Film Junk Podcast Episode #367: The Avengers and Hot Docs 2012
0:00 – Intro
6:00 – Review: The Avengers
1:08:15 – Headlines: New Hulk Movie in 2015?, Marvel to Eventually Recast Iron Man, Universal Sues The Asylum Over Battleship Knockoff, The Dark Knight Rises Trailer, The Expendables 2 Trailer
1:39:10 – Hot Docs Reviews: The Imposter, Indie Game: The Movie, GLOW: The Story of the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling, Beauty is Embarrassing, Tchopitoulous, Women with Cows, The Tundra Book, China Heavyweight, Shut Up and Play the Hits, Detropia, Low & Clear, Only the Young, Jason Becker: Not Dead Yet
2:42:05 – Other Stuff We Watched: Firefly, Serenity, 24/7: Floyd Mayweather vs. Miguel Cotto, Senna, The Five-Year Engagement, Hook
3:01:30 – Junk Mail: Directors with Perfect Filmographies, Movies You Don’t Like That Have One Great Scene + Movies You Dislike for How They Make You Feel, Best Movie-Themed Rides
3:15:00 – This Week’s DVD Releases
3:18:40 – Outro
» Download the MP3 (93 MB)
» View the show notes
» Rate us on iTunes!
Subscribe to the podcast feed:
| Donate via Paypal: | Recurring Donation $2/Month: |
Comments (89)
The FJ Forum bites the dust once again. RIP.
Posted by rjdelight on May 8th, 2012“people complain” how did jay get that out without imploding?
ps
Posted by Mummrah on May 9th, 2012get off Nolan’s cock
While I can understand why you guys would dislike various stuff I strongly disagree and thought The Avengers was pretty much the perfect comicbook movie.
Posted by Kasper on May 9th, 2012Stark didn’t meet Banner at the end of Incredible Hulk. Stark talked to General Ross, the guy that was chasing the Hulk. I’m only at the 32 min. mark, maybe you correct yourselves later on…
Posted by PlanBFromOuterSpace on May 9th, 2012Meh. Whatever.
Posted by Greg on May 9th, 2012Even though I will see The Expendables 2, that has to be the ultimate example of pandering.
Posted by Indianamcclain on May 9th, 2012At my theater, we only got a few of the Expendables character posters, which were seemingly picked at random. How many are there, like 10 or something? Anyway, we got Stallone, Willis, Van Damme, and COUTURE. We’re a smaller theater, with 10 screens, and 5-8 spots where we might be able to put Coming Soon posters. I can guarantee you that the Randy Couture poster will never see the light of day in the smaller theaters. Will that guy put any additional asses in the seats that weren’t sold on Expendables 2 already? I wonder how much marketing money gets pissed away on things like the the Cameron Diaz Gangs of New York, Marlon Wayans GI Joe, Michael Fassbender Jonah Hex, John Travolta Punisher, or Peter Saragaard Green Lantern character posters?
Posted by PlanBFromOuterSpace on May 9th, 2012How is Loki’s plan to unleash the Hulk not make sense?
He wanted to fracture the team before they decide to work together. So he allowed himself to be captured, the reason why he kept being so smug even though he was in the cage. He had his minions waiting to attack. He was able to tap into the subconscious of the beast some way to unleash him. His staff had some influence. I mean once the Hulk was unleashed he was gonna tear the Helicarrier apart until he was basically ejected.
You can argue its such a roundabout way but Loki is the God of Mischief. You’re not suppose to always outright know what he’s doing.
That one scene where the camera follows from one hero to another without cutting is called a tracking shot.
Posted by Liam_H on May 9th, 20121. At the end of the hulk, Stark met the general.
2. The cube was actually in Thor. It was in that case in front of the gate where that ‘metallic or iron giant’ was stored in Asgerd…I believe
3. It wasn’t the spear that caused Banner to release ‘of-of-control-Hulk’. It was caused by the explosion from the bow that Hawk Eye fired at the ship. Because it was a sudden release of anger, Banner could not control Hulk
Posted by Fo on May 9th, 2012Totally agree with Jay. Who cares how the Avengers met up–cut out that first 30 minutes and maybe then the film wouldn’t have felt as interminable as it did. Also agree that it’s hard to go back to films with single characters–the dynamic with everyone on screen is lost.
