You know what, relistening to that first bit, I think the dude did, in fact, correctly say "bald-faced" and I misheard. I just can't understand Brits because they talk wrong. That's my bad, Pillar of Garbage.
"Alt-Right TH-camr Defends The Critical Drinker's Lies, Lies About Me, and Insults British Accents" - title of Pillar of Garbage's next video, probably. EDIT: I was close, as he apparently made a community post with the same energy.
3:50:11 "The Titanic is sinking" "I think sinking must mean something different in Scotland Drinker, because the ship is clearly still above water!" - Captain Pillar Garbogius, 1912
Nah the clown man was right about the “leveled” comment. Yeah its dumb that they survived but if the building still has multiple stories it simply hasn’t been “leveled”.
@UCUIWh3thUp8Ayz84ZCwrknw If my brother says “I’m literally going to kill you”, yeah i know what he means. But i’m not wrong to point out that he’s using the word incorrectly and that replacing or omitting the word “literally” is more accurate. I don’t personally care that Drinker used the word incorrectly. I just thought it was funny that people who watch EFAP were making fun of someone for being pedantic about a definition.
It took this livestream for me to realise that "The Critical Drinker" is a play on the phrase 'critical thinker', and I feel like I've been blind to a giant glass onion this whole time...
We saw this during the debate of tlj. "Its just a stupid film about space wizards don't look into it that deeply" and "you didn't understand the complex story and themes of tlj". Or something along those lines.
Man, E;R has been getting more vocal and frequent with these guest appearances. You love to see it. Hell, he got so animated this time, he lost some of that vocal fry.
@@allthingslegends they had a private discussion about it afterwards as far as I'm aware since MauLer, Rags and E;R mentioned it as such. Funny how they still manage to be cordial after they trashed one of ERs favorite shows since they quashed it out in private. If only every guest could do that. Oh well.
You know, I've seen a few people on the comment section making fun of Drinkers TH-cam name, yet the TH-cam channel they're doing this on is literally called Pillar of Garbage. Man, talk about a lack of self awareness.
@@korokleafgaming6863Anyone with a functioning brain can see Garbage boy doesn’t have any good arguments and blatantly misrepresents CD’s points. They just dislike Drinker so much because he’s more right leaning than they are that they convince themselves what Garbage boy said was correct.
@@spendsshanks6050 I don't think he even is right leaning. He's never said anything about his politics. I think it's because he hasn't shown what his politics are that they attack him. Not that they matter.
I find it especially weird because both channel names are self-deprecating. I think pillar of garbage is kinda funny in an ironic sense, but his videos are just unironically garbage so it loses out on that little joke.
I think it was over 4500 for 5 hours? Pretty incredible that a podcast dedicated to autistic deep dive reviews of (recently) trash media that easily pass 6 hours can hold an audience's attention of that size for so long. Speaks to the hosts and their efforts to be entertaining while deconstructing brain rotting takes like this.
TIMESTAMPS 0:00 Destruction 0:32 Bionicle 5:47 What It Should Have Been And What It’s Happening 7:20 GO Defenders Go 13:11 Let the fun begin 14:04 Wurdz iz Ard 17:24 Principles 19:50 Secrets 20:50 Moral Obligation 23:50 An Hasan Meme 25:44 The Drinker Begins 28:24 Referencing Other movies 31:58 Silly Fella 32:46 Jennifer Lawrence 40:26 Rian Johnson 51:46 Negative Lights 53:00 Blurry References 54:08 Coincidences (1) 56:51 The Published Author 58:30 Knives Out 1:01:57 Coincidences (2) 1:04:09 Barb’s Take 1:07:58 Coincidences (3) 1:08:34 Response To No Questions 1:11:40 Wardrobe 1:13:58 Explanation 1:21:04 The world's greatest detective 1:40:07 The invitations 1:42:48 Colours 1:44:10 Shapiroesque Moment 1:47:21 Coincidences (4) 1:49:42 Wrong Points 1:51:29 Temporal Linearity 1:55:22 The evidence 1:59:50 Inaccuracies 2:03:40 Concepts 2:05:05 The Importance Of Being Drinker 2:06:00 The Published Author 2:07:16 The Couch 2:07:56 Foggy Logic 2:10:22 Anodyne 2:11:52 Facts, red flags, and explanations (1) 2:18:12 The Importance Of Being Long 2:22:14 Facts, red flags, and explanations (2) 2:24:14 Say the line! 2:32:08 Are fax machines analog? 2:36:24 Everything Is A Glass Onion 2:39:48 Nitpicking 2:47:05 Cameras 2:52:48 The Fax System 2:56:27 What If? 2:59:32 Stupidity 3:02:33 Irrelevant Questions 3:04:39 Mattew Arnold 3:09:19 Stupidity & The Bulletproof Notepad 3:26:00 Genere Conventions & Warnings 3:29:20 Critical Thinking 3:29:52 Killing Strategy 3:35:11 Distance 3:36:19 Hot Sauce 3:38:08 Pickpocketing 3:44:03 Klear 3:45:27 Fire Extinguishers 3:58:03 Criteria 4:01:16 Unfunny Joke 4:03:20 Stupidity On Purpose 4:04:07 Demystifying Wealth 4:06:07 Generalising Grumbling 4:06:44 The Real Meat 4:09:38 Rewriting Scenes 4:23:50 Drinker I s Bad 4:35:22 I Didn’t Really Want To Make This Video 4:42:58 Conclusions
I seriously think this is the result of us being spoiled in western society… we have it so easy that our survival instinct is actually seen as a weakness and eschewing it is seen as clever…
Hot Fuzz did the "glass onion" conceit far better. We're supposed to think along with Nicolas Angel that there's some complicated intricate plot involving the murders, but it turns out it's the neighbourhood watch doing it just because they want to win the best village award and kill people because they're annoying or bad actors. And we still got a tight script, we weren't disappointed, and everything was logically consistent.
While their reason for killing are stupid and "simple", the conspiracy actually more terrible than Angel thought, and they're doing it for a long time the villagers (and polices) think there's nothing weird about the deaths. And yeah, just because the plot stupid, doesn't mean the logic can be abandoned
@@r3dr4te963 Yeah the idea of them killing people purely for being annoying or bad actors and all for the motive of winning a competition is something that never would've entered Angel's mind, so it completely lines up. Except Edgar Wright is an amazing writer and Rian simply isn't. All you've gotta do is look at the behind the scenes of Pegg and Wright going through the flip chart they used during the writing process to show how meticulously they craft their scripts.
Hot Fuzz succeeds where Glass Onion fails in how it lampshades the villain's goofy nature. The joke in Hot Fuzz isn't, "LOL, the villain is so dumb. Isn't that crazy? **Wink Wink.**" It's, "Wow, the villain put so much time and planning into accomplishing something so dumb." Like the murders' motives were idiotic, but the fact that they had more than enough intelligence and strategy to pull that off is an actual brilliant subversion of expectations.
@@kingbash6466 and the main bad guy have a legitimate reason to do the "cleaning", he lost his wife and gone mad because losing the award. I do think other members have some enjoyment in the killing, especially Skinner
@@hafirenggayuda And not just gone mad, his wife fixed the village to perfection working her ass off, only for some hooligans and Romani types to crash in and trash the whole place making her lose the competition and having her kill herself. Of course a bunch of old people are gonna adopt a "Things gotta be the way WE want, if any outsider comes in, or if someone doesn't fit in, they're gotta get exterminated" in reaction to that tragedy, and believing that it's acceptable because of the 'Greater Good'. Again, silly idea, but the execution still makes you follow their logic and take them seriously as villains. I can take the granny firing a machine gun more seriously as a villain instead of whoever the hell that "Haha, satire on rich white guy!" pathetic idiot Glass Onion has. Again, fans of Glass Onion care more about the themes than the actual quality of a character. They want to see rich white men mocked, and when they mechanically get that through Rian's dogshit writing style, that's good enough for them. We can't have an actually interesting villain with good dialogues or characterization.
"I have failed. But, I failed on purpose so actually I have succeeded and you are the true failure for not having realized!" -The Best Hollywood Can Do, I guess
Why would anyone die in a room that is covered in flames, should be filled with smoke (smoke inhalation is what kills people in most fires, btw), and has continuous explosions which send glass and shrapnel directly at the other characters? At the very least everyone in there should have all their hair singed off, a mangled limb or two, and would be bleeding out from their profuse wounds from flying glass. Hollywood seems to have this incredible belief that fires just destroy inanimate objects and don't cause any damage to the inhabitants of a building. Of course Hollywood physics is always bungling, but couldn't they have come up with anything plausible? At least not show an actual clip of two people standing next to a fire burst with shards of glass shooting out directly towards them.
11:01. You forgot the part where Pillar of Garbage proudly proclaimed that he "never watches this guy's videos", and then creates a whole video telling you what the Critical Drinker's mindset is (without even knowing who CD is). Also, does EXACTLY what he accuses the Critical Drinker of. You just KNOW the kind of TH-cam content you are about to get with a statement like that. :/
Additionally, it's a lie that he "never" watched Critical when...he has "dunked" on him...3 months ago! This guy must have some big memory issues, which goes well with his inability to remember a single point critical makes in the video PROPERLY.
If someone asks the question "Why did Dan hit himself in the head with a tack hammer?" You responding with "The film SHOWS Dan hitting himself in the head with a tack hammer," is not an answer, much less a rebuttal.
"She was too clever to fear him" should've been "For all her intellect, she underestimated the depths Miles would stoop to get his way." Implying some hubris on her part while still keeping the negative on him. Her false assumption that she could handle him shouldn't be phrased as a win. It's an understandable mixup with the wording, but a mixup that should've been caught and adjusted. Like "the fox was too clever to fear the scorpion that killed it" VS "the fox's hubris got it killed" VS "the clever fox didn't expect the stupid scorpion to be so deadly". Phrasing matters. THIS IS WHY YOU NEED AN EDITOR.
Exactly! Maybe he could have said “after everything this little weasel had put her through, watching him squirm must have been quite the rush. It made her careless, arrogant. She underestimated just how cunning miles could be when he wanted.
I wish the people on this stream would have a similar care about phrasing with the Drinker. They let him get away with far too much because they insist he meant something else, regardless of how it actually sounded.
@@SIngli6 "A lot of people take issue with the success of this movie because of the message it pushes; but the message is a rather positive one about taking risks to protect some children, _so you shouldn't have any qualms supporting such a film._ And if that message is why you _don't_ want people to see it, I gotta say I question your morals." Drinker never said you have to like the film just because of its messaging. He simply said that its messaging is weird reason to call the film evil, and if you did find the film harmful you'd need to do more convincing for why than just mumbling "QAnon"
@@samwallaceart288 Why the hell are you talking about THAT? I was talking about the various instances in this video where these podcasters say PoG is mischaracterising what Drinker said even when, going by his phrasing alone, PoG's interpretation is quite valid.
Glad you're doing this. I saw Pillar of Garbages video and a lot of his arguments either misrepresented drinkers criticism or completely missed the point of what drinker was trying to say. I've seen some response videos to like of drinker that don't agree with his takes but try to be fair with good argumentation but this one just felt like Pillar already hated Drinker and just wanted to find as many excuses to slag him off which is not the best attitude to have when making a response video like this
If you guys want a laugh, Pillar of Garbage made a community post "response" where he basically whines about being punched down on, EFAP is too long to respond to, EFAP is evil, etc. The best part is he finishes by saying his video was absolutely right and proves Drinker lied at several points but doesn't list them. He basically wrote half a book.
@@ezrataylor2956 I mean, Why not? Does a Lion know what a mouse is? Either way a Lion hunts bigger prey and being so hungry that he makes the effort to catch the mouse? I think the mouse is justified. stupid lions and their dens
Oh wow, i just read it. It shouldn't surprise me that this dimwit has any kind of audience at all but he makes my knees so weak its unbelievable. Mauler or the drinker should debate him live on youtube about this film. It would be an absolute bloodbath and would be the most viewers Pillar of crap has ever had
There have been a lot of wild defenses for bad writing on EFAP, but I don't think anything will ever top "you can't be certain that a giant explosion comparable to the Hindenburg would be fatal."
@trequor Do you know how Hindenburg went down? It burned down, it didn't explode. Because hydrogen doesn't explode, it ignites. The fact that they didn't die is a convenience, not a logical problem. Not to mention unlike the Hindenburg this is a solid structure with AC and ventilation included.
"Why don't you, Pillar of Garbage, actually create something yourself instead of trying to profit of the work of others by "commenting" on it? - Rest of the world.
Exactly. No actual counter point, just a vapid dismissal via a pretend question that is actually just him nay saying. If a blast can destroy the ENTIRE roof as well as rooms that are four rooms away would liquefy all your internal organs, rupture your brain, and set you on fire. "Nah, it'll be fine." - Pillar of Garbage stealing from Critical Drinker
The part where he said that there’s no reason everyone should be dead from the explosion while cutting to the indoor inferno takes the cake for me, but that’s a close second 🤣
It was funny to see Column of Refuse notice on Twitter he was being covered "what do you do if you’re getting EFAP’d but you’re out and about at the time" Then people tried to coax him to at least arrange an EFAP appearance to defend his video "but I am out and about" And some madlad throws at him the Dictionary definition of "Arrange", lol. Something tells me he'll be out and about through the next Decade.
He also responded to a comment saying to contact them to defend himself with “did they do that to me?”Needless to say, he probably isn’t up for debate.
Or claim he was on EFAP without providing any evidence to back it up, besides citing another video he made where he said, again without evidence, that he was indeed on EFAP Boy's not real big on giving substance to his statements, after all
"It's super intelligent because of how intentionally fucking stupid everything is!!" The funniest thing is, that they're saying this about the guy who's entire filmography is stupidity. "We win by saving what we love!!!" Explosion in the background. Licks ground. "It's salt!!!" "In the future, murder is impossible, so we send people back in time to die. But somehow kidnapping is a-okay. Also the entire inciting incident is Bruce Willis' wife being killed in the future." Only gripe I'll give Drinker is that his, "Hollywood is getting stupider" line is false. It's our entire species.
To be fair, I actually liked the “salt” line in the theater. I thought it was a clever way to acknowledge that they’re just straight ripping off Empire Strikes Back Now it annoys me when people say that TLJ “tried something new,” or was “original.” If that were the case, the salt line can’t work
2:55:00 "How does he manage to run this massive company if he's that stupid?" That's painfully obvious, he's completely inept but Andy's napkin is a complete explanation of how to operate the company.
Even if someone tried that dumbass response, he clearly doesn’t understand the napkin because he forged ICO (Initial Coin Offering) as icon. That’s a real word that should have meaning for how you run the business and you thought she wrote icon? How can you run this bus you don’t understand?
@@archstanton9073 The whole thing is absurd. An idiot doesn't become a tech CEO, an idiot doesn't manipulate the contracts for the company to completely cut out the supposed genius Alex, an idiot doesn't run a successful political campaign, boost the profile of a streamer to the point they are the #1 streamer in the world, and all the rest he did for his friends. The movie tells us he's an idiot but it shows us someone incredibly competent who then inexplicably becomes an idiot for plot convenience.
@@Hassohappa didnt those achievements first came by connections and later duo to money? That he just got friends and then later brute force his way using his capital, letting then other people do stuff for him? Like how other people made the mystery game and the boxes. By this logic, no one who is famous can be an idiot, including this film director and writer.
@@Hassohappa i feel everyone is bring so focussed on thr word idiot or dumb. Its not that Miles is an idiot (even tho he kinda is), its more about him not having any original ideas. He rather uses other people work and then the resources to aid other peoples creations which then end up getting more money. Are his exploits particularily smart? No. He got lucky with a group of people who owed him for the money he gave to them and now cant go against him due to how dependant they became of him. Ofc he isnt the stupidest person ever, but he defo not that smart.
Doomer's complaint about Arcane was an example of what we're calling "a purposeful coincidence." Caitlin got lucky when she discovered Jinx's sister at the prison, but it wasn't random. Caitlin went to the prison to speak to a different prisoner who had a connection to Jinx. This was a logical thing for her to do. As it happens somebody with an even stronger connection to Jinx was already there and got in a fight with Caitlin's suspect before she arrived. Caitlin followed a lead and it led her directly to a stronger lead. From Caitlin's perspective, this may have seemed lucky, but it wasn't random.
Also the reasonable consequences from such a decision were completely in line with a coherent plot. Vi was in Blackwater because Marcus had (contrary to what he told Silco) stashed her there; out of sight, out of mind. Odds are Marcus even forgot about her or was confident she would never get released due to being a violent repeat offender who the guards hated with a passion. Not coincidental, Blackwater seems to be the only prison in the city, so obviously all of the high target prisoners would end up there. Furthermore, Vi's release leads to a chain of events that destroys his relationship with Silco, puts all of his future plans in doubt, and leaves him scrambling just to save his life. His scrambling then results in a deadly showdown with Jinx which results in Marcus being killed. It all comes full circle, simply because Marcus overlooked one crucial decision made a decade earlier. This is the definition of a plot-required coincidence and it's barely a coincidence at that. The entire remaining storyline revolves around an overlooked mistake. Many stories use this is a central element that sparks off the main conflict. The odd coincidence is a tool in a good author's toolkit. But like most tools it should only be brought out to serve its most crucial function and to set everything in motion. In these situations we can forgive the odd coincidence because we recognize the story is made all the better for it. When writers use coincidences as duct tape to cover up l of their plot holes, that's when the machine starts to fall apart and the bare parts are exposed to be dissembled and examined more thoroughly.
