Insightful criticism: 4/5 (more examination of filmmaking techniques would have been appreciated, but I got the impression right away that this wasn't going to be that kind of video) Film school jargon: 1/5 (basically none that I perceived) Shitpost quality: 5/5 (an astute sendup of "objective" film criticism on RU-vid, given appropriate shitpost status by the befuddling inclusion of the "haunter" category) Amy: 2.5/5 (there was that one shot, but I really would have liked to have seen more of her) 4 * 0.6 = 2.4 1 * 0.6 = 0.6 5 * 0.8 = 4 2.5 * 18 = 45 2.4 + 0.6 + 4 + 45 = 52 52/100 An extraordinarily "meh" Folding Ideas video, all things considered.
"If you get the feeling of being watched in darkness when nobody is around, Haunter is there." - Pokedex entry about Haunter. Haunter might not have been in the movie itself as much as you might like, but they were there in the dark corners of the theater, watching...waiting...
I used to like the film "My Dinner With Andre" but now that I know the objective rating scale, I can recognize that "My Dinner With Andre" features neither a Haunter, a Gastly, nor even a Gengar, mega or otherwise. Objectively, it is one of the worst films ever made.
I used to think Pan's Labyrinth was my favorite movie, but then I realized that there are no members of the Ghastly evolution line in it, so it's objectively one of the worst films ever made.
I think that's the point. Truly objective traits of stories tend to be the absolute least important ones; the ones that people talk about as "objective" tend to just be the subjective ones everything else orbits.
@@timothymclean Yeah, people love to throw around the word "objective" in regards to plotholes, actions "making sense" and whether the characters are well-written, when none of that can be objectively measured
@@timothymclean "Least important"? Clearly you don't understand Haunter. Perhaps study the subject more to understand the true depth and scope of its greatness.
How can Detective Pikachu be the worst movie you've talked about when all of the other movies don't have ANY Haunter? No Gastly or Gengar either, the whole family is GONE. Based on the 100% accurate, objective, fair scoring system Detective Pikachu should be one of the BEST movies you've reviewed.
The idea isn't that cheese is for younger audiences. A movie can be for adults and cheesy. It's all about intent. If they wanted to make a SUPER SERIOUS movie and ended up having cheesy moments, that would be against the movie's intentions.
I was going to give this video an objective mathematical score of my own but then Amy showed up and any shred of potential objectivity went right out the window. This review gets 100/100.
This triggered flashbacks to my high school physics teacher who once gave me a 10/10 on "concept," 10/10 on "understanding," and 2/10 on "formatting" and that was a 45% somehow. That said, lack of haunter is truly unacceptable. What were they even thinking.
@@Dorian_sapiens My mom pointed out that he probably expected everyone to do worse on concept and understanding than they would on formatting. Or he just didn't like me, which is also probable.
@@lennydotdotdot5580 Oh, I see what your mom was saying: the teacher intended formatting to be a big chunk of easy points. That sucks that it massively backfired on you specifically.
If I could be real, this video makes a really good point not just about the arbitration of numerical rating in criticism, but also the way in which different aspects of films and games are often pitted against each other for the sake of a unifying “goodness” factor. A lot of really interesting and valuable parts of media are often ignored because they’re seen as unimportant if the media in question doesn’t meet some all-encompassing evaluative standard. Like, if I tried to take Dan’s analysis of No Man’s Sky and tell it to my friends, I’d probably be told “yeah well, it doesn’t matter cuz the game sux” and be shut down.
I rate this comment 32/100, mediocre. Graphics: 1/5 they technically exist, but with very few polygons Sound: 0/5 obviously Controls: 1/5 there's very few buttons, and the dislike button doesn't seem to do anything, maybe broken Gameplay: 1/5 single player gameplay was non-existent and multiplayer is dialogue focused, not enough action. Story: 5/5 it has a cool story.
Being objective is useful for having a good basis to discuss with, but if it's about personal enjoyment of a movie that's something you have to figure out for yourself. So subjective reviews are "only" useful (i.e. figuring out if you want to watch a movie) if you know how your personal taste aligns with the reviewer. Or just watch the review for entertainment as most people do.
