|
Post by TheNewMads on Oct 5, 2010 14:24:54 GMT -5
I think the main problem is you're looking at IMDB, a troll's heaven. The forums on that place do my box in. The only place more annoying is the Youtube comments section under any video. i think for maximum despair for humanity, the comments sections on yahoo news stories are the absolute worst. but yes, youtube comments are a close second. i think a lot of people are frustrated and confused by mst3k. the two parallel information streams -- the comments and the movie -- befuddles their simple minds, much like they become when trying to walk and chew gum at the same time. as a result they become angry and lash out. wow! look at me hate on the pink-boy non-misties! actually, the first few times i saw mst3k i wasn't that into it. i mean i was, but i couldn't get used to trying to listen to the comments and watch the movie at the same time. i couldn't take but 20 minutes or so at a shot. it's kinda a skill you have to develop, i think, watching mst3k, and a lot of reviewers giving it bad reviews might not get that.
|
|
|
Post by fathermushroom on Oct 5, 2010 20:15:50 GMT -5
Just work the lumps, NewMads.
|
|
|
Post by msmystie3000 on Oct 6, 2010 8:24:24 GMT -5
I think the main problem is you're looking at IMDB, a troll's heaven. The forums on that place do my box in. The only place more annoying is the Youtube comments section under any video. I agree, IMDB has it's weirdos....I think YouTube is one of the WORST!!! At least IMDB trolls tend to ease up on the obscenities (though I could be wrong...or IMDB has censorship technology). But EGADS, YouTube would make George Carlin blush! I wish every board had a "Instant Hide" thingy that a reader could press to instantly hide the comment from view so one wont be tempted to answer (read: 'feed') the trolls....Eventually, trolling may lessen. Yes, some have a "hide comment" feature but not all do & not all are "instant"....All boards should have a "Hide Troll" feature....You can hide Trolly's comment....it wont affect the whole board, just your account (lest people abuse the feature & blank out NonTrolls)....so you won't look at those idiot words and be tempted. ....Said feature can have a neat sound effect like "SQUISH" or "KABOOM" or "Kill Troll!" to make it satisfying and fun! Folks will now heed the "Don't Feed The Trolls" thing more.
|
|
|
Post by A deadly bee on Oct 10, 2010 9:24:21 GMT -5
Alright, one more from IMDB....
"Remember how the 1970's turkey The Gong Show featured incredibly untalented people like Rip Taylor and Jaye P Morgan ridiculing the contestants? Well this Mystery Science turkey featured incredibly untalented people like Mary Jo Pehl, Kevin Murphy and Mike Nelson ridiculing old, bad movies. It takes a lot of work and a huge lack of ability to screw up a show with a fail-safe premise like throwing insults at Grade Z films but these Sci Fi Channel buffoons managed to do just that.
The host Mike Nelson always has a dazed look on his face like the proverbial deer caught in your headlights. I have no idea what prompted this stiff to try a career in television given how he just stands awkwardly on-screen grinning stupidly and looking confused by everything around him.
Kevin Murphy comes across as the type of insecure guy who goes around talking about his SAT scores to this very day. His pompous manner kills his efforts at joking around. Viewers can tell Murphy seems to consider himself an intellectual but since he's just the voice of a puppet on a bad cable show it's impossible to take him seriously. The comparison of the people on this show with The Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons was perfect, especially as it pertains to Kevin Murphy.
Mary Jo Pehl is so awful in every conceivable way that she may have single-handedly set back the cause of women in broadcasting by decades. No matter how relentlessly unfunny she is she stands there looking idiotically pleased with herself and is just plain painful to watch.
The movies being shown on this program were so bad that the portions making fun of them could pretty much write themselves. These aggressively incompetent geeks even managed to screw up those parts of the show, however, by just sitting there saying nothing for excruciatingly long periods. Even when they did talk their feeble attempts at humor often made the movies look good by comparison.
