And the era when 3+ women directors get nominated because they happen to have made 3+ of the year's best films, should be organic and representative of industry hiring progress. The only thing I disagree with Dan is the gendered acting categories. If anything they could merge into 10 nominees, 1 winner each for Leading, and same for Supporting. I don't think incorporating the gender of a character warrants a completely separate award, any more than the age (child, elderly, etc.) or genre (comedic, action, etc). I'm not sure Marriage Story's Adam Driver character is SO different from ScarJo's character to warrant a separate category, yet sharing the same space as Phoenix's Joker is just fine lol
One of the 'weird' experimental videos of your early days I remeber is your chartss with Dan episode from 1999. I Spend a solid 5 minutes of the video wondering if it was a real video from 1999, or just made yesterday. I wouldn't mind seeing somthing like that again.
What you said about Disney and simply arranging everything around stock prices is kinda what I see with Zaslav over at WB. Feels like everything he's doing is cutting down cost and trimming everything just to make it 1) make the stock portfolio look better and 2) if the stock is looking better, it may be a tempting asset to sell to someone who might be looking to acquire it. But, it feels like that comes at the price of turning off creators they've screwed, turns off fans who want to see creative or ambitious projects that they are turning away from for fear of them being money losers, etc. It feels shortsighted. It's a bit of a different case, but we've seen governments cut budgets to the bone to supposedly make things 'better' only for everyone to suffer for a little bit of debt/deficit relief that has no real long term benefits.
I know of at least one more youtube critic who has stated that his tendency for positive reviews is due his desire to break into the film industry, specifically writing. Fittingly the biggest part of his reviews is about writing.
i hear you saying that you think a good critique should get the listener/reader to engage with the critic's ideas and think about how they agree or disagree. I've also seen people who *sound* like critics on RU-vid especially who are very interested in telling people what to think about the subject of their criticism. I guess by your terms I should think of those people as partisans only, and fundamentally *not* as critics
I’d watch Recovery as an Australian teenager, and have always been pleased that their film critic went on to success as a director. I’m not the target audience for Leigh Whannell’s films, but that’s beside the point. It shouldn’t be a controversial move, and - as long as there’s disclosure of interest - shouldn’t be a bar to doing both jobs.
A great analogy for Disney is the NFL. Going to a football game (NFL is worse but let's not pretend college football is what it used to be) isn't *REMOTELY* a casual thing anymore for the "average fan" or "average family." I haven't been in nearly a decade for that reason. The average price of an NFL ticket has gone up 50% in less than a decade and has doubled since Goodell took over. Probably very profitable in the short term but give it a generation or less and the negativity will mean it's no longer something that most people are interested in.
More Oscar Group activities: -Drinking Games: everytime the music kicks someone out, or everytime someone mentions political issue, etc. -will win / should win style of oscar predictions instead of just the poll. -The best and worst dressed discussions. Who has the most clothing changes. -Predict who will mention Merryl Streep first?
I agree with the points you make on Chris Stuckmann. However, I believe what is causing the most controversy and issues regarding his channel are his video titles and formats. He has been quite clear about not wanting to post negative or critical reviews for movies anymore. Which is perfectly valid and acceptable. But he still uses the term "Review" in all videos discussing a newly released movie. As you said a review or critique doesn't have to negative, it could be 100% positive. However, if all you will ever create are positive, non negative comments on every movie you talk about, then you are no longer making reviews, but something different. A far better video title is one he has used occasionally before, which is "My Thoughts". My guess is that having the word "Review" in the video title drives far more clicks and views, then using something like "My Thoughts", and thus he keeps using the term "review" because he wants to keep his clicks and view count up. Unfortunately, he isn't a review channel anymore so claiming to be one is no different then the youtube videos who use girls in bikini's in their thumbnails just to generate clicks and views. This does work, but if you are going to do that, then you also have to be ready to accept the criticism and negative comments that come with playing these kinds of deceptive games to get views. If he truly only wants to be positive about movies I think he should fully embrace this and reformat his channel to match this perspective. Make videos talking about specific positive topics or film making techniques, or specific parts of movies that he things are great or interesting. Instead he doesn't want to give up the relevancy and attention that "review" videos draw while not actually providing true reviews on movies anymore.
Agreed 100%. You can't say that he's open and transparent when at the same time he uses bait and switch titles for clicks. Something he's also has been doing is playing a holier than thou attitude about "negative" critique about movies, as if Stuckman didn't build his entire youtube career laughing at bad directors and actors with Hilariocity reviews.
Fair point, but I don't think Chris said he wouldn't review films anymore. He just wanted to focus on the films he enjoyed rather than provide critiques on the ones he didn't. The reviews he does produce haven't drastically changed in format or content since he adjusted his focus. I get the sense that many of the people who have expressed concern with Chris' reviews (or lack therof) are mainly frustrated that he's changed the focus of his channel to something they don't like as much.