I think a good way to tell if something is a good coincidence or a bad one is timing. Would you still get the benefit if it happened earlier or later? Like you are looking for jimmy who is in hiding so you go to jimmys friends house and just when you arrive jimmy walks out the front door. Even though it makes sense he would be at the house it's still bad writing. Now if you change the time and have it so jimmy was at the house before and have the investigator figure it out/ interigate jimmys friend or you check jimmys not there so you stake it out to see if he shows, that changes things. Its what bob was talking about in the artical in the video. Change it from just lucky to supported luck.
"I don't blame people for {believing Drinker} because why would you doubt the words of someone with a 1.5 million subscriber channel." Are... are you serious? No wonder you guys defend Rian. You were told it makes sense, so you believe it. Why would you just believe someone with a 1.5 million subscriber channel? If he says something dumb, he says something dumb. Depends on what he says. What a weird statement to make.
I swear when Rian releases a movie it becomes another case of the Emperors New Clothes. Basically Rian presents his movie, people question what's so special about it, Rian explains how smart the movie is and only intelligent people can appreciate it and so everybody is suddenly big brain and see the "depth" and "ingenuity" that was put in it, but in reality the emperor wore nothing
Maybe if it was a case of The Emperor's New Groove the movie would've been good, but as it is, to quote Kronk, "By all accounts it doesn't make sense."
i think people over-defend Johnson simply because they want to re-fight the whole 'last jedi' debate, because for all their bluster even the defenders know that it's a fight they resoundingly lost So even though Johnson makes a stupid movie, who's only defense is 'it was stupid on purpose', they still can't just admit that yeah, it was a stupid movie... whether they enjoyed it or not is a whole different argument
And they constantly shift the goalposts. You see, if you view the film positively and take deep meaning from it a la moviebob with last jedi, then you understand and appreciate a modern auteur. However, if you actually take apart his movie and explain how basic cause and effect are irreparably broken, then you're taking the movie too seriously, it's supposed to be a lighthearted romp you don't really think about You know you can't win with these people. Their definition of "over-analyzing" is noticing when things don't make sense. To complain about someone wearing shoes too expensive for their budget is the same as complaining about a person teleporting into the scene to these people, both are somehow nitpicks and nitpicks are automatically bad because negative connotation
I love how this guy pretends that Miles simply holdingHot Sauce at one point in the movie, is an “obvious” set up for him just having it in his pocket later, when he needs to make fake blood. There is no scene of Miles pocketing the hot sauce. That is not a proper setup and payoff.
@kollie79 Well, it's also supposed to add flavor. But if Blanc liked it he would've said so, or he would've thanked him for allowing him to take one. The way the situation played out, it made it seem like he didn't like it. Like he wouldn't have taken one. It was poorly done.
54:24 "Coincidences are pretty standard, even essential, in this genre" This is literally the opposite of reality. In reality the mystery genre is the genre that has the most reason to avoid coincidences, since the whole point of a mystery is that it's a puzzle that the audience can solve. All of the relevant information either needs to be shown to the audience, or be something that the audience can reasonably infer. Since the audience can't reasonably predict coincidences, using them deprives the audience of needed information. A mystery story can include coincidences and still function, but it's much easier for coincidences to break a mystery story than it is for them to break an adventure story, or a science fiction story.
@@zonbichaos5844 I had the Makuta figure, combined him with a couple of Rahkshi to make him twice as big with better articulation. Good Times, fun memories.
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 I could not disagree more. Hapka wrote the early stories and made the tone mystical and engaging. Farshtey started okay with the Mask of Light saga and then the Metru-Nui line was pretty good. But the longer he wrote and the more creative freedom he was given, the more ridiculous and impersonal and less grounded his stories became, to the point where the entire world of Matoran is just they are unknowingly living cogs inside a giant robot.
Such a good point made about Glass Onion made relatively early on in this video - it really is a film that people love to use as a reflection of how intelligent they are and, by extension, how ignorant everyone else is if they don't 'get it.' I watched that response by POG and ended up being completely gaslit by it because I'm an insecure and, yes, not a particularly bright person. I do agree that playing endless 'what if' games is a bit redundant and perhaps Drinker could have elaborated on some of his points a bit more, but calling him a liar and trying to undermine his intellect was several bridges too far and I commented as such on POG's video. I don't hate Glass Onion, but I don't think it's a work of genuis either (far from it). Still, I found myself persuaded out of agreeing with Drinker's analysis until I watched the 6 hour EFAP episode on the film. Then I realised how superficial POG's supposed rebuttal of Drinker's points truly was. I love the sense of loyalty all of you have and the solidarity you've displayed. I doubt he would be bothered by mosquitos online buzzing around and trying to bite him, yet you came to his defense regardless. Forgive me Drinker, for I have sinned. Must do better in the future.
Sorry for yet another comment, but I think the only true genuis of Glass Onion is the way it uses the titular metaphor as a way to evade criticism. Those who defend it can justify pretty much any writing decision as it being metacommentary, 'intentionally' stupid, and/or deceptively simple. Oh, you think x moment was stupid? That was the whole point, dummy, you just didn't understand RJ's God-tier level writing!
I find it odd how Jlaw's comments are jumped on yet the thick American actress who displayed her tiny intellect claimed Serbia doesn't have a culture has been given a free pass.
I mean, he's obviously just pandering to the Tumblrtrons who have chosen this movie as their Flavor of the Week obsession. And they've never needed any justification to believe the things they do.
@@baconghoti Sharknado aware their movies stupid, and banking on it. Glass Onion is like that dumb person who think they're very smart and "pretending" to be dumb to appeal to some demographic groups, who also think they're very smart.
An argument better reserved for movies like Demolition Man or Starship Troopers. When it comes down to it all movies are dumb to some degree, it's just that the good ones are executed properly and don't pretend to be anything more than they are, which ironically Glass Onion does a lot.
Poggers' whole justification is "the movie gave an explanation for this very stupid decision, so it's not stupid," but Drinker's criticism is "these decisions are stupid so they should NEVER HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE." And Poggers is just refusing to listen.
On the whole "bullet stopped by notepad" thing: Yeah, it *is* a trope in mystery fiction, but the usual culprit is a Bible, not a notepad. This is because: 1. The imagery of the Word of God protecting a moral man (it's almost always the hero who gets shot) 2. Bibles, even pocket Bibles, are thick. Thickness matter more for stopping a bullet in that circumstance. Just having a random notepad stop a bullet is not actually sticking to the spirit of the "trope", if we want to use that word.
@@mayanksharma3651 the same thing happened in that Alfred Hitchcock movie the 39 steps. But I guess you think that movie is dumb too since none of you apparently have good taste.
@@mayanksharma3651 "Hey sis, why is your notebook made out of adamantium?" "I got really into metal working." "K... I'm not quite sure which of the 500 new questions I have to ask next."
Don’t forget the book in question is typically used as a Chekhov’s gun. By that I mean it’s shown, referenced, used, and even seen being placed in the breast pocket.
Okay, so just to talk about that Barb article she wrote. I understand you guys didn't read the whole article but Pillar of Lies speaks like he read the whole thing and he failed to understand it in general. The Barb woman wrote "So you might ask, whad do I do if I have a coincidance in my story? Well, you take that coincidence and turn it into a purposeful act, so it's not a coincidance anymore because coincidances in mystery novels are annoying and stupid."
What I hate the most about the "this character is dumb" defence is that it's never that the character is straight up mentally incapable. It's that the character is "dumb enough". Dumb enough to give the main character a wide margin of error, but not dumb enough to have the story resolve itself too quickly. It's a flaky argument that too many manipulative people use.
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 To be fair I can sympathize with being intellectually frustrated by smudcast, even if they're beneath that sort of attention
These people are all about projection. They accuse you of what they are doing. Either as a smokescreen and deflection, or because they cannot imagine being normal well-adjusted sincere people.
"Yes, all the EFAP members are bad faith trolls, now excuse me while I continue to call these people reactionary alt-right chuds, and assume that they're lying just because they say something I don't agree with!"
@@jeremyusreevu237 - perfectly describes the circlejerk going in the comments section of PoG's most recent community post. You call them out on their BS and corner them on their hypocrisy, and they derail the conversation into "everyone I don't like and disagrees with me is a nazi".
About the "thanks for unpausing' around 24:00, something funny I saw is that he changed his twitter bio to this sentence after this efap, maybe to try and say "that's a thing I do guys, it's not at all a failed attempt to get them", but when he saw that nobody fell for it, he changed it again to something else.
It’s more like “critical drinker is a liar for delivering his review in a way that can be misunderstood” or “critical drinker didn’t write an air tight thesis paper” or “drinker is not longman… also longman is too long.”
I, for one, can't believe that Drinker actually said that Miles was trying to shoot "Andi" in the journal. So glad this gentleman was there to let us all know.
What's TH-cam come to when someone accuses someone else of lying, and then, in their own video, lies about the lie? Is media analysis dead, cause I think media analysis might be dead... at least in terms of analysts' good faith towards each other.
@@cranberryrosebud It's because so much of media analysis, on both sides of the aisle, isn't about the objective qualities of the media anymore, but the politics of the people who made them, the politics of the people who reviewed them, and whatever political messages may or may not be present in them. When I originally heard about the whole "Everything is political" slogen of the more deranged corners of the far left, I thought it was a joke, yet somehow, over the past decade, it became the status quo instead.
I really hate the "It's just dumb" brush off. It reminds me of the "Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong" that every TLJ defender prefaced their nonsense with.
@Hexensohn What’s funny is that TLJ quote can be used against any defender and their arguments. Because I truly doubt these folks actually watched the movie or have to rely on head canon to justify content that’s either purposefully vague or just so incompetent you need to fill in your own meaning to make it work.
I still cannot believe the argument of "if there were no shitty contrivances and coincidences than movies sure would be boring and short hmehmehmeh". how about writing a better movie? you know movies are fictional and at the whims of a fucking writer right? you can change any and all aspects of a story to be better - aka clever, continuous, and established on a character, world and plot level that abides by realistic or self contained rules that can be followed by the viewer. assuming that characters have to be struck by temporary dementia or that its appropriate for a macguffin to swoop in and reverse every aspect of a plan in motion to obtain an outcome is called bad writing and can be avoided by doing good writing.
I just love how so many of his arguments against Drinker’s critiques are “Well of course this happened, this character is STUPID! Were you not paying attention?!” And he uses this excuse for literally everything, even for why there wasn’t a proper anti-fire system in this billionaire’s home.
I can’t believe that the French government was not constantly up Miles arse making sure that they were confident that the safety & security of the Mona Lisa was up to standards that they were comfortable with.
@@RebellionInHell I think Miles' Mona Lisa is supposed to be a fake. Like, they intentionally gave him a fake Mona Lisa, and Miles was too stupid to notice.
@@jeremyusreevu237 that's never established in the movie, so that's not a defense. The movie, as constructed, did everything possible to convince the viewer it was the real mona lisa head cannon is the same thing as fanfiction, after all.
@@jeremyusreevu237 that is a fan theory, I believe. But if it were true, I think it spoils the end as who cares if a fake Mona Lisa painting got burned up in a house fire at a billionaire's party? That wouldn't spark backlash against Miles at all. Whereas if the world could be convinced he was responsible for the real Mona Lisa getting destoyed, he'd be almost universally hated and would go down in history as the guy who torched one of the most famous works of art in the world.
The fact that more writers and fanboys are using the "it's meant to be dumb" excuse like it's their ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card is making me lose more faith in humanity.
It's a valid excuse if we're talking about a Jackie-Chan movie since your not really there for the plot of Drunken Master 2, but for a who-dunnite, it's bizarre for people to break that excuse out.
@Lookatthetree I'm not sure he said anything to disprove that statement. It's also not about the fact that they are defending it, it's about how they are defending it. She-Hulk and Glass Onion both had this phenomenon occur where the audience (and in the case of She-Hulk, the writer herself) defends terrible and/or nonsensical writing decisions in TV shows and movies by saying it was meant to be stupid/not make sense. It's like the final form of bad media defenders where they openly admit the film is shit and say at the same time that that's a good thing for some ungodly reason.
@@lookatthetree978 It has nothing to do with people liking the movie. You’re allowed to like whatever you want to like. It’s just if you want to defend it and prove it’s not badly written, you need good points and evidence to disprove major criticisms towards the movie instead relying on completely lazy defenses like “it’s meant to be bad” which is what the bulk of the defense for this movie is hence the phrase “ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card”.
@@Koopa_Klawz People can never go, "This movie isn't good, but I like it anyways." Like, I really enjoy the first 3 Bayformers films, but I'm not gonna write an entire essay video about how they were misunderstood masterpieces the filthy masses refuse to understand. You don't have to prove that the things you like are good. Sometimes it's fine to enjoy trash.
"Take your coincidence and make it purposeful." I think in the full context of the paragraph, it's pretty clear this means remove the coincidence or at least make your coincidence less based on pure chance. Instead of a character being in the right place at the right time to overhear a damning conversation just by chance, your character should be in the right place at the right time due to deliberate action, even if it's still a coincidence. In the example, Suzie Sleuth is taling a shady character(deliberate action) who happens to be meeting up with a co-conspirator in time for her to hear the damning conversation(coincidence). Contrast that version of events with a scene where a frustrated Suzie Sleuth plops down in a café just as the conspirators are having a laugh in the very next booth about how they're going to get away with it(pure, unadulterated chance). There's an element of coincidence in both scenarios, but the former relies much less on it because there's a pretty reasonable set of preceding events that lead to the conclusion. I'm not even sure what PoG's point was in including that quote. Even out of context, it doesn't sound like she's saying coincidences are an essential part of the genre. All I can figure is that he interpreted it as either "give your coincidences a purpose in the story" or "make your coincidences on purpose." Both of those interpretations are meaningless because of course a coincidence is written on purpose and of course they have the purpose of advancing the plot, often when a dead end has been reached.
Another way to properly use coincidences would be to have a non-main character be the one that coincidentally hears evidence. In this case that person should be untrustworthy to some extent, so the fact that they heard a clue coincidentally only lends more to them potentially lying. For bonus points: if they are telling the truth, you could still reframe it so that it wasn't coincidence at all but that they manipulated the truth to make it sound like it because they wanted to hide their involvement.
I'm guessing it was just pure confirmation bias on his part, he probably read the book a long time ago and remembered it said something about coincidences, then for the video he only read the part that 'confirmed' his position and then didn't bother reading the rest, therefore missing that the thing he cited disagrees completely with the conclusion he is trying to prove.
@@GBDupree in that case, any coincidence is fine because the detective themselves won't completely believe it. Like in a Sherlock Holmes story, someone OTHER THAN Holmes and his trusted persons (Watson, his gang of street kids who collect info or Lestrade whom he trusts in the police and some others) finds out some information by coincidence and tells him, he'd first suspect that person's motives, investigate properly by himself, and then reach a conclusion.
I kept seeing that video in my recommendations and when I finally clicked on it to be greeted with - " I got this comment telling me that an alt-right youtuber, Smudboy, has used one of my videos..." I got such a laugh! Funniest thing I've seen all week!
Then again, after Smudboy made that video on EFAP for dogging Synthetic Man, fuck him. Who the fuck makes a video called "A lesson in hurt ego's and loss of credibility" without even watching the episodes he's basing the video on.
Miles: he was so stupid he wasn't afraid of Benny and ZombAndi even though he should have been. Andi: she was so clever she wasn't afraid of Miles even though she should have been.
“Boys can’t relate to female leads.” The irony is that I’ve always preferred female leads. I was raised on Fifth Element, Terminator, Witchblade, Heavy Metal, etc. I personally find Bayonetta extremely relatable.
I would love to hear what are the "reasons". Because a lady lead can deal with a crappy life, cool friends, be a genius, be dumb, be rich. Cry, laugh, date, fight. So unless the only thing she talks about is menopause or tampons. There's no story, or personality, that isn't done with a guy as well. But that doesn't mean the female lead just acts like a guy. That's not how you use the character.
@@mbob4337 It’s funny because I agree completely. My reasons have always been that female characters can have all the exact same motivations as male characters. Ultimately, I love watching cool, well written, female characters being badass. If Im playing a video game and have to choose between staring at a male characters ass for 30+ hours or a lady’s ass…..I’m gunna pick the latter. That isn’t to say male characters can’t be inspiring, well written, or cool. There are tons of them. So many that it’s hard to NOT find badass male characters. He Man, Conan, Tony Stark, James Bond, Trevor Belmont, etc…. I will always choose competent, badass characters regardless of gender….I just really love competent badass ladies most of all.