As bad as the show was during the segments in the theatre it got infinitely worse once these people no longer had the crutch of a bad movie going for them. Once you saw the pathetically unfunny original material that these schleps thought constituted a comedy sketch you realized they were the absolute last human beings on Earth who should be making fun of other people's creative failures.
I mean, what can you say about the Godawful sketches on this show? Outside of the Sylvester Stallone bomb Oscar I've never seen so many people so smugly convinced they're being funny while in reality failing so miserably. The only thing worse than the sketches on this show are the imbecilic songs they sing during some of them.
This is without a doubt the lousiest thing I've ever seen on the Sci Fi Channel, and that's saying something!"
|
|
|
Post by Trumpy's Magic Snout on Oct 10, 2010 9:28:11 GMT -5
Sounds like the director of one of the movies they riffed wasn't too pleased!
|
|
|
Post by msmystie3000 on Oct 11, 2010 8:32:31 GMT -5
Alright, one more from IMDB.... "Remember how the 1970's turkey The Gong Show featured incredibly untalented people like Rip Taylor and Jaye P Morgan ridiculing the contestants? Well this Mystery Science turkey featured incredibly untalented people like Mary Jo Pehl, Kevin Murphy and Mike Nelson ridiculing old, bad movies. It takes a lot of work and a huge lack of ability to screw up a show with a fail-safe premise like throwing insults at Grade Z films but these Sci Fi Channel buffoons managed to do just that. The host Mike Nelson always has a dazed look on his face like the proverbial deer caught in your headlights. I have no idea what prompted this stiff to try a career in television given how he just stands awkwardly on-screen grinning stupidly and looking confused by everything around him. Kevin Murphy comes across as the type of insecure guy who goes around talking about his SAT scores to this very day. His pompous manner kills his efforts at joking around. Viewers can tell Murphy seems to consider himself an intellectual but since he's just the voice of a puppet on a bad cable show it's impossible to take him seriously. The comparison of the people on this show with The Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons was perfect, especially as it pertains to Kevin Murphy. Mary Jo Pehl is so awful in every conceivable way that she may have single-handedly set back the cause of women in broadcasting by decades. No matter how relentlessly unfunny she is she stands there looking idiotically pleased with herself and is just plain painful to watch. The movies being shown on this program were so bad that the portions making fun of them could pretty much write themselves. These aggressively incompetent geeks even managed to screw up those parts of the show, however, by just sitting there saying nothing for excruciatingly long periods. Even when they did talk their feeble attempts at humor often made the movies look good by comparison. As bad as the show was during the segments in the theatre it got infinitely worse once these people no longer had the crutch of a bad movie going for them. Once you saw the pathetically unfunny original material that these schleps thought constituted a comedy sketch you realized they were the absolute last human beings on Earth who should be making fun of other people's creative failures. I mean, what can you say about the Godawful sketches on this show? Outside of the Sylvester Stallone bomb Oscar I've never seen so many people so smugly convinced they're being funny while in reality failing so miserably. The only thing worse than the sketches on this show are the imbecilic songs they sing during some of them. This is without a doubt the lousiest thing I've ever seen on the Sci Fi Channel, and that's saying something!" Has this goober ever considered that Mike is SUPPOSED to be a "Bewildered, Wide-Eyed, Confused, Doofus, Man-Boy" & that Tom Servo's SUPPOSED to be pompous? I have a theory that these are "Joel Hardliners"....none of them harp on Joel or the original Mads....it's all "Mike's a smug jock/hack/Rupert Pipkins/etc." or "Mary Jo's a Nag/Hag/Fatso/Bitch/Shrew/Really unfunny/etc." or "Kevin Murphy/Tom Servo is a pompous windbag".