@@Alkoluegenial WTF is "being objective" in regard to movie criticism even supposed to mean? How can you quantify the quality of work of fiction, create a mathematical formula for it? "Runtime divided by number of explosions" or what
objective does not mean that someone can do the math on sumething! lets see, in batman vs superman, superman kills zod... its a terrible scene that people justify by saying it would teach superman humanity... but how in the hell does that justification make any sense? the claim is that superman will feel bad and never want to do it again! the problem is that superman did it because he needed to... and if he ever needs to do it again, he will have to do it again... so no lesson there, huh? and thats just one of the many problems with this scene, not the least of this scene, not the least of which is the fact that the use of a young klark in the trailer probably made this even more unexpected leading to a lot of parents taking their kids to see this! objective doesn't mean math... it means facts that can be agreed on... like superman killing zod! soeverything in the movies is objective... what it means might not be, but even for fictional movie, we can all come up with what a scene in a movie means, should mean, or is supposed to mean..
@@ntigdona7487 Is this like a copy-pasta or something? I'm pretty sure you've argued so badly here that I'm just going to agree with whatever you were arguing against.
@@Grayhome I usually go with my own personal objective scale. It takes into consideration my all the idiosyncrasies and gives the objective score that matters most to me.
While what you say is objectively true; i think we should take into consideration that Detective Pikachu had more opportunities than other less fortunate movies.
I think more movies should be held to the Haunter standard, in general. It could really change movies as we've known them. I mean, Citizen Kane is good, but what about its Haunter content? Zero. Now it's objectively garbage.
I might be crucified for this... but I feel Citizen Kane... might be just a wee bit... aged. I feel that quite a lot of its brilliance originally came from how groundbreaking and innovative it was technically, and that's why it feels a lot more like a modern movie than others of the same era... but it also means that I'm kinda accustomed to it and not exactly blown away by that aspect. Still a brilliant film, don't get me wrong, but, in my opinion, far from "the best movie of all time" as a lot of people say.
people who love Haunter have no friends. People with friends to trade with love Gengar. Others love pretend to love Haunter while jealously hating Gengar.
so, I suppose this was a video about the subjectivism of "objective" reviews, and how you can tailor a score to reflect the abstract preferences you have about films by increasing the artificial value of each subject. Also, the actual score you give them can be arbitrary, he based his 5/5 laughs rating based on the audience's enjoyment, despite feeling the jokes were too juvenile to find funny, while decreasing the adventure score by 1 based on his personal disappointment with the resolution. Of course, the Haunter score was fully justified. What were they thinking, putting no Haunter in there!?
And of course, Haunter is also the most objective metric. Anyone can count the number of Haunters that appear onscreen, so any "objective" review would be incomplete without accounting for it.
I read the omission of Haunter as a deliberate nod to Derrida's concept of hauntology, Detective Pikachu being an explicit comment on how in capitalism the entertainment industry's constant recycling of past imagery does nothing more than to make us pine for "a future that never arrived". The inclusion of Gengar therefore clearly alludes to the spectre of communism.
Oh, absolutely! The symbolism is almost a little too on the nose. Personally, I've been toying with the idea that the writers, in having a subplot where a lab accident is covered up, are making a subliminal hint that 9/11 may have some questions left unanswered.
people who love Haunter have no friends. People with friends to trade with love Gengar. Others love pretend to love Haunter while jealously hating Gengar.
That Gengar had to fight a Blastoise, man. That's a third-level evolution with crazy bulk and no type disadvantage. You couldn't put a Haunter up against that, it's got a base special defense of 55 and an HP stat of 45. One Hydro Pump is all it would take.
While I agree Haunter is extremely important, my own personal metric is weighted very heavily towards Cubone, and thus this is the greatest movie ever made.
clearly objective, but you need to talk for at least 4-5 hours on each of your criteria to make it truly capital o objective, just making objective points
@@arlosteiner8382 That's what a "0" is for. Though few movies don't feature an adventure of some kind. A spiritual journey can be an adventure. Again, science.