@@The-Yellow-Man the only thing to comment is how much mbob is condescending, but it's a terrible state of fiction where you can't have well written women for what is either a stand-in for the author or reader, or an object of the plot, which typifies most FMC. The former is your regular scheduled messaging, the latter is simply not a main character at that point. Women wouldn't go as far as men, so women do it different.
Like, yeah. I do agree with POG that Glass Onion is good, but I enjoy it because it's a fairly fun murder mystery with enjoyable characters, whereas he seems to enjoy it as this deep symbolic artpiece. And it really isn't.
I myself quite enjoy TLJ and Knives Out, as long I turn my brains off. Like my other hobby in reading "trashy" manga, I have no argument whatsoever in defending them. My only turn off is, RJ and his defenders acting so proud about the movies quality.
@@hafirenggayudaDiffernece with the manga is that it doesn’t try and say that “this is peak writing and media”. But it’s entertaining as hell and doesn’t try to be something it isn’t. TLJ and Glass Onion are just garbage written by an unlikeable goblin and defended by people who think it’s peak cinema and well written.
@@hafirenggayuda I myself enjoy a lot of "trashy" Japanese media content (manga, anime, light novel) and guess what? I KNOW they're like junk food. There's also quite a lot of critically acclaimed content in there that I enjoyed for both the entertainment and artistic purposes. Difference is for former, I just let things flow without questioning too much (I'd still get put off by blatant break in character or plot, but otherwise it's ok) whereas for the more "artistic" ones, I focus more on making sense of the more intricate parts of the story, and see it more critically, while also enjoying the overall story and character interaction.
3:50:00 Oh... This makes things so much worse and even defeats a lot of the defenders in their defenses of him. I looked up the quotes. "We got a very talented, local Belgrade artist to do a recreation of the Mona Lisa and it was kind of extraordinary having it on set. I didn’t realise this, but if you get a recreation like this, you have to destroy them when you’re done filming, if it’s a famous work of art. You actually have to document yourself burning the canvas because of the counterfeit market. Daniel was a bit worried that we were ‘killing the puppy’ by upsetting people as we destroyed the Mona Lisa, but the scene in Bean where he destroys ‘Whistler’s Mother’ is one of the funniest scenes in cinematic history, so I figured we’d get away with this. That scene is so good. We also shot a little coda which we decided not to use, with Blanc on the phone speaking French and getting a little affirmation of ‘ah, oui, oui, merci’ and cutting to an office in the Louvre where the real Mona Lisa is, with the security guards saying ‘well, back to work’. But that pulls a punch, I like that the real painting gets destroyed in the movie." Yeah. That defeats the entire movie. But, all the characters are just dumb, I guess. And, yes, for anyone defending the movie with "There were clues that it's not the real Mona Lisa!", yeah... in this universe, as far as Rian's concerned, it is.
What's worse is Blanc knew she couldn't lie....and still took him the entire movie to solve the case..... " We're you involved with harlans death?" " Did you do something to cause harlans death directly?" " Did you give Harlan the wrong medication?" "Was it intentional or accidental?" " Which medication did you give him?" ....autopsy reveals no morphine in his system..... " Someone tampered with the bottles, but Harlan killed himself " Movie is over in like 10 minutes
@kollie79 and yet he doesn’t do the detective thing to do and ask more pressing and intense questions. Knowing she’s not the person he’s looking for would be great for the investigation
That's actually baffling... it's supposed to be murder mystery, why is there supernatural BS? Or is it some sci-fi crap? Either way, that's like... the worst addition for... solving mystery!
@@stevepickford3004 Hey guys we found the Rian fan! Hey there little guy, you lost? Want some ummmm shit I was gonna say Kotaku articles but everything is getting shut down. How about some old Feminist Frequency? I think they're still on. And remember you opinions and feelings are valid!
@@DreadnoughtFiend I think Rian is terrible. Why would you think I'm a fan? Is your brain that limited? At least you have proved my point far better than I ever could have. Thanks
3:44:57 Wait, hang on, Blanc _smokes._ He was setting off alarm after alarm earlier in the movie trying to light a cigar, and Miles knows how combustible Klear is. Hell, there are other people on the island that know how combustible it is. Oh, but I can hear Column of Detritus now: “Miles is an idiot.” Silly me forgetting that one-size-fits-all band aid of an answer to all of this movie’s gushing plot wounds.
@@whiskeyhound his replies from fans is pain, they legitimately believe they are Nazis as well as alt-right and reactionary He's in full defence mode even on twitter and still refuses to watch this efap despite getting comments about things he got wrong
@@TheShadowReviewer Yeah, I checked his community tab about 12 hours ago, the only remotely enjoyable thing was the irony of seeing people call EFAP losers and irrelevant despite his post whining about EFAP punching down on a smaller channel.
@@whiskeyhound for me the channel size does not matter, it's the points you make and how well argued they are- If it's a bad video it's a bad video But I think ironically since his channel grown since he put out the video, he won't be able to make the argument about punching up or being punched down as be is growing
@@TheShadowReviewer Yeah, punching down is a stupid concept, if you say stupid things, people are allowed to point it out. It's funny how the people making the punching down complaints never acknowledge that in most cases they're just trying to get attention by attacking a bigger channel even if they've got no good reason for going after the bigger creator. I'd hope he'd drop the argument but I'm sure he won't until he's at a million and probably not even then, if he somehow lucks into that amount of subs.
Guys, you don't understand, Pillar of Garbage pulled a glass onion: See, you thought you were going to get a well thought out, properly executed, point-by-point debunking of Drinker's video but instead you got a sniveling driveling, weasely, dishonest, poorly planned, disingenuous hit piece by a buffoon. And by the Rules of Sir Ruin Roundhead Johnson in his 1803 treatise of film theory, backed by household name Matt Arnold, it's so stupid, it means it's actually brilliant. By the transitive powers of anondyne verisimilitude math, Pillar of Garbage is a genius and totally not a complete pathetic failure of a film critic and TH-cam reviewer.
How though, half of CD's points on the movie were "What if this didn't happen" or "What if this happened instead?", if anything that's just a lazy critique on what he thinks is a lazily written movie. Also, his other critiques were explained very well by PoG, if anything CD missed on actual errors with the movie like the Helen surviving the gunshot, or the group almost never mentioning the fact that Andi/Helen is "dead" after said gunshot, they almost forget that there is a murder spree going on. The movie isn't perfect by any means, no movie is, but nagging over someone actually explaining very well against CD's points just goes to show that you probably couldn't understand the movie either, and that you're arguments against the movie would be a bunch of "what ifs" as well.
@@michaelpacheco9 'half of CD's points on the movie were "What if this didn't happen" or "What if this happened instead?"' "What if this incredibly likely event that would have actually happen in this type of situation happened instead of the incredibly stupid event that did happen so that the plot can keep going the way the writer want it to go." For instance, what if Miles kicked the world's most famous detective who showed up with the woman he killed off his island because said detective wasn't invited instead of convincing himself of a lie that nobody even tried to fool him into thinking and insist this detective stay on his private island where fax machine will spew out his sensitive, incriminating information. "Also, his other critiques were explained very well by PoG" Give me a single example, and I can link the time stamp in this exact video that tells you exactly why you are wrong.
Pillar is disingenuous and left out what Jennifer Lawrence got busted on to make it seem like everyone got it wrong. He deserves the hate he gets, if only for doing a response video with an elitist preamble.
3:38:59 I love how Rags describes exactly what he uses for firearm training and where he keeps it. It reminds of the scene from Family Guy where Tom Tucker on the news says "Just to put it out there, Tom Tucker is packin'. I drive a 2006 Infiniti, and I don't intend to lose it. So come and get some, punks." Rags is a locked and loaded doggo, don't mess with him
14:05 "Bold-faced" and "bald-faced" are actually both accepted. They just officially mean 2 different things, even though they are (incorrectly) used interchangeably. "Bald-faced" means the lie is undisguised and clearly untrue. "Bold-faced" means the lie is impudent and disrespectful.
I like when he calls One million people dumb... He actually thinks there is a point of authority in Drinker and that's why people agree? Might not be much more likely the case that people saw the movie as well and actually agree with the points made?
I know why Ryan Johnson called the sequel Glass Onion, because it's so bad you can't even cry about it and it falls apart when you try to see what's beneath the surface layer
If the release of TLJ had resulted in Solo and TROS just blowing out the box office instead of just sadly fizzling out, you bet your candy ass they would have fast tracked a Rian Johnson trilogy. We'd at least have one movie out by now, if not two. But of course they're not going to say it's been axed. And it's for the same reason they made Mark Hamill play nice after people started to pick up on his dissatisfaction with the treatment of Luke Skywalker: you have to keep up a facade. I'd be very surprised if Rian's trilogy was still seriously being considered for development.
Pillar of Garbage is one of those type of content creators I can't stand. It's the, "I'm above this culture war bs, but I constantly talk about it or let it affect my decisions" type mfs. Like, I in no way care or even like Ben Shapiro, but he wasn't wrong about Glass Onion being full of holes. And the absolute gall to target your audience when they go, "Well, maybe Drinker does have a point." and go, "Oh no! Part of my audience follows this other channel and might actually agree with him on certain things? Media literacy is dead." He's the type of person to disagree with someone saying that murder is bad by saying, "Yeah, well he was part of the Jan 6th riots."
@@lokiswager Like I said, I don't practically like Shapiro. At most, I'll poke fun at him with all the memes surrounding him. He's more of an ironic joke to me than anything.
No, no, no, it's by all means unnecessary. I shall begin by hurling raindrops at tortoises with great vehemence. That'll stop that Scottish menace dead in his tracks!
The greatest argument anyone could ever have ever is... "you just don't get it" or "you're just not smart enough to understand why it's good", or something to the capacity. It shuts down all criticisms, it has no hard counter, and never requires you to actually address any counter-points =P I love when people try to act like they're smart and just insist on proving otherwise with everything they do and say. I especially love when they make videos showcasing it, for people like Mauler and Rags to pick apart with very simple arguments and basic logic and it gets to be archived forever in all its glory.
You cab be smug and you can be wrong, but you cant be both. PoG out here throwing out a ton of insults while either not understanding or straight up lieing about things and it makes him incredibly annoying to listen to.
Miles' fax network is possibly one of most idiotic concepts ive ever heard of, to the point that its actually detrimental to the movie. So if Miles has all of his information fed to him via fax machine at various locations at every one of his properties you have to assume if he has 10 locations of similar size to his island with 20-30 fax machines each, he would have a network of 300. With each drawing thei own power, needing ink ribbon replacements, and paper refilling on a regular basis. Then each needs to have a phone line connection, plus cable ran to it, and for a technology that is practically obsolete, obtaining such materials gets more expensive as time passes. Then theres the problem of actually networking them in such manner that every machine prints out each fax all at once. That requires a central fax machine recieving the data and then forwarding it to every other location, where another central machine would forward to each branch. Every single fax he gets would cost hundreds of dollars per page and if hes getting the amount of information a high value CEO gets, he would get thousands of messages an hour. This man set up a system that would effectively cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, a day. A system that a single cell phone solves at a tenth of a percentile of the cost. Miles is cartoonishly idiotic and his company should be bankrupt. Hes spending like $2 billion a year for his fax cascade.
Do they actually show he uses dedicated fax machines as opposed to printers with fax capabilities? Even if he's got a fetish for fax machines, they could've made it so much more reasonable if he only used one at a time and called ahead to direct his faxes to a particular location, but that'd take a modicum of brainpower so he just has every fax machine recieving at the same time.
I mean Rian said it best” I want to make movies that divide people… to me if everyone leaves the theatre liking you movie then you failed as a creator” What he did not say was I want to make a good movie…
"If everyone leaves the theatre liking your movie, then you failed as a creator" That's basically like saying "If everyone leaves the grocery store buying your product, then you failed as a food manufacturer."
I know there was no talk of it because Drinker didn't mention it, but I'd love to hear Pillar of Garbage's take on why the actual Mona Lisa is in a random billionaire's home. This is not just a random detail, this is a crucial Chekhov's gun that allows for the "defeat" of the villain (and as mentioned by Mauler Rian Johnson decided it to be the real one, not a fake, for purely mechanical reasons of "payoff". It could have been a fake: the actual one is painted on wood, the one in the movie was on some canvas - though this can also be attributed to Rian Johnson being too lazy to check that detail on something like wikipedia). Having the actual Mona Lisa in Miles' island home is dependent on a chain of successive failures of judgement on the part of so many supposedly competent people that it would be illogical to think it could happen in real life (or to borrow PoG's terms, it is not "verisimilar"). And it only gets worse as you think more about it. Here are some examples I've thought of since EFAP 221, apologies in advance for the massive autism on my part but I wanted to show this using publicly available information (and if I, a rando on the internet, can find it all then Rian Johnson most certainly could have if he decided to actually spend some effort on this): WHY IS FRANCE (AND THE LOUVRE) BROKE -The Louvre is not a private museum or a corporation of private collectors, it is literally owned by the French State and operated by the French government (the "Service des Musées de France" under the direction of the Ministry of Culture). This is partially acknowledged by the movie (Miles says "Louvre is closed, France needed money so I bought myself a little short term loan.") and the pandemic is offered as an explanation. However, the pandemic alone does not explain how France became so broke that it decided to lend the Mona Lisa. For the sake of detail, a quick Google search reveals on a France24 article that the Louvre's losses over the first lockdown was about 40 million Euros (from March to July 2020, about when the movie's action takes place), that amount of money should be insignificant in the scope of the French budget (more than 400 billion in tax revenue in 2020). Now don't get me wrong 2020 was a harsh period, but IRL it was nowhere near to that level of economic collapse! So how did France collapse so much from the lockdowns that even a publicly funded museum is incapable of paying off less than 40 million Euros? SUPPOSING THE LOUVRE IS BROKE, WHY LEND A PAINTING AT ALL -Even if it were broke for a couple of months, the French State would still have many options and lending a masterpiece to a guy would be at the bottom of that list. We are not talking about a billionaire who needs a short-term cash influx, France has other short term options to increase its revenue: implementing new taxes or raising existing ones, relying on more exports or signing some international contract with another country, selling some bonds or some gold, etc. If it really needs a loan, it is more likely to ask one from the IMF or the USA or a G7 country or at the very least some private bank. Why would the French State approach a private person for a loan rather than consider any of the other options mentioned above? -If somehow the Louvre and the branches of government that manage it are so insistent on gaining the patronage of a billionaire, why don't they instead INVITE the said billionaire to a private showing by the Louvre director himself? Wouldn't that be more practical and safe than giving your painting to someone who may put it at risk of damage? SUPPOSING IT NEEDS TO LEND, WHY SHOULD THE LOUVRE AGREE TO LEND THE MONA LISA -Supposing that the director of the Louvre agrees to lend the Mona Lisa, why would his superiors agree? That would be the director of the "Service des Musées de France", the French minister of culture, and the French prime minister (the head of government). Also let's not forget the French president who, as the head of state, has the last say since he decides in the name of the entity that owns the painting. Keep in mind that the burning of Notre-Dame was a shock to many people, including people who were not French, but since it was ruled an accident it had no political repercussions. Now ask yourself why would any of the people previously mentioned agree to the lending, especially knowing that if something bad happens to the Mona Lisa THEY WILL BE BLAMED FOR IT IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY. What kind of sane politician would even agree to having their career and reputation destroyed on a risk like that? -Now as a follow-up to the last point, some may point out that after WW2, the Mona Lisa was sent abroad to be exposed in countries other than France (mind you in public museums, not at the hands of rich art collectors). That is true. However that stopped after 1974, when after an exposition in Tokyo someone attempted and failed to damage it by spraying red paint. Since 1975 it has stood in the Louvre behind a thick glass panel. Adding the fact that even today there are crazies that go to the Louvre and attempt to damage the Mona Lisa using cream tarts, paints and acid, why would the people responsible ever decide to move the painting when there is strong precedent that doing so is very risky? -Why didn't the Louvre put the Mona Lisa to good financial use through its digital platform and distribution instead of relying on private loans? I mean that is exactly what the Louvre did IRL. For example, it put access to 34 high detailed photos of its Masterpieces with lengthy details about each one (Mona Lisa included btw, you can find that page by googling "louvre from the mona lisa to the wedding feast at cana"). During that time, the Louvre also made a massive digital campaign and spearheaded it with documentaries, radio shows, and even an app about a specific painting - can you guess which one? (hint: it is in the movie) So why would the Louvre give away the golden goose that could allow it to endure the lockdowns and prepare for reopening? -To be fair the sources I have found for this next point I couldn't find in English so Rian Johnson shouldn't be pinned for this, but I am mentioning them here because it really makes it impossible to even move Mona Lisa from the Louvre. An article from Le Point of April 3rd 2018 mentions that the wood of the painting is so fragile that the Mona Lisa cannot be moved EVEN WITHIN THE MUSEUM. So why lend an old and fragile painting like the Mona Lisa rather than a more modern and (relatively) sturdy one? I'll add more in a comment in reply to this. Feel free to read and give feedback.