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Oct 11, 2010 9:21:05 GMT -5
Has this goober ever considered that Mike is SUPPOSED to be a "Bewildered, Wide-Eyed, Confused, Doofus, Man-Boy" & that Tom Servo's SUPPOSED to be pompous? this is actually why most of the time when people criticize mst3k i usually don't even get that worked up about it, because what they accuse the show of is often true... but it's actually also what makes it funny! i mean, yes, mike acts bewildered. yes, crow constantly says mean, offensive things. yes, tom servo is pretentious. criticizing that is like saying the odd couple is terrible because the roommates bicker all the time, or all in the family is terrible because archie bunker is a bigot. it just screams, "hello! i missed the point entirely!"
|
|
|
Post by continosbuckle on Oct 11, 2010 10:48:17 GMT -5
I have a theory that these are "Joel Hardliners"....none of them harp on Joel or the original Mads....it's all "Mike's a smug jock/hack/Rupert Pipkins/etc." or "Mary Jo's a Nag/Hag/Fatso/Bitch/Shrew/Really unfunny/etc." or "Kevin Murphy/Tom Servo is a pompous windbag". That was my impression. He's definitely saying the exact same things a Joel hardliner over on another forum mentions. Plus, he shows a great deal more familiarity with the show than someone who doesn't watch it, or has watched it a few times and decided it wasn't worth it. I suppose he could be one of those folks who have their TVs on 24 hours a day and watches whatever's on, no matter how much they may dislike it. I also wish that they'd supply examples at the very least when they make the assertions that guys like this make. I suppose it could suffer from cherry-picking, however, as the Brains have claimed that there are roughly 700 riffs an episode and they can't all be winners, but still, it'd be illuminating. If the guy claims the show's concept "can't be wrecked" and yet somehow they do, it'd be interesting to see some sort of example of what he's talking about. A couple riffs that are really terrible, or a couple more obvious ones that were left on the table. (I think I know why no one ever does this...) I do have to admit though that there are some things with the show that are conceptually amusing but in practice aren't particularly amusing, which is why I think Pearl gets mentioned so frequently in negative reviews. So while an irritating, not-very-bright, cruel, meglomaniacal doofus might be amusing as a concept, at the end of the day, what you're left with is an unpleasant and irritating character. I felt Dr. Ernhardt suffered from this same problem.
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Jan 8, 2011 19:54:19 GMT -5
Just read this review and remembered this thread so I had to pull it up so you all can read his thoughts:
"utter garbage, January 6, 2011 This review is from: Mystery Science Theater 3000: 20th Anniversary Edition [Limited Edition] (DVD) ok, so anyone who looks at amazon reviews quickly discovers that 5 star ratings are dished out like there's no tomorrow:apparently we're living in some golden age of entertainment with neverending quantities of televisual genius. oh but wait, why is there never anything good on the tv to watch??? answer - amazon reviewers suffer from rating incontinence. and on to mystery science theatre. imagine you have come back to your rented apartment. you're looking forward to relaxing in front of the tv watching a trashy movie. oh, your flat mate who you don't know that well but who you suspect you will never be friends with is sitting in the living room with 2 of his friends getting ready to watch the same trashy movie. fine, you think. how painful can it be to spend one night with these people. you have just made a fatal error. these 3 people turn out to be the unfunniest, unimaginitive people you have ever had the misfortune to spend time with. they seem to think that any sentence which makes gramatical sense is ipso facto funny. their "humour" never builds to a crescendo or descends into a lull - they have one gear and one gear only and that gear is marked "death by inertia". welcome to the world of mystery science theatre. i beg you, do not purchase this mince. "
|
|
|
Post by notundercovercop32 on Jan 8, 2011 23:19:03 GMT -5
I pine for the days when people said, "I just don't care for it." Now it's like you're not allowed to just not like something. You're legally required to have a seathing hatred for it. The Major flaw with those amazon reviews is that they're never unbiased. They're always written by people who either love or hate the (Subject) being reviewed. Thats why I ignore them in their entirety.
|
|
|
Post by continosbuckle on Jan 9, 2011 1:22:59 GMT -5
I pine for the days when people said, "I just don't care for it." Now it's like you're not allowed to just not like something. You're legally required to have a seathing hatred for it. The Major flaw with those amazon reviews is that they're never unbiased. They're always written by people who either love or hate the (Subject) being reviewed. Thats why I ignore them in their entirety. Admittedly, all Amazon- or IMDb-type reviews fall in to this sort of "Reverse Bell Curve" because if you actually care enough to write a review or hunt down the relevant page to rate something, you're going to have a fairly strong opinion about it one way or the other. People just don't spend that time on things they felt "meh" about.