I think that just falls back into the Thermian argument though, "there's no Haunter on screen because he's invisible" when it really is "there's no Haunter on screen because they chose no to put any"
This is a perfectly objective rubric. Clearly this guy knows his stuff, and is aware of the critical components necessary for a masterpiece film. Namely Haunter. 10/10 best review.
it's parody of numbers as purely objective way of measuring goodness of media I guess. But the "it's a good movie, but needs more haunter" (paraphrased) is more or less genuine. Haunter's importance probably somewhat exaggerated for comedic effect
I think that it's a parody of 'objective' reviews. Dan sets up a mathematical formula to rate the movie by, but then he places all of the weighting on Haunter which outweighs all of the other factors. So it's 'objectively' a bad movie based on the objectives that he's subjectively determined.
this is how i feel about most of the 'youtube critics' nowadays. when they call themselves objective and lean on their criteria to justify that it's like... But Tony, You CHOSE To Do That
Yeah, Det Pikachu/Pokemon is an outlier among video games movies. It already HAS movies every 2 years of so, albeit animated, and 20+ year old animated series. It's like saying every WW2 movies are adaptation of Battlefield2.
this is a great lesson on how ill meaning people can botch the numbers to make any opinion "mathematically true", truly it will stand alongside the comedic informative greats such as spiders georg for the rest of time.
I was actually impressed by how well they kept to Pokemon canon. I don't want to spoil too much here, but the fact that this isn't Mewtwo's origin story all over again, but rather a continuation of Mewtwo's story is incredibly impressive. Mewtwo Strikes Back and, hell, the entire TV series is canon to this Detective Pikachu. As far as I'm concerned, Ash is wandering around the same world as Tim (part of me hopes that the Japanese man dressed in red in the Ryme City video at the start of the movie was, in fact, Ash).
MABARI I would say that Pokemon's kind of mundane premise lends itself well to adaptation. Pokemon's premise isn't one of plot; it's one of setting. The creators don't have to try to justify some kind of weird plot about a plumber and sometimes his brother who goes off to save a princess from a turtle man. They don't have to follow some epic chosen one story where the hero is forced to go through series of pretty perfunctory environments because those levels were in the game that's being adapted. The Pokemon world is just our world with a bunch of cool monsters in it. The cool monsters get involved with the banal tasks of everyday life and make things more interesting just by association. Vulpix is a cool pet. Squirtle is a cool firefighter. Machamp is a cool construction worker. And so on. The anime really taps into this, where basically every episode has the characters encountering normal people doing normal things that are made interesting by the interaction with Pokemon. The setup is really there to make *any* kind of adventure you can think of, and people would be completely open to it.
Now, I haven't seen Detective Pikachu. BUT i like posting so I'll say this anyway: I think something that's important for the development of video game movies, and probably for Detective Pikachu, is the fact that we are now in a phase where people involved in filmmaking are also literate in video game. This is simply by virtue of the passage of time -- more and more filmmakers are now millenials who grew up with games, and games are now an undeniable staple of the media landscape. While most video game movies of the past were essentially reverse-shovelware, I think we can reasonably expect future "video game movies" to be made by people who know and give a shit about the worlds their movies will draw from. People who know the difference between how games and movies build worlds and tell stories, and have enough knowledge of both forms to bridge the gap into something good. I hope I'm right because I'm still holding out for a fucking Halo movie
I was seriously impressed by them pulling a live-action pokemon movie off. The CGI and character design teams deserve a ton of credit for making it work.
i really like this spoof and ~ironic review~ formula you’ve made, pompous “objective analysis” critiques have become more and more common and its cringey
Most movies have a zero on the haunter scale and therefore score considerately worse overall. So Detective Pikachu is, in comparison, probably still one of the best movies you've ever seen.
When the floodgates opened for reviews, I remember a lot out of touch people tripping over themselves to get a jab in at the movie despite somehow never having any past exposure to the franchise. Like their review was so bad I kinda wanted to see the movie even if it maybe wasn't that good just to spite them. Had they used an objective grading scale I might have thought differently.
I was gonna go see this but the lack of Haunter means I won't enjoy anything about it. If there's no Haunter why even go? You think I'm paying for a Gengar?
I initially avoided this video because I hadn't watched Detective Pikachu, and it turns out that for **THREE DAMN YEARS** I've missed the single greatest academic rubric joke ever made. Also possibly the only joke about academic rubrics ever made.
I was literally just watching some of your video game movie videos and about to comment "now what do you think about Detective Pikachu??" so basically, I'm exactly your target audience
Just saw it, same response...but Jolteon. We had an Eevee, it evolved, but into a Flareon. My expectations were subverted, but to the movies detriment. Jolteon - 0/5