(continued) SUPPOSING THE LOUVRE LENDS THE MONA LISA, WHY EVEN AGREE TO IT -If you are to lend a painting, especially if you are a public institution, it stands to reason that the act of lending will be made public and a certificate of authenticity be given to the lender (which means that in the movie the people should NOT be surprised Miles has the actual Mona Lisa, this would have made headlines everywhere). In terms of security, what person would be okay with one having the greatest painting in the world being public knowledge and risk being the target of all the art thieves of the entire world? And not just that, but imagine the unwanted (potentially criminal and crazy) visitors that you may have to deal with on a daily basis? -Let's talk insurance. Insurance of art is necessarily indexed on its value. Now at the scale of many famous paintings such as with Picasso's works it is fine, but does that work with the Mona Lisa? In reality the preciousness of the Mona Lisa would make any insurance an absolute mess. To illustrate, the Mona Lisa holds the Guinness World Record for insurance valuation at 100 million dollars during an American tour in 1962-63 (equivalent today to 870 million dollars).The GWR site says that insurance was not concluded because the cost of the highest security measures was less than that of the premiums for the insurance (and that was for institutions not rich citizens). That was for moving the painting ALONE, because technically the Mona Lisa is beyond value and therefore the painting itself cannot be insured at all. A Figaro article of February 22nd 2008 has this particular quote: "Works as mythic as the Mona Lisa or the Origin of the World [by Courbet] are not insured in the sense we usually know, precisely because they are priceless. "It is not possible to find insurance for such paintings" notes Marc Rome, working at Axa Art, one of the main insurers in art. "And in any case, the State wouldn't have the means for it." [...] What would happen then if, by misfortune, a work as important as the Mona Lisa would be destroyed or stolen? The cultural institutions, being realists, note that no compensation would allow the replacement of an object that is so unique in its essence." So what have we learned? First, that insuring the Mona Lisa itself should be OUTRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE (so no "Don't tell the insurance guys I have installed a conveniently placed override so I can look at it directly"). Secondly, even if there is such an insurer insane enough to offer something for it, then the insurance and the premiums should be astronomically expensive, to the point that it would be impossible for Miles to say that most of the cost of getting the painting was in "transport and security". Now not insuring the Mona Lisa itself and only the moving works for States because they have budgets far exceeding anything a private citizen could earn (costs are put on the budget), so we need to ask what kind of person would be insane enough to offer insurance for the Mona Lisa (not just moving operations) to a private citizen, and who would be insane and insanely rich enough to take it? SUPPOSING THE LENDING OF MONA LISA, WHY TO MILES OF ALL PEOPLE -First of all: it is established that Miles is someone who is dumb. Passionate about the Mona Lisa, yes, but dumb nonetheless. It would be reasonable to assume that the French government would thoroughly study the people it is lending its paintings to (especially if it is the Mona Lisa), so why would anyone lend the precious Mona Lisa to someone as dumb as Miles, instead of someone who may be more intelligent and therefore more competent and less prone to impulsiveness and mistakes when it comes to safekeeping? -Miles wants the Mona Lisa on his private island in Greece. Putting aside the unfortunate risk of the boat sinking or heavy seas damaging the Mona Lisa, there are issues with the location: it is not always available, specifically the docks are poorly constructed. Lending the Mona Lisa would probably demand exact details as to where the painting would be held at, and the means to retrieve it. So knowing that the docks pose a risk for transportation and even for safeguarding (the fire brigade can't dock to the island so it can't reliably arrive to save it from a fire. Ironic, I know), why agree to lend it to Miles if there is an access risk? -As pointed out in this show by Fringy, there are legal and ethical standards imposed to architects whenever they build anything. Yet somehow the building in which the Mona Lisa is held is surrounded by literal fire hazards. This alone, no one in their right mind would agree to put the Mona Lisa in. Now you may say "well it's fine with some bulletproof glass" and to that I say that the glass casing may be bullet resistant, but not necessarily fire/thermal proof. Also burning air could get in the casing if there was shrapnel lodged through the glass. Not to mention that the shockwave of any explosion could potentially damage the glass, or knock the casing down and damage the painting inside (and its lock mechanism, and the way the detection system works). So what reason would there be to accept lending the Mona Lisa to a guy who would put it near an explosive/incendiary source? -The casing for the Mona Lisa does not make sense: It is clear on all sides but why? It's the painting that matters, not the frame or what is behind it. Why not put it on a wall behind a very wide and very tall glass (like its actual setup in the Louvre right now). If you are to lend the painting, you might as well help in putting it in a place that is appropriate for its viewing just as much as its security (for example when it comes to lighting you want to protect a painting from too many UV rays just as much as you want the light to hit the painting just right to enjoy the colors to the fullest). So why did the Louvre agree to lend the Mona Lisa to Miles when his intended setup (that is also dangerous) is poor from a viewing standpoint? If I can think of more I will edit the comments and add them where needed. In the meantime, feel free to give feedback if you have any. Finally, I'm not going to waste energy in detailing the stupidity that is Helen thinking it is worth it to burn the Mona Lisa in the face of getting arrested, going to prison or a mental hospital (for acting like the crazies that have tried to vandalize the Mona Lisa before), and be reviled by the entire world forevermore.
Yeah the whole burning of the Mona Lisa by her would make andi an enemy of most of the western world. I think the French Republic might go for her head but if that’s not a punishment on the books so many artists and people who appreciate cultural works would be gunning for her. Not to mention miles whole clean energy project getting ruined and the rammifications of that
While I'm pretty sure that people can purchase the loan of certain artworks for private viewings, the idea that France in the middle of lockdowns and being broke would've authorised and paid for the museum staff to prepare any piece of artwork to be adequtely protected against the difference in humidity and temperature between their temperature controlled museum and some rich idiot's Greek getaway is ludicrous. As is the idea that they'd break their own border controls to ship a non-essential item to Greece for a minor financial benefit, that they'd ship the mona lisa or any of their most famous pieces with no staff accompanying it to ensure its safety at all times is bewildering.
48:10 Andor is evidence of the sheer magnitude of Lucasfilm's failure with Star Wars. It used to be that having the Star Wars name attached to a project meant that people would flock to it, even if it wasn't very good. Now, a lot of people are avoiding Andor just because it's Star Wars, even though, by all accounts, it's actually good. That's how badly Lucasfilm and Disney have damaged the reputation of the Star Wars franchise.
I’ve heard only good things about Andor and I even hear my favourite fellas say good things about it although it has issues. I want to watch I really do. I cannot. I’m too afraid of being disappointed and when I saw them brining up people like Wullf Yulardan the G and some other characters I just assumed it was going to key jangle central. I want to watch it but I don’t want to give Disney a win. So conflicted.
The Star War product that's very accepted in 2022, they said, is the Lego Skywalker Saga. But I think that's because the Lego quality, not Star War or even Disney.
My friend recommended one of pillar’s videos talking about rings of power. Literally the whole thing was what about ism….not good, just a nice coincidence
TH-cam recommended one of his videos about Superman, and having never heard of the channel I checked it out. It was about how Superman shouldn't be a Jesus symbol, which I was curious about since I remember hearing that he was intended to be more a moses symbol. I quickly realized how bad the video was when early on he apologized about making another video talking about Jewish customs and history. Not because he was wrong about what he said, but that he talked about them while not being Jewish himself. His solution to this problem? He recommended another youtuber who was Jewish, so now he can make this video no problem! (This culture war is insane!) He then finished the video by saying that making Superman a Jesus symbol was anti-semitic. Barely anything mentioning how the original creators intended him to be. Needless to say I told TH-cam to never reccomend his channel (didn't stop them from trying anyways).
man, e;r keeps getting cut off whenever he tries to speak in these last few efaps, hell in this one, mauler asks him something, and two other people talk for like 20sec while e;r is tryin to get a word in.
The people who tell us to just accept the events that are happening in what is essentially our world are also the ones who tell us we're being silly for just accepting that dragons exist in a fantasy world where they are explicitly said to exist.
I was recommended PoG with Thor L&T so then I watched his Reva video in which he ignores the legit criticism, and then I got a community tab saying “looks like I’m gonna make my audience mad” which was his SheHulk defense which he tries to guilt by association Drinker. He’s a dishonest FullFatVideos
If a movie break real life logic, it is the movies job to teach you the logic of the movie’s universe. You can’t just say well it happens in the movie so it makes sense.
"Pillar of Garbage". As apt a channel name as you'll find, I've watched a few of his videos and I couldn't stomach another, for no other reason than words associate with "Blue hair and american colleges" keep coming to mind. I watch video essays to be entertained, not bored.
Not to mention he went on a rang about people using his name to insult him. Bruh, you LITERALLY put "Garbage" in your name. Don't be mad at them, when you gave them such an easy target.
The celebration of bad movies enables more bad movies. Case in point Knifes Out and Glass Onion. If we want less bad movies/shows/games, there needs to be less pretentious, shallow, stupid people enabling them. Which is why I appreciate the EFAP crew. A lot of people say they like movies. But very few care about the storytelling.
I've concluded that most of the defense of the movie is largely because the movies are serving an apparatus to spread tangential political messaging. They're defending the movies/shows because of the messaging in the absence of any positive quality/the messaging itself becomes the positive quality they want to defend.
I mean, I like both Knives Out and Glass Onion, but I'm not going to act like they're perfect masterpieces. The problem with people like Pillar Of Garbage and Jack Saint is that they have such a binary view of good and bad, i.e, everything I like is wholly good and everything I hate is wholly bad.
@@rudolfambrozenvtuber to be fair, there _are_ a few people in the media space who claim they're doing things for political reasons. Granted, I think a lot of those people are saying that to cover up the fact that they're shit at their craft.
You know what, relistening to that first bit, I think the dude did, in fact, correctly say "bald-faced" and I misheard. I just can't understand Brits because they talk wrong. That's my bad, Pillar of Garbage.
"Alt-Right TH-camr Defends The Critical Drinker's Lies, Lies About Me, and Insults British Accents" - title of Pillar of Garbage's next video, probably.
EDIT: I was close, as he apparently made a community post with the same energy.
@@omnefarious1455 yeah, his response was kind of pathetic.
"I just can't understand Brits because they talk wrong" It's not our fault you can't understand britbong.
Bit sad innit
I swear to God if you don't post another video soon, imma fuck you up.
It's a movie about glass wizards intended for onions.
It's a movie about glass children intended for onion wizards.
How appropriate that on episode #222, you harken back to episode #2, "Have any of you heard of Patrick Willems?"
That got an honestly chuckle out of me, thank you.
Wizard sleeve's and glass onions oh my.
I think even the most peabrained of ogres would understand that this film isn’t something intelligent
The E;R speaking arc has been a joy to watch
Truly an arc of all time
His words are slowly becoming like wet bread.
@@Kernwadi Wet bread spread over too much butter.
@@Horvath_Gabor s t r e t c h e d t h i n
@@Horvath_Gabor Dipped lightly in the loud soup.
3:50:11
"The Titanic is sinking"
"I think sinking must mean something different in Scotland Drinker, because the ship is clearly still above water!"
- Captain Pillar Garbogius, 1912
"Beautiful, brave and racist..."
-Bilbo Baggins
Just put a layer of notebooks on every ship, should keep you safe until you can make it back to port
Nah the clown man was right about the “leveled” comment. Yeah its dumb that they survived but if the building still has multiple stories it simply hasn’t been “leveled”.
@UCUIWh3thUp8Ayz84ZCwrknw If my brother says “I’m literally going to kill you”, yeah i know what he means. But i’m not wrong to point out that he’s using the word incorrectly and that replacing or omitting the word “literally” is more accurate. I don’t personally care that Drinker used the word incorrectly. I just thought it was funny that people who watch EFAP were making fun of someone for being pedantic about a definition.
Don't substitute Present Continuous tense for Perfect tense. That's cheap cheating.
And besides, alexbeckman6348 is right.
Being a E;R subscriber and seeing him on EFAP is like only seeing your dad at your friend's house and wondering why he never comes home.
Maybe he just likes his new family better...
@Deus Ex Machina Damm that's dark but hilarious
You know
How you think us Dasboschitt fans feel?
@@GKRcnnct Dankeschön.
It took this livestream for me to realise that "The Critical Drinker" is a play on the phrase 'critical thinker', and I feel like I've been blind to a giant glass onion this whole time...
In the words of the gret Drinker.
"WHAT ! THE! FUCKK!!"
"Go away now" 🤣
We saw this during the debate of tlj. "Its just a stupid film about space wizards don't look into it that deeply" and "you didn't understand the complex story and themes of tlj".
Or something along those lines.
But to be honest JJ Abrams did far more damage with his cynical Member Berries.
Yes, that's correct. Rian is awful but J.J is worse.
Are you talking about TFA or RoS?
Is that Darth Marr in your profile picture?
@@Arwilus Yep! Probably my favorite design & character from SWTOR.
Man, E;R has been getting more vocal and frequent with these guest appearances. You love to see it. Hell, he got so animated this time, he lost some of that vocal fry.
He got so animated he could've starred in a cartoon show called E;R: The Last Fapbender
I know right?!
@@SaiDeLaRai 💀
@@allthingslegends they had a private discussion about it afterwards as far as I'm aware since MauLer, Rags and E;R mentioned it as such.
Funny how they still manage to be cordial after they trashed one of ERs favorite shows since they quashed it out in private.
If only every guest could do that. Oh well.
@@allthingslegends he was shamed to silence
You know, I've seen a few people on the comment section making fun of Drinkers TH-cam name, yet the TH-cam channel they're doing this on is literally called Pillar of Garbage. Man, talk about a lack of self awareness.
Just solidifies to me that these people don’t even care about the video itself and are only there to “dunk” on drinker
@@korokleafgaming6863Anyone with a functioning brain can see Garbage boy doesn’t have any good arguments and blatantly misrepresents CD’s points. They just dislike Drinker so much because he’s more right leaning than they are that they convince themselves what Garbage boy said was correct.
@@spendsshanks6050 I don't think he even is right leaning. He's never said anything about his politics. I think it's because he hasn't shown what his politics are that they attack him. Not that they matter.
I find it especially weird because both channel names are self-deprecating. I think pillar of garbage is kinda funny in an ironic sense, but his videos are just unironically garbage so it loses out on that little joke.
Play the keyboard note!
Over four thousand efappers joined this unannounced livestream.
I believe that's called a 'massive coincidence.'
I think it was over 4500 for 5 hours?
Pretty incredible that a podcast dedicated to autistic deep dive reviews of (recently) trash media that easily pass 6 hours can hold an audience's attention of that size for so long.
Speaks to the hosts and their efforts to be entertaining while deconstructing brain rotting takes like this.
@@mrq1 also helps pillars of garbages vid is that bad faith aswell.
Or y'know, they have notifications on and set to all. Same way the rando catchups get so many live views.
I say it is a "long shot" that that was just a coincidence
I cant stop EFAPing, please send help.
This whole "you're not smart because you don't get it" gives me the emperor's new clothes vibes.
You have to be very intelligent to get Rick & Morty.
“To be fair… you have to have a pretty high opinion of yourself to be a left-wing ideologue….”
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Destruction
0:32 Bionicle
5:47 What It Should Have Been And What It’s Happening
7:20 GO Defenders Go
13:11 Let the fun begin
14:04 Wurdz iz Ard
17:24 Principles
19:50 Secrets
20:50 Moral Obligation
23:50 An Hasan Meme
25:44 The Drinker Begins
28:24 Referencing Other movies
31:58 Silly Fella
32:46 Jennifer Lawrence
40:26 Rian Johnson
51:46 Negative Lights
53:00 Blurry References
54:08 Coincidences (1)
56:51 The Published Author
58:30 Knives Out
1:01:57 Coincidences (2)
1:04:09 Barb’s Take
1:07:58 Coincidences (3)
1:08:34 Response To No Questions
1:11:40 Wardrobe
1:13:58 Explanation
1:21:04 The world's greatest detective
1:40:07 The invitations
1:42:48 Colours
1:44:10 Shapiroesque Moment
1:47:21 Coincidences (4)
1:49:42 Wrong Points
1:51:29 Temporal Linearity
1:55:22 The evidence
1:59:50 Inaccuracies
2:03:40 Concepts
2:05:05 The Importance Of Being Drinker
2:06:00 The Published Author
2:07:16 The Couch
2:07:56 Foggy Logic
2:10:22 Anodyne
2:11:52 Facts, red flags, and explanations (1)
2:18:12 The Importance Of Being Long
2:22:14 Facts, red flags, and explanations (2)
2:24:14 Say the line!
2:32:08 Are fax machines analog?
2:36:24 Everything Is A Glass Onion
2:39:48 Nitpicking
2:47:05 Cameras
2:52:48 The Fax System
2:56:27 What If?
2:59:32 Stupidity
3:02:33 Irrelevant Questions
3:04:39 Mattew Arnold
3:09:19 Stupidity & The Bulletproof Notepad
3:26:00 Genere Conventions & Warnings
3:29:20 Critical Thinking
3:29:52 Killing Strategy
3:35:11 Distance
3:36:19 Hot Sauce
3:38:08 Pickpocketing
3:44:03 Klear
3:45:27 Fire Extinguishers
3:58:03 Criteria
4:01:16 Unfunny Joke
4:03:20 Stupidity On Purpose
4:04:07 Demystifying Wealth
4:06:07 Generalising Grumbling
4:06:44 The Real Meat
4:09:38 Rewriting Scenes
4:23:50 Drinker I s Bad
4:35:22 I Didn’t Really Want To Make This Video
4:42:58 Conclusions
Our hero!