|
|
|
Post by notundercovercop32 on Jan 10, 2011 2:15:08 GMT -5
I pine for the days when people said, "I just don't care for it." Now it's like you're not allowed to just not like something. You're legally required to have a seathing hatred for it. The Major flaw with those amazon reviews is that they're never unbiased. They're always written by people who either love or hate the (Subject) being reviewed. Thats why I ignore them in their entirety. Admittedly, all Amazon- or IMDb-type reviews fall in to this sort of "Reverse Bell Curve" because if you actually care enough to write a review or hunt down the relevant page to rate something, you're going to have a fairly strong opinion about it one way or the other. People just don't spend that time on things they felt "meh" about. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm always annoyed by The Vanhalister guy who reviews MST box sets the minute they appear for pre-order. He always gives ham reviews of the episodes and not the box sets and no matter what he always gives it 5 stars. Why should I accept your opinion if your automatically going to give it a "stellar" rating just because it has "MST" I the title? Really if you're going to base your purchases on reviews, Counterintuitive as it is, You really should only listen to someone whose job it is to review. They have absolutly no stake in whether we like it or not, As long as they write a well thought review then they get paid.
|
|
|
Post by A deadly bee on Jan 10, 2011 14:45:52 GMT -5
Admittedly, all Amazon- or IMDb-type reviews fall in to this sort of "Reverse Bell Curve" because if you actually care enough to write a review or hunt down the relevant page to rate something, you're going to have a fairly strong opinion about it one way or the other. People just don't spend that time on things they felt "meh" about. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm always annoyed by The Vanhalister guy who reviews MST box sets the minute they appear for pre-order. He always gives ham reviews of the episodes and not the box sets and no matter what he always gives it 5 stars. Why should I accept your opinion if your automatically going to give it a "stellar" rating just because it has "MST" I the title? Really if you're going to base your purchases on reviews, Counterintuitive as it is, You really should only listen to someone whose job it is to review. They have absolutly no stake in whether we like it or not, As long as they write a well thought review then they get paid. I agree, both the "haters" and the fanboys are both equally bad.
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Jan 10, 2011 19:46:42 GMT -5
.[/quote]
I'm always annoyed by The Vanhalister guy who reviews MST box sets the minute they appear for pre-order. [/quote]
oh, I'm so glad someone ELSE is annoyed by that guys 'look-at-me!-I'm-the-FIRST-person-reviewing-the-new-set' addiction. I wish he would disappear
|
|
|
Post by msmystie3000 on Jan 17, 2011 19:16:45 GMT -5
NEGATIVE MST3K Reviews = "I Hate Mike Nelson". .....And who the heck is Rupert Pupkins? That's Robert DeNiro's character from Martin Scorsese's grossly underrated THE KING OF COMEDY. He plays a below-average stand-up comic who thinks he's really funny and gets upset that The Tonight Show won't book him. He basically turns into a stalker, following the host of the show (Jerry Lewis, who's great in this) all over the place, and then finally kidnapping him and agreeing to let him go only if he gets a chance to perform on the show, live. It's an awesome movie....you should see it. Here's a trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wVhCCo02P4While the movie has some laughs, it's actually pretty dark and even disturbing. . .reminiscent of Scorsese's AFTER HOURS. As far as Mike as Rupert Pupkin, I guess the author feels Mike thinks he's far funnier than he is. As in "when the guy who thinks he's a hoot makes a TV show." This is an incorrect evaluation, and the author is a moron. So these haters are picturing Mike Nelson kidnapping the CEO of SciFi to get his big hunky mug on their station....That would be interesting. "If you don't put MST3K on your station I'll...uh...I'll make you eat this can of mushrooms with spiders in them!"
|
|