There is definitely room for a all positive channel about movies in the youtube space. I would even enjoy it, if it was framed and formatted in the correct way. Being closely involved in the film industry could give Chris unique perspectives and a interesting topics to discuss. Even his video about Madame Web could generate a unique discussion around the idea of how much of a poorly performing movie is the result of studio interference vs poor directing and character acting. Does too much studio interference lead to an otherwise potentially good direct/actors performing poorly or giving less effort because they feel like it's not worth it. In that situation who should carry a majority of the blame? Is it the studio for interfering too much or the director/actors for not doing better with even the littler they had to work with. It's an interesting discussion without clear answers. A discussion you could certainly have but wouldn't be considered a "review". @@ponli7532
You are correct, change of any kind will always bring out some negative reactions. But you are also in a way making my point, perhaps unintentionally. If he is only going to "review" movies he enjoyed then he isn't really reviewing movies. I will admit I haven't watched a lot of his movies lately, but if he is only talking about the positive aspects of movies he likes and isn't providing any criticism or critique of these movies then they aren't reviews. They are just him discussing his thoughts on a movie. That is a perfectly valid thing to do, but I don't agree that you can still call that a review. Imagine if Amazon changed their customer review policy where it only showed positive reviews and did not allow or show negative reviews. I would not consider that a proper functioning review system. At that point it's just advertising. I also agree that the situation with Chris is largely blown out of proportion and and at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how he runs his channel since it's his channel. However, I do think people have a right to criticize these aspects of his channel, especially if they are or were consumers of it. But it should also be done in a respectful and as much as possible constructive manner. Which is what I was trying to do by suggesting that a large portion of the controversy surrounding could be removed if he just didn't use the word "review in the title of his movies anymore.
@jons6837 That's again fair. While I'd have to go back and re-watch some of his recent reviews, I'm pretty sure that he still includes some commentary on areas of the film that weren't as strong or didn't work as well for him. Still, because of his change of focus the perception remains that he has handcuffed himself when it comes to offering negative feedback (whether it truly has, or hasn't). I do think the Madam Web thumbnail for the one video could be interpreted as a form of clickbait, or at least poorly chosen, though it was probably just that the discourse surrounding that particular film inspired him to produce the video. In general, I never get the sense that Chris intends to mislead his audience. At any rate, I appreciate that your reasoning is based in fairness and good faith. This space (and others) would greatly benefit from more of it.
Sure. Bogdanovich, Truffaut. Actually, all the French new wave directors started out writing about film. Tarantino's latest book is pretty good. At some point Sight and Sound had a critics poll and a directors poll in their every ten years great films poll and I tended to prefer the directors' lists.
Male/female directors sounds perfect in an imperfect world. A perfect world would be no gender recognition - anywhere, for anything. Straight up it is discrimination. go the raisinets and hot salty butter popcorn in your mouth at the same time! Hot tip - make sure you eat lots of vegetables in a prior meal to protect your gut.
Hard work doesnt guarantee sales. If your movie flops, thats the gamble. Then, to add insult to injury, voices on the internet rub your face in the defeat. Filmmakers have every right to be upset because they put their lives into a creation. Now...we also have the right to our opinion as consumers. In other words, if you dish it out, you better be able to take it
I think Chris just totally botched that video. He worded it absolutely wrong and made it seem like he was butt kissing and selling out. You can be both, but he ruined his own rep by how he went about it.
Critic and artist require different (but not incompatible) skills, so the people capable of being both will be a subset of the people capable of being either one. Being both at once requires additional skills that will narrow the field still further - so someone being successfully both an active filmmaker and an active film critic at the same time is going to be vanishingly rare. My guess would be that the most likely way to succeed would be to specialise in both fields so you're not criticising anything in direct competition with anything you've worked on. On the other hand, doing analysis rather than critique is entirely compatible - a good artist should be analysing their peers' work and doing so publicly isn't a big step (and less inherently adversarial than being expected to point out the flaws in a work).
Dan, if I'm not mistaken, the only catégories separating males and females are best actor/actress and best supporting male/female role, right? Why wouldn't be a category for directors? What do you think about the added inclusive rules making a movie eligible for best picture (like say... Jaws couldn't compete now) Why wouldn't you critique Stuckmann's movie? Just because you know him? Because he thinks of himself as a "director"? As I responded to a comment, he said more about Madame Web by not speaking too much about it than by critiquing about honestly. Plus he likes Spider-Man 3 which was where Raimi encountered the more studio interference. It makes no sense... (BTW, in general, I'm fed up with the Kubrick support group, almost every critic I know will talk about him as THE ultimate filmmaker (Spielberg bias^^), some like Nolan or Villeneuve desperately try to be the new K, despite the fact that most of his movies flopped... or are just flat out boring, when they're not simply a product of their time (think Orange Clickwork. So 70's). A genius is a visionnary, he was not.) And I'm pretty sure you would happily critique Space Cop... Because it know what it is and supposed to be in their own RLM "best of the worst" show? ^^ Finally, as a french musician, I'll say : The french Nouvelle Vague in the 60's was entirely made by movie critics from the magazine "Les cahiers du cinéma", they also launched the Auteur's theory (there's a great Lindsay Ellis video about it), claiming that a the director was the author of a movie, which (for once^^] moved to the US and helped create the New Hollywood of the 70's. They went from critics to movie-maker, and, as you kind of said, Martin Scorcese (or Steven Spielberg) would make critics because they know their craft, including studio execs interference etc, and could probably pick a shot in a movie saying "Damn, I wish I would have thought of that, it's awesome!", because they're greats, and they don't have anything to prove, and they won't be impressed by a premiere. I've been a musician for 43 years, I have insight. I know my tastes and biases, I can tell you if something is good or not objectively, I can tell you if I like it or not subjectively, I can suggest you try it depending on both. Even though I'm a nobody, I can relate to those great directors. Does Stuckmann knows his craft? Nope, he's a beginner. Did I learn anything watching his boring videos? Nope. RLM for instance are much more interesting. So there you are : great filmmakers would be amazing critics. Aspiring filmmakers, not so much. I love your Charts show, there's no bias in them. I wish you were a bit more neutral in your other shows. No doubt in my mind that it's because you're a good person, but I'd be a bigger fan if I didn't catch your biases so often 😉 Love your work anyways