I KNOW HOW YOU DO IT NOW 😊
how
@@luisgustavo6117 you're welcome
@@denzelcooper3153 it wasn't me, I'm innocent!!!!
"She was clever enough not to fear" - THAT'S NOT HOW BEING CLEVER WORKS
The antelope was clever enough not to fear the crocodile who's jaws it now finds itself being crushed under.
I was clever enough to put my hand in the fire ... Wasn't scared at all
I seriously think this is the result of us being spoiled in western society… we have it so easy that our survival instinct is actually seen as a weakness and eschewing it is seen as clever…
Wait… I know you
nah, she was just clever enough to not fear the person that ended up murdering her might murder her.
Hot Fuzz did the "glass onion" conceit far better. We're supposed to think along with Nicolas Angel that there's some complicated intricate plot involving the murders, but it turns out it's the neighbourhood watch doing it just because they want to win the best village award and kill people because they're annoying or bad actors. And we still got a tight script, we weren't disappointed, and everything was logically consistent.
While their reason for killing are stupid and "simple", the conspiracy actually more terrible than Angel thought, and they're doing it for a long time the villagers (and polices) think there's nothing weird about the deaths. And yeah, just because the plot stupid, doesn't mean the logic can be abandoned
@@r3dr4te963 Yeah the idea of them killing people purely for being annoying or bad actors and all for the motive of winning a competition is something that never would've entered Angel's mind, so it completely lines up. Except Edgar Wright is an amazing writer and Rian simply isn't.
All you've gotta do is look at the behind the scenes of Pegg and Wright going through the flip chart they used during the writing process to show how meticulously they craft their scripts.
Hot Fuzz succeeds where Glass Onion fails in how it lampshades the villain's goofy nature. The joke in Hot Fuzz isn't, "LOL, the villain is so dumb. Isn't that crazy? **Wink Wink.**" It's, "Wow, the villain put so much time and planning into accomplishing something so dumb." Like the murders' motives were idiotic, but the fact that they had more than enough intelligence and strategy to pull that off is an actual brilliant subversion of expectations.
@@kingbash6466 and the main bad guy have a legitimate reason to do the "cleaning", he lost his wife and gone mad because losing the award. I do think other members have some enjoyment in the killing, especially Skinner
@@hafirenggayuda And not just gone mad, his wife fixed the village to perfection working her ass off, only for some hooligans and Romani types to crash in and trash the whole place making her lose the competition and having her kill herself. Of course a bunch of old people are gonna adopt a "Things gotta be the way WE want, if any outsider comes in, or if someone doesn't fit in, they're gotta get exterminated" in reaction to that tragedy, and believing that it's acceptable because of the 'Greater Good'.
Again, silly idea, but the execution still makes you follow their logic and take them seriously as villains. I can take the granny firing a machine gun more seriously as a villain instead of whoever the hell that "Haha, satire on rich white guy!" pathetic idiot Glass Onion has.
Again, fans of Glass Onion care more about the themes than the actual quality of a character. They want to see rich white men mocked, and when they mechanically get that through Rian's dogshit writing style, that's good enough for them. We can't have an actually interesting villain with good dialogues or characterization.
"I have failed. But, I failed on purpose so actually I have succeeded and you are the true failure for not having realized!"
-The Best Hollywood Can Do, I guess
Considering that Thrawn's whole schtick is basically that so far, it hasn't improved in Hollywood yet.
He said "why would anyone die in the burning room?", he is literally "Everything fine" meme.
Why would anyone die in a room that is covered in flames, should be filled with smoke (smoke inhalation is what kills people in most fires, btw), and has continuous explosions which send glass and shrapnel directly at the other characters?
At the very least everyone in there should have all their hair singed off, a mangled limb or two, and would be bleeding out from their profuse wounds from flying glass.
Hollywood seems to have this incredible belief that fires just destroy inanimate objects and don't cause any damage to the inhabitants of a building. Of course Hollywood physics is always bungling, but couldn't they have come up with anything plausible? At least not show an actual clip of two people standing next to a fire burst with shards of glass shooting out directly towards them.
It's the Rings of power evil cold fire it's fine...
"Just get over your third-degree burns and smoke-damaged lungs, they're SUPPOSED to be stupid!"
It's just Kenobi brand "Fire" where you can literally rub someone's face in it and they won't get burned.
@@intboom damn, Ozai should have hit Zuko with that. Would have saved him a lot of trouble.
11:01. You forgot the part where Pillar of Garbage proudly proclaimed that he "never watches this guy's videos", and then creates a whole video telling you what the Critical Drinker's mindset is (without even knowing who CD is). Also, does EXACTLY what he accuses the Critical Drinker of. You just KNOW the kind of TH-cam content you are about to get with a statement like that. :/
Additionally, it's a lie that he "never" watched Critical when...he has "dunked" on him...3 months ago! This guy must have some big memory issues, which goes well with his inability to remember a single point critical makes in the video PROPERLY.
@@justaguy6613 the drinker lives rent free in his head
@@justaguy6613Never realised he covered him before.
"as a matter of principle I try my best to avoid watching this guy's videos" really going in with an unbiased position there
If someone asks the question "Why did Dan hit himself in the head with a tack hammer?"
You responding with "The film SHOWS Dan hitting himself in the head with a tack hammer," is not an answer, much less a rebuttal.
But the film says Dan is dumb!
"She was too clever to fear him" should've been "For all her intellect, she underestimated the depths Miles would stoop to get his way."
Implying some hubris on her part while still keeping the negative on him. Her false assumption that she could handle him shouldn't be phrased as a win. It's an understandable mixup with the wording, but a mixup that should've been caught and adjusted.
Like "the fox was too clever to fear the scorpion that killed it" VS "the fox's hubris got it killed" VS "the clever fox didn't expect the stupid scorpion to be so deadly". Phrasing matters.
THIS IS WHY YOU NEED AN EDITOR.
Exactly! Maybe he could have said “after everything this little weasel had put her through, watching him squirm must have been quite the rush. It made her careless, arrogant. She underestimated just how cunning miles could be when he wanted.
I wish the people on this stream would have a similar care about phrasing with the Drinker. They let him get away with far too much because they insist he meant something else, regardless of how it actually sounded.
@@SIngli6 "A lot of people take issue with the success of this movie because of the message it pushes; but the message is a rather positive one about taking risks to protect some children, _so you shouldn't have any qualms supporting such a film._ And if that message is why you _don't_ want people to see it, I gotta say I question your morals."
Drinker never said you have to like the film just because of its messaging. He simply said that its messaging is weird reason to call the film evil, and if you did find the film harmful you'd need to do more convincing for why than just mumbling "QAnon"
@@samwallaceart288 Why the hell are you talking about THAT? I was talking about the various instances in this video where these podcasters say PoG is mischaracterising what Drinker said even when, going by his phrasing alone, PoG's interpretation is quite valid.
@@SIngli6 Ah, my bad. Saw this in my replies fresh off a thread on the other one; forgot this one was also a Drinker tism
Pillar of garbage seems to be obsessed with what the film has to say while completely disregarding everything that has to show
That's the problem with a lot of these people. They focus so much on what the film is trying to do, and ignore what it actually does.
The FIRST thing you MUST keep in mind as a writer of ANYTHING is: show don't tell... like that's the most fundamental rule of writing FFS!
So, the average Rian Johnson fan...
Glad you're doing this. I saw Pillar of Garbages video and a lot of his arguments either misrepresented drinkers criticism or completely missed the point of what drinker was trying to say. I've seen some response videos to like of drinker that don't agree with his takes but try to be fair with good argumentation but this one just felt like Pillar already hated Drinker and just wanted to find as many excuses to slag him off which is not the best attitude to have when making a response video like this
If you guys want a laugh, Pillar of Garbage made a community post "response" where he basically whines about being punched down on, EFAP is too long to respond to, EFAP is evil, etc. The best part is he finishes by saying his video was absolutely right and proves Drinker lied at several points but doesn't list them. He basically wrote half a book.
Good God what a read that was.
So a mouse walks into a lion’s den, then complains when the lions try to eat him…?
@@ezrataylor2956 he whines that they didn't announce their intentions and this is no way to have a discussion. Nothing we haven't heard before.
@@ezrataylor2956 I mean, Why not? Does a Lion know what a mouse is? Either way a Lion hunts bigger prey and being so hungry that he makes the effort to catch the mouse?
I think the mouse is justified. stupid lions and their dens
Oh wow, i just read it. It shouldn't surprise me that this dimwit has any kind of audience at all but he makes my knees so weak its unbelievable. Mauler or the drinker should debate him live on youtube about this film. It would be an absolute bloodbath and would be the most viewers Pillar of crap has ever had
There have been a lot of wild defenses for bad writing on EFAP, but I don't think anything will ever top "you can't be certain that a giant explosion comparable to the Hindenburg would be fatal."
Plus, if there’s a lack of certainty, the lack of certainty is exactly why the main character should not have done it.
I guess depending on context that might be reasonable. If Superman were caught in such an explosion, I would assume the opposite.
Except hydrogen doesn't explode. It ignites itself in the reaction.
@@jorinton do you know what an explosion is
@trequor Do you know how Hindenburg went down? It burned down, it didn't explode. Because hydrogen doesn't explode, it ignites. The fact that they didn't die is a convenience, not a logical problem. Not to mention unlike the Hindenburg this is a solid structure with AC and ventilation included.
"Why should they die from this?" - Pillar of Garbage
"Why don't you, Pillar of Garbage, actually create something yourself instead of trying to profit of the work of others by "commenting" on it? - Rest of the world.
Exactly. No actual counter point, just a vapid dismissal via a pretend question that is actually just him nay saying. If a blast can destroy the ENTIRE roof as well as rooms that are four rooms away would liquefy all your internal organs, rupture your brain, and set you on fire. "Nah, it'll be fine." - Pillar of Garbage stealing from Critical Drinker
Ayo
@@johnnyfroggo7361 Ayo
Shame no GDELB no more. Wasted line...
Can’t wait till Pillar of garbage tries defending Velma
I saw he made a comment about that recently, he agrees it's a terrible show...but he also heavily defends she-hulk, so it's really up in the air
@@TheShadowReviewer if he’s not defending it we must live in the weasel timeline
@@hollow9946The Weasel Timeline? Is this some sort of human joke I’m too weasel to understand?
@@jackmrsich3178 correct
@@hollow9946 Damn.
"Maybe there's bullet proof metal in the notebook" might be the hardest cope they've covered. I hope he tells Drinker on stream.
Aren't all notebooks made of paper, kevlar, and ceramic plates?
I thought they were typically made of plot armor?
The part where he said that there’s no reason everyone should be dead from the explosion while cutting to the indoor inferno takes the cake for me, but that’s a close second 🤣
Who doesn't have a notebook made of tungston?
Thats a trope though? Like a very well known one?
It was funny to see Column of Refuse notice on Twitter he was being covered
"what do you do if you’re getting EFAP’d but you’re out and about at the time"
Then people tried to coax him to at least arrange an EFAP appearance to defend his video
"but I am out and about"
And some madlad throws at him the Dictionary definition of "Arrange", lol. Something tells me he'll be out and about through the next Decade.
Rip, hope he grows and changes as a person in the next week
Easy, Pillar can just accuse Mauler and co of stealing his content. He did this with Smudboy.
He also responded to a comment saying to contact them to defend himself with “did they do that to me?”Needless to say, he probably isn’t up for debate.
Or claim he was on EFAP without providing any evidence to back it up, besides citing another video he made where he said, again without evidence, that he was indeed on EFAP
Boy's not real big on giving substance to his statements, after all
He's 'out and about' looking for the elusive milk and cigarettes.
"It's super intelligent because of how intentionally fucking stupid everything is!!"
The funniest thing is, that they're saying this about the guy who's entire filmography is stupidity.
"We win by saving what we love!!!" Explosion in the background.
Licks ground. "It's salt!!!"
"In the future, murder is impossible, so we send people back in time to die. But somehow kidnapping is a-okay. Also the entire inciting incident is Bruce Willis' wife being killed in the future."
Only gripe I'll give Drinker is that his, "Hollywood is getting stupider" line is false. It's our entire species.
Our species isn't getting stupider; we're just able to indulge our natural laziness more thoroughly...for now.
@@ChallengeIdeas Pretty much.
That and we’ve been able to avoid natural selection for a few thousand years.
To be fair, I actually liked the “salt” line in the theater. I thought it was a clever way to acknowledge that they’re just straight ripping off Empire Strikes Back
Now it annoys me when people say that TLJ “tried something new,” or was “original.” If that were the case, the salt line can’t work
@@Lobsterwithinternet And, of course, you're the exception to that.
@@ChallengeIdeas Not really.
I might have died in early childhood or even my parents could have died before conceiving me.
I'm just another lobster. 🦞
2:55:00 "How does he manage to run this massive company if he's that stupid?" That's painfully obvious, he's completely inept but Andy's napkin is a complete explanation of how to operate the company.
Even if someone tried that dumbass response, he clearly doesn’t understand the napkin because he forged ICO (Initial Coin Offering) as icon. That’s a real word that should have meaning for how you run the business and you thought she wrote icon? How can you run this bus you don’t understand?
Logic doesn't get in the way of people trying to take Musk down a peg.
@@archstanton9073 The whole thing is absurd. An idiot doesn't become a tech CEO, an idiot doesn't manipulate the contracts for the company to completely cut out the supposed genius Alex, an idiot doesn't run a successful political campaign, boost the profile of a streamer to the point they are the #1 streamer in the world, and all the rest he did for his friends. The movie tells us he's an idiot but it shows us someone incredibly competent who then inexplicably becomes an idiot for plot convenience.
@@Hassohappa didnt those achievements first came by connections and later duo to money? That he just got friends and then later brute force his way using his capital, letting then other people do stuff for him? Like how other people made the mystery game and the boxes.
By this logic, no one who is famous can be an idiot, including this film director and writer.
@@Hassohappa i feel everyone is bring so focussed on thr word idiot or dumb. Its not that Miles is an idiot (even tho he kinda is), its more about him not having any original ideas. He rather uses other people work and then the resources to aid other peoples creations which then end up getting more money. Are his exploits particularily smart? No. He got lucky with a group of people who owed him for the money he gave to them and now cant go against him due to how dependant they became of him. Ofc he isnt the stupidest person ever, but he defo not that smart.
“She was so clever, she died.” - Rian Johnson, genius filmmaker
It's like a stupid version of that Agatha Christie where the guy engineers his suicide to expose multiple murders.
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 To be fair, he was also a sadist who got off on tormenting and murdering those other murderers.
@@liliesaregoodfortheliver2954 Yeah. I thought you were referring to the judge.
So smart people are immortal?
@@leephillips4402
No, stupid people.
Doomer's complaint about Arcane was an example of what we're calling "a purposeful coincidence." Caitlin got lucky when she discovered Jinx's sister at the prison, but it wasn't random. Caitlin went to the prison to speak to a different prisoner who had a connection to Jinx. This was a logical thing for her to do. As it happens somebody with an even stronger connection to Jinx was already there and got in a fight with Caitlin's suspect before she arrived. Caitlin followed a lead and it led her directly to a stronger lead. From Caitlin's perspective, this may have seemed lucky, but it wasn't random.
Also the reasonable consequences from such a decision were completely in line with a coherent plot. Vi was in Blackwater because Marcus had (contrary to what he told Silco) stashed her there; out of sight, out of mind. Odds are Marcus even forgot about her or was confident she would never get released due to being a violent repeat offender who the guards hated with a passion.
Not coincidental, Blackwater seems to be the only prison in the city, so obviously all of the high target prisoners would end up there. Furthermore, Vi's release leads to a chain of events that destroys his relationship with Silco, puts all of his future plans in doubt, and leaves him scrambling just to save his life. His scrambling then results in a deadly showdown with Jinx which results in Marcus being killed. It all comes full circle, simply because Marcus overlooked one crucial decision made a decade earlier.
This is the definition of a plot-required coincidence and it's barely a coincidence at that. The entire remaining storyline revolves around an overlooked mistake. Many stories use this is a central element that sparks off the main conflict.
The odd coincidence is a tool in a good author's toolkit. But like most tools it should only be brought out to serve its most crucial function and to set everything in motion. In these situations we can forgive the odd coincidence because we recognize the story is made all the better for it. When writers use coincidences as duct tape to cover up l of their plot holes, that's when the machine starts to fall apart and the bare parts are exposed to be dissembled and examined more thoroughly.
@@aw7400 It's stillwater, not blackwater lol
@@xolotltolox7626 close enough
I think a good way to tell if something is a good coincidence or a bad one is timing. Would you still get the benefit if it happened earlier or later? Like you are looking for jimmy who is in hiding so you go to jimmys friends house and just when you arrive jimmy walks out the front door. Even though it makes sense he would be at the house it's still bad writing. Now if you change the time and have it so jimmy was at the house before and have the investigator figure it out/ interigate jimmys friend or you check jimmys not there so you stake it out to see if he shows, that changes things. Its what bob was talking about in the artical in the video. Change it from just lucky to supported luck.
God damn you Rian! First he kills the "subverted expectations" trope, now he's mainstreamed "it's supposed to be dumb"
She-Hulk did that months ago, though.
@@archstanton9073 Somebody actually defended She Hulk? Lol
Except at least Glass Onion succeeds at being funny.
@@richter6699 This person did.
@@richter6699 Garbage himself was defending She-Hulk. From Drinker himself too, might I add. "I didn't want to make this video" my ass.
PoG: "YOU TOOK EVERYTHING FROM ME"
Drinker: "I don't even know who you are. Go away now"
Better shoot better if you want to tag the Drinker
"I don't blame people for {believing Drinker} because why would you doubt the words of someone with a 1.5 million subscriber channel."
Are... are you serious? No wonder you guys defend Rian. You were told it makes sense, so you believe it. Why would you just believe someone with a 1.5 million subscriber channel? If he says something dumb, he says something dumb. Depends on what he says. What a weird statement to make.
wow this pillar of garbage seemed to annoyed you really
@@Superschokokeks It is depressing the depths to which he demonstrates a human intellect can sink, so yeah, it's quite annoying.
*Owning a Bionicle is now the new symbol of status and intelligence.*
👍 yup
Always has been
@@spicyoctopus Makes sense.
Had to restart my collection after my mom got rid of mine also them not knowing borak bothered me more than it should have.
As it should be.
I swear when Rian releases a movie it becomes another case of the Emperors New Clothes. Basically Rian presents his movie, people question what's so special about it, Rian explains how smart the movie is and only intelligent people can appreciate it and so everybody is suddenly big brain and see the "depth" and "ingenuity" that was put in it, but in reality the emperor wore nothing
I’m convinced he’s a masterful troll. No other reason for it
Maybe if it was a case of The Emperor's New Groove the movie would've been good, but as it is, to quote Kronk, "By all accounts it doesn't make sense."
i think people over-defend Johnson simply because they want to re-fight the whole 'last jedi' debate, because for all their bluster even the defenders know that it's a fight they resoundingly lost
So even though Johnson makes a stupid movie, who's only defense is 'it was stupid on purpose', they still can't just admit that yeah, it was a stupid movie... whether they enjoyed it or not is a whole different argument
@@theliato3809 I don't know if it's a troll. I think _he thinks_ it's trolling, if anything.
And they constantly shift the goalposts. You see, if you view the film positively and take deep meaning from it a la moviebob with last jedi, then you understand and appreciate a modern auteur. However, if you actually take apart his movie and explain how basic cause and effect are irreparably broken, then you're taking the movie too seriously, it's supposed to be a lighthearted romp you don't really think about
You know you can't win with these people. Their definition of "over-analyzing" is noticing when things don't make sense. To complain about someone wearing shoes too expensive for their budget is the same as complaining about a person teleporting into the scene to these people, both are somehow nitpicks and nitpicks are automatically bad because negative connotation
3:43:00 “Doesn’t Drinker know that quantum entanglement exists? Of course Miles can teleport. What a numpty!”
"No, it's meant to be stupid! Don't try to find logic in it!"
also
"You don't get it."
*O .. O* *speechless ewok*
I love how this guy pretends that Miles simply holdingHot Sauce at one point in the movie, is an “obvious” set up for him just having it in his pocket later, when he needs to make fake blood.
There is no scene of Miles pocketing the hot sauce. That is not a proper setup and payoff.
Yeah, it is obvious, because he understands the movie and YOU DON'T! Ha! Checkmate!
And he stole it from TRI-GUN
@kollie79 but he didn't even like the hot sauce. Why would he take some? Or did Miles hand it to him and Blanc put it in his pocket?
@kollie79 Well, it's also supposed to add flavor. But if Blanc liked it he would've said so, or he would've thanked him for allowing him to take one. The way the situation played out, it made it seem like he didn't like it. Like he wouldn't have taken one. It was poorly done.
@kollie79 I guess I'm misremembering, but i guess I would've done it differently. That's all. Don't know why you're getting upset.
54:24 "Coincidences are pretty standard, even essential, in this genre"
This is literally the opposite of reality. In reality the mystery genre is the genre that has the most reason to avoid coincidences, since the whole point of a mystery is that it's a puzzle that the audience can solve. All of the relevant information either needs to be shown to the audience, or be something that the audience can reasonably infer. Since the audience can't reasonably predict coincidences, using them deprives the audience of needed information.
A mystery story can include coincidences and still function, but it's much easier for coincidences to break a mystery story than it is for them to break an adventure story, or a science fiction story.
That doesn't change the fact that every entertainment has coincidences. South Park and LotR says hello
A detective who can only solve a case by stumbling upon the clues by pure chance isn't a great detective; he's a lucky chump.
@@ChallengeIdeas A win is still A win
@@frogglen6350 That doesn't change the fact that every entertainment has bad writing.
the funniest part about that quote is when the appeal to authority that he did completely contradicts him.
"coincidences are essential"
-Bob Bobbins
"The amount of Bionicles you own is equal to your IQ number."
-Bigideas
Tried to rebuild some and key parts are missing :(
I used to buy doubles to build bigger ones.
Greg farsty is the mvp. We won't have bionicle's 5 trillion iq story in the later years without him!
@@zonbichaos5844 I had the Makuta figure, combined him with a couple of Rahkshi to make him twice as big with better articulation.
Good Times, fun memories.
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 I could not disagree more. Hapka wrote the early stories and made the tone mystical and engaging. Farshtey started okay with the Mask of Light saga and then the Metru-Nui line was pretty good. But the longer he wrote and the more creative freedom he was given, the more ridiculous and impersonal and less grounded his stories became, to the point where the entire world of Matoran is just they are unknowingly living cogs inside a giant robot.
Such a good point made about Glass Onion made relatively early on in this video - it really is a film that people love to use as a reflection of how intelligent they are and, by extension, how ignorant everyone else is if they don't 'get it.' I watched that response by POG and ended up being completely gaslit by it because I'm an insecure and, yes, not a particularly bright person. I do agree that playing endless 'what if' games is a bit redundant and perhaps Drinker could have elaborated on some of his points a bit more, but calling him a liar and trying to undermine his intellect was several bridges too far and I commented as such on POG's video. I don't hate Glass Onion, but I don't think it's a work of genuis either (far from it). Still, I found myself persuaded out of agreeing with Drinker's analysis until I watched the 6 hour EFAP episode on the film. Then I realised how superficial POG's supposed rebuttal of Drinker's points truly was. I love the sense of loyalty all of you have and the solidarity you've displayed. I doubt he would be bothered by mosquitos online buzzing around and trying to bite him, yet you came to his defense regardless. Forgive me Drinker, for I have sinned. Must do better in the future.
Sorry for yet another comment, but I think the only true genuis of Glass Onion is the way it uses the titular metaphor as a way to evade criticism. Those who defend it can justify pretty much any writing decision as it being metacommentary, 'intentionally' stupid, and/or deceptively simple. Oh, you think x moment was stupid? That was the whole point, dummy, you just didn't understand RJ's God-tier level writing!
Then people start talking about how brilliant the movie is despite how superficial the themes and symbolism are.
I find it odd how Jlaw's comments are jumped on yet the thick American actress who displayed her tiny intellect claimed Serbia doesn't have a culture has been given a free pass.
@@Relugus What's the name of the poopy head who insulted Serbia? This is new to me.
Ironically, "It's so dumb it's brilliant" is 90% of the defense for this movie
That is the defence for Sharknado or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes not something trying to be an A-movie.
I mean, he's obviously just pandering to the Tumblrtrons who have chosen this movie as their Flavor of the Week obsession. And they've never needed any justification to believe the things they do.
This is the general defense for all of Rian Johnson’s films
@@baconghoti Sharknado aware their movies stupid, and banking on it.
Glass Onion is like that dumb person who think they're very smart and "pretending" to be dumb to appeal to some demographic groups, who also think they're very smart.
An argument better reserved for movies like Demolition Man or Starship Troopers. When it comes down to it all movies are dumb to some degree, it's just that the good ones are executed properly and don't pretend to be anything more than they are, which ironically Glass Onion does a lot.
Poggers' whole justification is "the movie gave an explanation for this very stupid decision, so it's not stupid," but Drinker's criticism is "these decisions are stupid so they should NEVER HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE."
And Poggers is just refusing to listen.
I have to wonder who Rian Johnson has dirt on to continue getting work. This guy is incapable of making a good product but he never goes away.
On the whole "bullet stopped by notepad" thing: Yeah, it *is* a trope in mystery fiction, but the usual culprit is a Bible, not a notepad. This is because:
1. The imagery of the Word of God protecting a moral man (it's almost always the hero who gets shot)
2. Bibles, even pocket Bibles, are thick. Thickness matter more for stopping a bullet in that circumstance.
Just having a random notepad stop a bullet is not actually sticking to the spirit of the "trope", if we want to use that word.
It wasn't a random notepad. You didn't pay attention while watching the movie did you?
@@akhilnair1137 was it made of adamantium? Or ceramic plating covered by kevlar, cause I'm calling bullshit otherwise
@@mayanksharma3651 the same thing happened in that Alfred Hitchcock movie the 39 steps. But I guess you think that movie is dumb too since none of you apparently have good taste.
@@mayanksharma3651
"Hey sis, why is your notebook made out of adamantium?"
"I got really into metal working."
"K... I'm not quite sure which of the 500 new questions I have to ask next."
Don’t forget the book in question is typically used as a Chekhov’s gun. By that I mean it’s shown, referenced, used, and even seen being placed in the breast pocket.
Okay, so just to talk about that Barb article she wrote. I understand you guys didn't read the whole article but Pillar of Lies speaks like he read the whole thing and he failed to understand it in general. The Barb woman wrote "So you might ask, whad do I do if I have a coincidance in my story? Well, you take that coincidence and turn it into a purposeful act, so it's not a coincidance anymore because coincidances in mystery novels are annoying and stupid."
Which is correct because the whole point of murder mystery is solving the mystery by... DELIBERATE acts!
What I hate the most about the "this character is dumb" defence is that it's never that the character is straight up mentally incapable. It's that the character is "dumb enough". Dumb enough to give the main character a wide margin of error, but not dumb enough to have the story resolve itself too quickly. It's a flaky argument that too many manipulative people use.
Regarding the shot notebook, he says "Maybe there's metal in the covers."
...
...
...
... 10/10. Amazing argument. I'm totally convinced, now.
Pillar of garbage did not take it well when an efap clone did a response to one of his videos. Now he's in the big leagues...
Really who was it?
@@italyspit5192 ex efap guest smud boi's efap clone podcast
he got destroyed on twitter
@@marcogenovesi8570 pillar or smud?
@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 To be fair I can sympathize with being intellectually frustrated by smudcast, even if they're beneath that sort of attention
These people are all about projection. They accuse you of what they are doing. Either as a smokescreen and deflection, or because they cannot imagine being normal well-adjusted sincere people.
"Yes, all the EFAP members are bad faith trolls, now excuse me while I continue to call these people reactionary alt-right chuds, and assume that they're lying just because they say something I don't agree with!"
@@jeremyusreevu237 - perfectly describes the circlejerk going in the comments section of PoG's most recent community post. You call them out on their BS and corner them on their hypocrisy, and they derail the conversation into "everyone I don't like and disagrees with me is a nazi".
About the "thanks for unpausing' around 24:00, something funny I saw is that he changed his twitter bio to this sentence after this efap, maybe to try and say "that's a thing I do guys, it's not at all a failed attempt to get them", but when he saw that nobody fell for it, he changed it again to something else.
Nibba really thought he was Lelouch huh
I can't believe Drinker has been lying all this time, he must be stopped.
HE CANT KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!
HE'S BEEN PLAYING US LIKE A DAMN FIDDLE!
@@samlund8543 I’m picturing Jesse saying this as he’s about to burn down Walt’s house
@@HeismanHerbo EXACTLY
@@lordofthepizzapie9319 We've been tricked, fooled. And we've quite possibly been bamboozled
Critical Drinker: *makes small mistake*
Pillar of Garbage: "LIAR!!!!" >:O
It’s more like “critical drinker is a liar for delivering his review in a way that can be misunderstood” or “critical drinker didn’t write an air tight thesis paper” or “drinker is not longman… also longman is too long.”
@@elijahbachrach6579 or maybe Pillar of Garbage and his audience is too stupid to understand basic English and context
I, for one, can't believe that Drinker actually said that Miles was trying to shoot "Andi" in the journal. So glad this gentleman was there to let us all know.
Yeah, I know when I shoot during target practice I always try to aim for the journal.
What's TH-cam come to when someone accuses someone else of lying, and then, in their own video, lies about the lie? Is media analysis dead, cause I think media analysis might be dead... at least in terms of analysts' good faith towards each other.
@@cranberryrosebud It's because so much of media analysis, on both sides of the aisle, isn't about the objective qualities of the media anymore, but the politics of the people who made them, the politics of the people who reviewed them, and whatever political messages may or may not be present in them. When I originally heard about the whole "Everything is political" slogen of the more deranged corners of the far left, I thought it was a joke, yet somehow, over the past decade, it became the status quo instead.
You should’ve gone for the journal. - Thanos
He's clearly a big fan of a Fistful of Dollars "aim for the heart..."
I just watched POGS video and now I know what it feels like for my brain cells to die. All his points were literally "BuT ThE MoViE EpLaInS iT"
I guess he thinks bad explanations and good explanations are one in the same
@@taddonddat2217 God. So true. "The movie explained it! Doesn't matter if it's a good explanation, because it was explained!"
I really hate the "It's just dumb" brush off. It reminds me of the "Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong" that every TLJ defender prefaced their nonsense with.
@Hexensohn What’s funny is that TLJ quote can be used against any defender and their arguments. Because I truly doubt these folks actually watched the movie or have to rely on head canon to justify content that’s either purposefully vague or just so incompetent you need to fill in your own meaning to make it work.
Bionicle Lore went hard, ngl once you look further into it the more intense it got especially during the Piraka arc and onwards.
I loved Bionicle as a kid and somehow forgot it. I look forward to rediscovering it thanks to this video.
Was the Piraka arc the underwater one? Those where the ones I had as a kid
I still cannot believe the argument of "if there were no shitty contrivances and coincidences than movies sure would be boring and short hmehmehmeh".
how about writing a better movie? you know movies are fictional and at the whims of a fucking writer right? you can change any and all aspects of a story to be better - aka clever, continuous, and established on a character, world and plot level that abides by realistic or self contained rules that can be followed by the viewer.
assuming that characters have to be struck by temporary dementia or that its appropriate for a macguffin to swoop in and reverse every aspect of a plan in motion to obtain an outcome is called bad writing and can be avoided by doing good writing.
They just don't want people to hate what they like. It's embarrassing.
I just love how so many of his arguments against Drinker’s critiques are “Well of course this happened, this character is STUPID! Were you not paying attention?!”
And he uses this excuse for literally everything, even for why there wasn’t a proper anti-fire system in this billionaire’s home.
I can’t believe that the French government was not constantly up Miles arse making sure that they were confident that the safety & security of the Mona Lisa was up to standards that they were comfortable with.
@@RebellionInHell I think Miles' Mona Lisa is supposed to be a fake. Like, they intentionally gave him a fake Mona Lisa, and Miles was too stupid to notice.
@@jeremyusreevu237 that's never established in the movie, so that's not a defense. The movie, as constructed, did everything possible to convince the viewer it was the real mona lisa
head cannon is the same thing as fanfiction, after all.
@@petriew2018 Fair. I just heard from somewhere that that's what they were going for.
@@jeremyusreevu237 that is a fan theory, I believe. But if it were true, I think it spoils the end as who cares if a fake Mona Lisa painting got burned up in a house fire at a billionaire's party? That wouldn't spark backlash against Miles at all. Whereas if the world could be convinced he was responsible for the real Mona Lisa getting destoyed, he'd be almost universally hated and would go down in history as the guy who torched one of the most famous works of art in the world.
The fact that more writers and fanboys are using the "it's meant to be dumb" excuse like it's their ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card is making me lose more faith in humanity.
You are losing faith in humanity for defending something they like? People can have different opinions.
It's a valid excuse if we're talking about a Jackie-Chan movie since your not really there for the plot of Drunken Master 2, but for a who-dunnite, it's bizarre for people to break that excuse out.
@Lookatthetree I'm not sure he said anything to disprove that statement. It's also not about the fact that they are defending it, it's about how they are defending it. She-Hulk and Glass Onion both had this phenomenon occur where the audience (and in the case of She-Hulk, the writer herself) defends terrible and/or nonsensical writing decisions in TV shows and movies by saying it was meant to be stupid/not make sense. It's like the final form of bad media defenders where they openly admit the film is shit and say at the same time that that's a good thing for some ungodly reason.
@@lookatthetree978 It has nothing to do with people liking the movie. You’re allowed to like whatever you want to like. It’s just if you want to defend it and prove it’s not badly written, you need good points and evidence to disprove major criticisms towards the movie instead relying on completely lazy defenses like “it’s meant to be bad” which is what the bulk of the defense for this movie is hence the phrase “ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card”.
@@Koopa_Klawz People can never go, "This movie isn't good, but I like it anyways." Like, I really enjoy the first 3 Bayformers films, but I'm not gonna write an entire essay video about how they were misunderstood masterpieces the filthy masses refuse to understand. You don't have to prove that the things you like are good. Sometimes it's fine to enjoy trash.
"Take your coincidence and make it purposeful."
I think in the full context of the paragraph, it's pretty clear this means remove the coincidence or at least make your coincidence less based on pure chance. Instead of a character being in the right place at the right time to overhear a damning conversation just by chance, your character should be in the right place at the right time due to deliberate action, even if it's still a coincidence. In the example, Suzie Sleuth is taling a shady character(deliberate action) who happens to be meeting up with a co-conspirator in time for her to hear the damning conversation(coincidence). Contrast that version of events with a scene where a frustrated Suzie Sleuth plops down in a café just as the conspirators are having a laugh in the very next booth about how they're going to get away with it(pure, unadulterated chance). There's an element of coincidence in both scenarios, but the former relies much less on it because there's a pretty reasonable set of preceding events that lead to the conclusion.
I'm not even sure what PoG's point was in including that quote. Even out of context, it doesn't sound like she's saying coincidences are an essential part of the genre. All I can figure is that he interpreted it as either "give your coincidences a purpose in the story" or "make your coincidences on purpose." Both of those interpretations are meaningless because of course a coincidence is written on purpose and of course they have the purpose of advancing the plot, often when a dead end has been reached.
Another way to properly use coincidences would be to have a non-main character be the one that coincidentally hears evidence. In this case that person should be untrustworthy to some extent, so the fact that they heard a clue coincidentally only lends more to them potentially lying. For bonus points: if they are telling the truth, you could still reframe it so that it wasn't coincidence at all but that they manipulated the truth to make it sound like it because they wanted to hide their involvement.
I'm guessing it was just pure confirmation bias on his part, he probably read the book a long time ago and remembered it said something about coincidences, then for the video he only read the part that 'confirmed' his position and then didn't bother reading the rest, therefore missing that the thing he cited disagrees completely with the conclusion he is trying to prove.
@@GBDupree in that case, any coincidence is fine because the detective themselves won't completely believe it. Like in a Sherlock Holmes story, someone OTHER THAN Holmes and his trusted persons (Watson, his gang of street kids who collect info or Lestrade whom he trusts in the police and some others) finds out some information by coincidence and tells him, he'd first suspect that person's motives, investigate properly by himself, and then reach a conclusion.
Careful guys Pillar of Garbage might accuse you of stealing his content. Go ask Smudboy.
Wait what?
I kept seeing that video in my recommendations and when I finally clicked on it to be greeted with -
" I got this comment telling me that an alt-right youtuber, Smudboy, has used one of my videos..."
I got such a laugh! Funniest thing I've seen all week!
Then again, after Smudboy made that video on EFAP for dogging Synthetic Man, fuck him. Who the fuck makes a video called "A lesson in hurt ego's and loss of credibility" without even watching the episodes he's basing the video on.
"OK, one bad video. Surely this guy can't be that bad."
*Checks video uploaded today*
"Whoooo boy..."
Miles: he was so stupid he wasn't afraid of Benny and ZombAndi even though he should have been.
Andi: she was so clever she wasn't afraid of Miles even though she should have been.
“Boys can’t relate to female leads.”
The irony is that I’ve always preferred female leads. I was raised on Fifth Element, Terminator, Witchblade, Heavy Metal, etc.
I personally find Bayonetta extremely relatable.
I would love to hear what are the "reasons". Because a lady lead can deal with a crappy life, cool friends, be a genius, be dumb, be rich. Cry, laugh, date, fight. So unless the only thing she talks about is menopause or tampons. There's no story, or personality, that isn't done with a guy as well. But that doesn't mean the female lead just acts like a guy. That's not how you use the character.
@@mbob4337 It’s funny because I agree completely. My reasons have always been that female characters can have all the exact same motivations as male characters.
Ultimately, I love watching cool, well written, female characters being badass. If Im playing a video game and have to choose between staring at a male characters ass for 30+ hours or a lady’s ass…..I’m gunna pick the latter.
That isn’t to say male characters can’t be inspiring, well written, or cool. There are tons of them. So many that it’s hard to NOT find badass male characters. He Man, Conan, Tony Stark, James Bond, Trevor Belmont, etc….
I will always choose competent, badass characters regardless of gender….I just really love competent badass ladies most of all.
@@The-Yellow-Man the only thing to comment is how much mbob is condescending, but it's a terrible state of fiction where you can't have well written women for what is either a stand-in for the author or reader, or an object of the plot, which typifies most FMC. The former is your regular scheduled messaging, the latter is simply not a main character at that point.
Women wouldn't go as far as men, so women do it different.
Pillar’s entire video summoned up in one sentence.
“People I don’t like don’t like this movie so the movie must be good.”
Like, yeah. I do agree with POG that Glass Onion is good, but I enjoy it because it's a fairly fun murder mystery with enjoyable characters, whereas he seems to enjoy it as this deep symbolic artpiece. And it really isn't.
I myself quite enjoy TLJ and Knives Out, as long I turn my brains off.
Like my other hobby in reading "trashy" manga, I have no argument whatsoever in defending them. My only turn off is, RJ and his defenders acting so proud about the movies quality.
@@hafirenggayudaDiffernece with the manga is that it doesn’t try and say that “this is peak writing and media”. But it’s entertaining as hell and doesn’t try to be something it isn’t. TLJ and Glass Onion are just garbage written by an unlikeable goblin and defended by people who think it’s peak cinema and well written.
@@hafirenggayuda I myself enjoy a lot of "trashy" Japanese media content (manga, anime, light novel) and guess what? I KNOW they're like junk food. There's also quite a lot of critically acclaimed content in there that I enjoyed for both the entertainment and artistic purposes. Difference is for former, I just let things flow without questioning too much (I'd still get put off by blatant break in character or plot, but otherwise it's ok) whereas for the more "artistic" ones, I focus more on making sense of the more intricate parts of the story, and see it more critically, while also enjoying the overall story and character interaction.
"I believe in coincidences, coincidences happen every day. But I don't TRUST coincidences." -Elim Garak; Famously Well Written Character
3:50:00 Oh... This makes things so much worse and even defeats a lot of the defenders in their defenses of him. I looked up the quotes.
"We got a very talented, local Belgrade artist to do a recreation of the Mona Lisa and it was kind of extraordinary having it on set. I didn’t realise this, but if you get a recreation like this, you have to destroy them when you’re done filming, if it’s a famous work of art. You actually have to document yourself burning the canvas because of the counterfeit market. Daniel was a bit worried that we were ‘killing the puppy’ by upsetting people as we destroyed the Mona Lisa, but the scene in Bean where he destroys ‘Whistler’s Mother’ is one of the funniest scenes in cinematic history, so I figured we’d get away with this. That scene is so good.
We also shot a little coda which we decided not to use, with Blanc on the phone speaking French and getting a little affirmation of ‘ah, oui, oui, merci’ and cutting to an office in the Louvre where the real Mona Lisa is, with the security guards saying ‘well, back to work’. But that pulls a punch, I like that the real painting gets destroyed in the movie."
Yeah. That defeats the entire movie. But, all the characters are just dumb, I guess. And, yes, for anyone defending the movie with "There were clues that it's not the real Mona Lisa!", yeah... in this universe, as far as Rian's concerned, it is.
Imagine writing a murder mystery and adding a character that can’t lie. What world do these writers live in?
What's worse is Blanc knew she couldn't lie....and still took him the entire movie to solve the case.....
" We're you involved with harlans death?"
" Did you do something to cause harlans death directly?"
" Did you give Harlan the wrong medication?"
"Was it intentional or accidental?"
" Which medication did you give him?"
....autopsy reveals no morphine in his system.....
" Someone tampered with the bottles, but Harlan killed himself "
Movie is over in like 10 minutes
@kollie79 and yet he doesn’t do the detective thing to do and ask more pressing and intense questions. Knowing she’s not the person he’s looking for would be great for the investigation
The worst part is not that. A peripheral character that can't lie is a (lazy) way to start off an investigation . In here she's front and center.
That's actually baffling... it's supposed to be murder mystery, why is there supernatural BS? Or is it some sci-fi crap? Either way, that's like... the worst addition for... solving mystery!
Someone in Critical Drink's newest comments said it best: _"Dumb people like this film because it makes them feel smart."_
.... that's why Rian is so popular. He's the artist of the slow.
@@DreadnoughtFiend Yep.
Isn't that why people watch drinker? If we are honest his content isn't great and is mainly based around political tribalism.
@@stevepickford3004 Hey guys we found the Rian fan! Hey there little guy, you lost? Want some ummmm shit I was gonna say Kotaku articles but everything is getting shut down. How about some old Feminist Frequency? I think they're still on.
And remember you opinions and feelings are valid!
@@DreadnoughtFiend I think Rian is terrible. Why would you think I'm a fan? Is your brain that limited? At least you have proved my point far better than I ever could have. Thanks
3:44:57 Wait, hang on, Blanc _smokes._ He was setting off alarm after alarm earlier in the movie trying to light a cigar, and Miles knows how combustible Klear is. Hell, there are other people on the island that know how combustible it is.
Oh, but I can hear Column of Detritus now: “Miles is an idiot.” Silly me forgetting that one-size-fits-all band aid of an answer to all of this movie’s gushing plot wounds.
He's got a better one-size-fits-all answer, "you're alt-right adjacent and I didn't get anything wrong."
@@whiskeyhound his replies from fans is pain, they legitimately believe they are Nazis as well as alt-right and reactionary
He's in full defence mode even on twitter and still refuses to watch this efap despite getting comments about things he got wrong
@@TheShadowReviewer Yeah, I checked his community tab about 12 hours ago, the only remotely enjoyable thing was the irony of seeing people call EFAP losers and irrelevant despite his post whining about EFAP punching down on a smaller channel.
@@whiskeyhound for me the channel size does not matter, it's the points you make and how well argued they are- If it's a bad video it's a bad video
But I think ironically since his channel grown since he put out the video, he won't be able to make the argument about punching up or being punched down as be is growing
@@TheShadowReviewer
Yeah, punching down is a stupid concept, if you say stupid things, people are allowed to point it out.
It's funny how the people making the punching down complaints never acknowledge that in most cases they're just trying to get attention by attacking a bigger channel even if they've got no good reason for going after the bigger creator.
I'd hope he'd drop the argument but I'm sure he won't until he's at a million and probably not even then, if he somehow lucks into that amount of subs.
Guys, you don't understand, Pillar of Garbage pulled a glass onion:
See, you thought you were going to get a well thought out, properly executed, point-by-point debunking of Drinker's video but instead you got a sniveling driveling, weasely, dishonest, poorly planned, disingenuous hit piece by a buffoon.
And by the Rules of Sir Ruin Roundhead Johnson in his 1803 treatise of film theory, backed by household name Matt Arnold, it's so stupid, it means it's actually brilliant.
By the transitive powers of anondyne verisimilitude
math, Pillar of Garbage is a genius and totally not a complete pathetic failure of a film critic and TH-cam reviewer.
My brain stabbed itself reading this. Good job, sir.
You just had to go to the 1803 treatise on film, didn’t you?
Everyone knows that’s irrefutable! >:(
How though, half of CD's points on the movie were "What if this didn't happen" or "What if this happened instead?", if anything that's just a lazy critique on what he thinks is a lazily written movie. Also, his other critiques were explained very well by PoG, if anything CD missed on actual errors with the movie like the Helen surviving the gunshot, or the group almost never mentioning the fact that Andi/Helen is "dead" after said gunshot, they almost forget that there is a murder spree going on. The movie isn't perfect by any means, no movie is, but nagging over someone actually explaining very well against CD's points just goes to show that you probably couldn't understand the movie either, and that you're arguments against the movie would be a bunch of "what ifs" as well.
Was it not just troll video tho. Who could say: Why would they die? And then show that explosion.
@@michaelpacheco9 'half of CD's points on the movie were "What if this didn't happen" or "What if this happened instead?"'
"What if this incredibly likely event that would have actually happen in this type of situation happened instead of the incredibly stupid event that did happen so that the plot can keep going the way the writer want it to go."
For instance, what if Miles kicked the world's most famous detective who showed up with the woman he killed off his island because said detective wasn't invited instead of convincing himself of a lie that nobody even tried to fool him into thinking and insist this detective stay on his private island where fax machine will spew out his sensitive, incriminating information.
"Also, his other critiques were explained very well by PoG"
Give me a single example, and I can link the time stamp in this exact video that tells you exactly why you are wrong.
Pillar is disingenuous and left out what Jennifer Lawrence got busted on to make it seem like everyone got it wrong. He deserves the hate he gets, if only for doing a response video with an elitist preamble.
3:38:59 I love how Rags describes exactly what he uses for firearm training and where he keeps it. It reminds of the scene from Family Guy where Tom Tucker on the news says "Just to put it out there, Tom Tucker is packin'. I drive a 2006 Infiniti, and I don't intend to lose it. So come and get some, punks." Rags is a locked and loaded doggo, don't mess with him
14:05 "Bold-faced" and "bald-faced" are actually both accepted. They just officially mean 2 different things, even though they are (incorrectly) used interchangeably. "Bald-faced" means the lie is undisguised and clearly untrue. "Bold-faced" means the lie is impudent and disrespectful.
I like when he calls One million people dumb...
He actually thinks there is a point of authority in Drinker and that's why people agree? Might not be much more likely the case that people saw the movie as well and actually agree with the points made?
I know why Ryan Johnson called the sequel Glass Onion, because it's so bad you can't even cry about it and it falls apart when you try to see what's beneath the surface layer
If the release of TLJ had resulted in Solo and TROS just blowing out the box office instead of just sadly fizzling out, you bet your candy ass they would have fast tracked a Rian Johnson trilogy. We'd at least have one movie out by now, if not two. But of course they're not going to say it's been axed. And it's for the same reason they made Mark Hamill play nice after people started to pick up on his dissatisfaction with the treatment of Luke Skywalker: you have to keep up a facade. I'd be very surprised if Rian's trilogy was still seriously being considered for development.
This Garbage Pile sounds like he's trying to mimic Little Platoon
Poorly.
He forgot the funny tho
@@BrennanCh06 And the logic too by the looks of it.
Pillar of Garbage is one of those type of content creators I can't stand. It's the, "I'm above this culture war bs, but I constantly talk about it or let it affect my decisions" type mfs. Like, I in no way care or even like Ben Shapiro, but he wasn't wrong about Glass Onion being full of holes. And the absolute gall to target your audience when they go, "Well, maybe Drinker does have a point." and go, "Oh no! Part of my audience follows this other channel and might actually agree with him on certain things? Media literacy is dead." He's the type of person to disagree with someone saying that murder is bad by saying, "Yeah, well he was part of the Jan 6th riots."
Mauler is not gona have sex with you pal
@@reddishcarp1237 Pillar of Garbage won't fuck you either. Give it a rest.
To be fair, Ben Shabibo has some very... interesting movie takes. I think he was right about Glass Onion being bad purely by accident lol.
@@lokiswager Like I said, I don't practically like Shapiro. At most, I'll poke fun at him with all the memes surrounding him. He's more of an ironic joke to me than anything.
@@3_smh_3 Ben "Female orgasm is a myth" Shapiro?
I can't believe drinker lied about glass onion, he mustn't be stopped.
By no means necessary.
No, no, no, it's by all means unnecessary. I shall begin by hurling raindrops at tortoises with great vehemence. That'll stop that Scottish menace dead in his tracks!
He can keep getting away with this.
The greatest argument anyone could ever have ever is... "you just don't get it" or "you're just not smart enough to understand why it's good", or something to the capacity. It shuts down all criticisms, it has no hard counter, and never requires you to actually address any counter-points =P
I love when people try to act like they're smart and just insist on proving otherwise with everything they do and say. I especially love when they make videos showcasing it, for people like Mauler and Rags to pick apart with very simple arguments and basic logic and it gets to be archived forever in all its glory.
You cab be smug and you can be wrong, but you cant be both. PoG out here throwing out a ton of insults while either not understanding or straight up lieing about things and it makes him incredibly annoying to listen to.
Mauler is exactly what you described lol. Imagine being this much of a hypocrite.
@@reddishcarp1237 examples?
Leave it to Rian to write a movie that devolves the discourse into "bruh, cuz its dumb" and "because glass onion, don't think about it"
Miles' fax network is possibly one of most idiotic concepts ive ever heard of, to the point that its actually detrimental to the movie.
So if Miles has all of his information fed to him via fax machine at various locations at every one of his properties you have to assume if he has 10 locations of similar size to his island with 20-30 fax machines each, he would have a network of 300. With each drawing thei own power, needing ink ribbon replacements, and paper refilling on a regular basis. Then each needs to have a phone line connection, plus cable ran to it, and for a technology that is practically obsolete, obtaining such materials gets more expensive as time passes. Then theres the problem of actually networking them in such manner that every machine prints out each fax all at once. That requires a central fax machine recieving the data and then forwarding it to every other location, where another central machine would forward to each branch. Every single fax he gets would cost hundreds of dollars per page and if hes getting the amount of information a high value CEO gets, he would get thousands of messages an hour. This man set up a system that would effectively cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, a day. A system that a single cell phone solves at a tenth of a percentile of the cost.
Miles is cartoonishly idiotic and his company should be bankrupt. Hes spending like $2 billion a year for his fax cascade.
Do they actually show he uses dedicated fax machines as opposed to printers with fax capabilities?
Even if he's got a fetish for fax machines, they could've made it so much more reasonable if he only used one at a time and called ahead to direct his faxes to a particular location, but that'd take a modicum of brainpower so he just has every fax machine recieving at the same time.
I mean Rian said it best” I want to make movies that divide people… to me if everyone leaves the theatre liking you movie then you failed as a creator”
What he did not say was I want to make a good movie…
In other words "I make shitty movies and I don't care"
With that attitude, he should have never been given Star Wars to begin with.
"If everyone leaves the theatre liking your movie, then you failed as a creator"
That's basically like saying "If everyone leaves the grocery store buying your product, then you failed as a food manufacturer."
So did Francis Ford Coppola fail when everyone praised the first two godfather films?
I know there was no talk of it because Drinker didn't mention it, but I'd love to hear Pillar of Garbage's take on why the actual Mona Lisa is in a random billionaire's home. This is not just a random detail, this is a crucial Chekhov's gun that allows for the "defeat" of the villain (and as mentioned by Mauler Rian Johnson decided it to be the real one, not a fake, for purely mechanical reasons of "payoff". It could have been a fake: the actual one is painted on wood, the one in the movie was on some canvas - though this can also be attributed to Rian Johnson being too lazy to check that detail on something like wikipedia). Having the actual Mona Lisa in Miles' island home is dependent on a chain of successive failures of judgement on the part of so many supposedly competent people that it would be illogical to think it could happen in real life (or to borrow PoG's terms, it is not "verisimilar"). And it only gets worse as you think more about it.
Here are some examples I've thought of since EFAP 221, apologies in advance for the massive autism on my part but I wanted to show this using publicly available information (and if I, a rando on the internet, can find it all then Rian Johnson most certainly could have if he decided to actually spend some effort on this):
WHY IS FRANCE (AND THE LOUVRE) BROKE
-The Louvre is not a private museum or a corporation of private collectors, it is literally owned by the French State and operated by the French government (the "Service des Musées de France" under the direction of the Ministry of Culture). This is partially acknowledged by the movie (Miles says "Louvre is closed, France needed money so I bought myself a little short term loan.") and the pandemic is offered as an explanation. However, the pandemic alone does not explain how France became so broke that it decided to lend the Mona Lisa. For the sake of detail, a quick Google search reveals on a France24 article that the Louvre's losses over the first lockdown was about 40 million Euros (from March to July 2020, about when the movie's action takes place), that amount of money should be insignificant in the scope of the French budget (more than 400 billion in tax revenue in 2020). Now don't get me wrong 2020 was a harsh period, but IRL it was nowhere near to that level of economic collapse! So how did France collapse so much from the lockdowns that even a publicly funded museum is incapable of paying off less than 40 million Euros?
SUPPOSING THE LOUVRE IS BROKE, WHY LEND A PAINTING AT ALL
-Even if it were broke for a couple of months, the French State would still have many options and lending a masterpiece to a guy would be at the bottom of that list. We are not talking about a billionaire who needs a short-term cash influx, France has other short term options to increase its revenue: implementing new taxes or raising existing ones, relying on more exports or signing some international contract with another country, selling some bonds or some gold, etc. If it really needs a loan, it is more likely to ask one from the IMF or the USA or a G7 country or at the very least some private bank. Why would the French State approach a private person for a loan rather than consider any of the other options mentioned above?
-If somehow the Louvre and the branches of government that manage it are so insistent on gaining the patronage of a billionaire, why don't they instead INVITE the said billionaire to a private showing by the Louvre director himself? Wouldn't that be more practical and safe than giving your painting to someone who may put it at risk of damage?
SUPPOSING IT NEEDS TO LEND, WHY SHOULD THE LOUVRE AGREE TO LEND THE MONA LISA
-Supposing that the director of the Louvre agrees to lend the Mona Lisa, why would his superiors agree? That would be the director of the "Service des Musées de France", the French minister of culture, and the French prime minister (the head of government). Also let's not forget the French president who, as the head of state, has the last say since he decides in the name of the entity that owns the painting. Keep in mind that the burning of Notre-Dame was a shock to many people, including people who were not French, but since it was ruled an accident it had no political repercussions. Now ask yourself why would any of the people previously mentioned agree to the lending, especially knowing that if something bad happens to the Mona Lisa THEY WILL BE BLAMED FOR IT IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY. What kind of sane politician would even agree to having their career and reputation destroyed on a risk like that?
-Now as a follow-up to the last point, some may point out that after WW2, the Mona Lisa was sent abroad to be exposed in countries other than France (mind you in public museums, not at the hands of rich art collectors). That is true. However that stopped after 1974, when after an exposition in Tokyo someone attempted and failed to damage it by spraying red paint. Since 1975 it has stood in the Louvre behind a thick glass panel. Adding the fact that even today there are crazies that go to the Louvre and attempt to damage the Mona Lisa using cream tarts, paints and acid, why would the people responsible ever decide to move the painting when there is strong precedent that doing so is very risky?
-Why didn't the Louvre put the Mona Lisa to good financial use through its digital platform and distribution instead of relying on private loans? I mean that is exactly what the Louvre did IRL. For example, it put access to 34 high detailed photos of its Masterpieces with lengthy details about each one (Mona Lisa included btw, you can find that page by googling "louvre from the mona lisa to the wedding feast at cana"). During that time, the Louvre also made a massive digital campaign and spearheaded it with documentaries, radio shows, and even an app about a specific painting - can you guess which one? (hint: it is in the movie) So why would the Louvre give away the golden goose that could allow it to endure the lockdowns and prepare for reopening?
-To be fair the sources I have found for this next point I couldn't find in English so Rian Johnson shouldn't be pinned for this, but I am mentioning them here because it really makes it impossible to even move Mona Lisa from the Louvre. An article from Le Point of April 3rd 2018 mentions that the wood of the painting is so fragile that the Mona Lisa cannot be moved EVEN WITHIN THE MUSEUM. So why lend an old and fragile painting like the Mona Lisa rather than a more modern and (relatively) sturdy one?
I'll add more in a comment in reply to this. Feel free to read and give feedback.
(continued)
SUPPOSING THE LOUVRE LENDS THE MONA LISA, WHY EVEN AGREE TO IT
-If you are to lend a painting, especially if you are a public institution, it stands to reason that the act of lending will be made public and a certificate of authenticity be given to the lender (which means that in the movie the people should NOT be surprised Miles has the actual Mona Lisa, this would have made headlines everywhere). In terms of security, what person would be okay with one having the greatest painting in the world being public knowledge and risk being the target of all the art thieves of the entire world? And not just that, but imagine the unwanted (potentially criminal and crazy) visitors that you may have to deal with on a daily basis?
-Let's talk insurance. Insurance of art is necessarily indexed on its value. Now at the scale of many famous paintings such as with Picasso's works it is fine, but does that work with the Mona Lisa? In reality the preciousness of the Mona Lisa would make any insurance an absolute mess. To illustrate, the Mona Lisa holds the Guinness World Record for insurance valuation at 100 million dollars during an American tour in 1962-63 (equivalent today to 870 million dollars).The GWR site says that insurance was not concluded because the cost of the highest security measures was less than that of the premiums for the insurance (and that was for institutions not rich citizens). That was for moving the painting ALONE, because technically the Mona Lisa is beyond value and therefore the painting itself cannot be insured at all. A Figaro article of February 22nd 2008 has this particular quote:
"Works as mythic as the Mona Lisa or the Origin of the World [by Courbet] are not insured in the sense we usually know, precisely because they are priceless. "It is not possible to find insurance for such paintings" notes Marc Rome, working at Axa Art, one of the main insurers in art. "And in any case, the State wouldn't have the means for it." [...] What would happen then if, by misfortune, a work as important as the Mona Lisa would be destroyed or stolen? The cultural institutions, being realists, note that no compensation would allow the replacement of an object that is so unique in its essence."
So what have we learned? First, that insuring the Mona Lisa itself should be OUTRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE (so no "Don't tell the insurance guys I have installed a conveniently placed override so I can look at it directly"). Secondly, even if there is such an insurer insane enough to offer something for it, then the insurance and the premiums should be astronomically expensive, to the point that it would be impossible for Miles to say that most of the cost of getting the painting was in "transport and security". Now not insuring the Mona Lisa itself and only the moving works for States because they have budgets far exceeding anything a private citizen could earn (costs are put on the budget), so we need to ask what kind of person would be insane enough to offer insurance for the Mona Lisa (not just moving operations) to a private citizen, and who would be insane and insanely rich enough to take it?
SUPPOSING THE LENDING OF MONA LISA, WHY TO MILES OF ALL PEOPLE
-First of all: it is established that Miles is someone who is dumb. Passionate about the Mona Lisa, yes, but dumb nonetheless. It would be reasonable to assume that the French government would thoroughly study the people it is lending its paintings to (especially if it is the Mona Lisa), so why would anyone lend the precious Mona Lisa to someone as dumb as Miles, instead of someone who may be more intelligent and therefore more competent and less prone to impulsiveness and mistakes when it comes to safekeeping?
-Miles wants the Mona Lisa on his private island in Greece. Putting aside the unfortunate risk of the boat sinking or heavy seas damaging the Mona Lisa, there are issues with the location: it is not always available, specifically the docks are poorly constructed. Lending the Mona Lisa would probably demand exact details as to where the painting would be held at, and the means to retrieve it. So knowing that the docks pose a risk for transportation and even for safeguarding (the fire brigade can't dock to the island so it can't reliably arrive to save it from a fire. Ironic, I know), why agree to lend it to Miles if there is an access risk?
-As pointed out in this show by Fringy, there are legal and ethical standards imposed to architects whenever they build anything. Yet somehow the building in which the Mona Lisa is held is surrounded by literal fire hazards. This alone, no one in their right mind would agree to put the Mona Lisa in. Now you may say "well it's fine with some bulletproof glass" and to that I say that the glass casing may be bullet resistant, but not necessarily fire/thermal proof. Also burning air could get in the casing if there was shrapnel lodged through the glass. Not to mention that the shockwave of any explosion could potentially damage the glass, or knock the casing down and damage the painting inside (and its lock mechanism, and the way the detection system works). So what reason would there be to accept lending the Mona Lisa to a guy who would put it near an explosive/incendiary source?
-The casing for the Mona Lisa does not make sense: It is clear on all sides but why? It's the painting that matters, not the frame or what is behind it. Why not put it on a wall behind a very wide and very tall glass (like its actual setup in the Louvre right now). If you are to lend the painting, you might as well help in putting it in a place that is appropriate for its viewing just as much as its security (for example when it comes to lighting you want to protect a painting from too many UV rays just as much as you want the light to hit the painting just right to enjoy the colors to the fullest). So why did the Louvre agree to lend the Mona Lisa to Miles when his intended setup (that is also dangerous) is poor from a viewing standpoint?
If I can think of more I will edit the comments and add them where needed. In the meantime, feel free to give feedback if you have any. Finally, I'm not going to waste energy in detailing the stupidity that is Helen thinking it is worth it to burn the Mona Lisa in the face of getting arrested, going to prison or a mental hospital (for acting like the crazies that have tried to vandalize the Mona Lisa before), and be reviled by the entire world forevermore.
Yeah the whole burning of the Mona Lisa by her would make andi an enemy of most of the western world.
I think the French Republic might go for her head but if that’s not a punishment on the books so many artists and people who appreciate cultural works would be gunning for her.
Not to mention miles whole clean energy project getting ruined and the rammifications of that
While I'm pretty sure that people can purchase the loan of certain artworks for private viewings, the idea that France in the middle of lockdowns and being broke would've authorised and paid for the museum staff to prepare any piece of artwork to be adequtely protected against the difference in humidity and temperature between their temperature controlled museum and some rich idiot's Greek getaway is ludicrous.
As is the idea that they'd break their own border controls to ship a non-essential item to Greece for a minor financial benefit, that they'd ship the mona lisa or any of their most famous pieces with no staff accompanying it to ensure its safety at all times is bewildering.
PoG is really trying to put that writing graduate degree to work.
48:10 Andor is evidence of the sheer magnitude of Lucasfilm's failure with Star Wars. It used to be that having the Star Wars name attached to a project meant that people would flock to it, even if it wasn't very good. Now, a lot of people are avoiding Andor just because it's Star Wars, even though, by all accounts, it's actually good. That's how badly Lucasfilm and Disney have damaged the reputation of the Star Wars franchise.
I’ve heard only good things about Andor and I even hear my favourite fellas say good things about it although it has issues.
I want to watch I really do. I cannot. I’m too afraid of being disappointed and when I saw them brining up people like Wullf Yulardan the G and some other characters I just assumed it was going to key jangle central.
I want to watch it but I don’t want to give Disney a win. So conflicted.
The Star War product that's very accepted in 2022, they said, is the Lego Skywalker Saga. But I think that's because the Lego quality, not Star War or even Disney.
The funny thing is most people avoided Andor because it didn't rely on fanservice like the previous shows (which they liked)
I just can’t get up for a character that I have no interest in watching who dies in another movie that was mediocre at best
@@spendsshanks6050 not enough lightsabers and jedi for you lol
Need a 10 hour Mooler video detailing the entire history of Bionicle
Amen to that.
My friend recommended one of pillar’s videos talking about rings of power. Literally the whole thing was what about ism….not good, just a nice coincidence
Mauler is not gona have sex with you pal
TH-cam recommended one of his videos about Superman, and having never heard of the channel I checked it out. It was about how Superman shouldn't be a Jesus symbol, which I was curious about since I remember hearing that he was intended to be more a moses symbol. I quickly realized how bad the video was when early on he apologized about making another video talking about Jewish customs and history. Not because he was wrong about what he said, but that he talked about them while not being Jewish himself. His solution to this problem? He recommended another youtuber who was Jewish, so now he can make this video no problem! (This culture war is insane!) He then finished the video by saying that making Superman a Jesus symbol was anti-semitic. Barely anything mentioning how the original creators intended him to be. Needless to say I told TH-cam to never reccomend his channel (didn't stop them from trying anyways).
This guy's tag line is *"Good faith and based AF."*
man, e;r keeps getting cut off whenever he tries to speak in these last few efaps, hell in this one, mauler asks him something, and two other people talk for like 20sec while e;r is tryin to get a word in.
Right?!? And it’s a damn tragedy each time
The people who tell us to just accept the events that are happening in what is essentially our world are also the ones who tell us we're being silly for just accepting that dragons exist in a fantasy world where they are explicitly said to exist.
I was recommended PoG with Thor L&T so then I watched his Reva video in which he ignores the legit criticism, and then I got a community tab saying “looks like I’m gonna make my audience mad” which was his SheHulk defense which he tries to guilt by association Drinker. He’s a dishonest FullFatVideos
If a movie break real life logic, it is the movies job to teach you the logic of the movie’s universe. You can’t just say well it happens in the movie so it makes sense.
Moron: “Attacks Drinker”
Drinker’s Fans: So you have chosen death.
Watch the video. It's pretty clear that drinker fans are the real morons.
"Pillar of Garbage". As apt a channel name as you'll find, I've watched a few of his videos and I couldn't stomach another, for no other reason than words associate with "Blue hair and american colleges" keep coming to mind. I watch video essays to be entertained, not bored.
Not to mention he went on a rang about people using his name to insult him. Bruh, you LITERALLY put "Garbage" in your name. Don't be mad at them, when you gave them such an easy target.
The celebration of bad movies enables more bad movies.
Case in point Knifes Out and Glass Onion.
If we want less bad movies/shows/games, there needs to be less pretentious, shallow, stupid people enabling them.
Which is why I appreciate the EFAP crew.
A lot of people say they like movies. But very few care about the storytelling.
I've concluded that most of the defense of the movie is largely because the movies are serving an apparatus to spread tangential political messaging. They're defending the movies/shows because of the messaging in the absence of any positive quality/the messaging itself becomes the positive quality they want to defend.
@@3_smh_3 It is sometimes *a* factor, but considering it the main factor speaks to a chronic onlineness
I mean, I like both Knives Out and Glass Onion, but I'm not going to act like they're perfect masterpieces. The problem with people like Pillar Of Garbage and Jack Saint is that they have such a binary view of good and bad, i.e, everything I like is wholly good and everything I hate is wholly bad.
@@jeremyusreevu237 Oh fuck you're the guy with the bad music takes hi
@@rudolfambrozenvtuber to be fair, there _are_ a few people in the media space who claim they're doing things for political reasons. Granted, I think a lot of those people are saying that to cover up the fact that they're shit at their craft.