Love Jay’s continued promotion of the 5-star rating. Haters gonna hate.
RIP FJ forum. You were a good 10-minute diversion at work every other week.
Posted by Falsk on May 9th, 20121. Like PlanB said, Stark met the General at the end of the incredible hulk. So he was just meeting Banner in The Avengers for the first time.
2. During that ‘tracking shot’ avengers arguments scene, the camera focuses on the teseract in the foreground, with the avengers in the background, then cuts to the rogue jet. This shows that zombie-Hawkeye’s men were tracking the heli-craft carrier’s location.
3. Right after that scene when zombie-Hawkeye’s fires on the carrier, the sudden force from the explosion caused the Hulk to be uncontrollably unleashed from within Banner. That is why he could not control it. During the final set piece, Banner released the Hulk himself which is why he was in control.
Posted by Fo on May 9th, 2012The movie is really funny and action packed. The plot is so simple.
Posted by Macaco Malandro on May 9th, 2012How can Jay say it is overcomplicated?
Felt back in the eighties watching Indiana Jones or Empire Strikes Back.
I believe the point being made about Loki’s plan is that if the Hulk destroyed the helicarrier, Loki was also putting himself at risk. But I think that’s a good point about him being the god of mischief. It’s well within his character to do something like that.
Posted by Sean on May 9th, 2012That’s probably just a plot point that will never be explained but obviously we can come up with some good reasons for it. Loki is the trickster god and probably thought the Hulk was the best way to break the team up from the inside. He was probably counting on Hawkeye and his other minions to come rescue him. It’s convenient and maybe sloppy but not uncommon in superhero comics.
Posted by Jr on May 9th, 2012Can Jay get any further up Nolan’s ass? By the way, besides the performances The Dark Knight is a very flawed film.
Posted by Marcus on May 9th, 2012“the dark knight is a very flawed film”
(high pitched voice I assume)
yeah.. &#%@#$ off mate -> ||
Posted by kyri on May 9th, 2012I think Jay is more up the Pfisters ass. I mean, major props for shooting a bridge crumbling from far away?
Posted by Henrik on May 9th, 2012I thought Greg liked the shitty Edward Norton Hulk movie..
Don’t get the hate for Thor. Joss Whedon can pander to me any day btw, he’s the man.
Posted by patrik on May 9th, 2012Al Bundy wanted the Avengers tapes because, as in the words of Lord Bundy, “She can kick really high!”
Posted by Steve Kasan on May 9th, 2012Seems like Jay just doesn’t have the same emotional response that I and a lot of people do with Joss Whedon and his writing. Firefly is amazing. Except for Dollhouse (imo) he’s always been able to create great characters and group them together.
Also wrong about Serenity, it totally works without the show. I’ve showed it to many friends who don’t really even like sci-fi and they all got it. The opening 10-15 minutes pretty much shows you what every character is like and also explains the universe.
Posted by patrik on May 9th, 2012I understand that everything is pandering to someone, but my problem with Whedon is that it’s just too obvious/simple. The lame humor, character types, etc… it just seems really immature to me.
Posted by bard on May 9th, 2012For the perfect filmography thing: Tarantino, Danny Boyle, Matthew Vaughn.. Coen brothers was a good shout
Posted by patrik on May 9th, 2012Fanboys crying over the fact that someone didnt jizz all over Avengers. How predictable.
Posted by James on May 9th, 2012“Can Jay get any further up Nolan’s ass?”
Memento, Following, The Prestige, Insomnia, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Inception.
I’m right up that asshole.
Mentioning that he is one of the greats isn’t even praise, its a fact. His rock solid filmography speaks in volumes. His weakest film is Batman Begins and thats still is waaay beyond Avengers. But obviously now that he is very successful he can’t be any good right? What a sellout right? And Dark Knight it MUST be the worst film of all time right?
Posted by James on May 9th, 2012Frank should add Adams Family and Adams Family Values to his watch list for the upcoming Dark Shadows episode. Seems like a good pair since both are remakes of gothic TV series.
Posted by Cringe on May 9th, 2012I’ll add myself to Nolan’s ass as well and Robert Zemeckis ass (pre-Polar Express)
So in short, if you enjoy the films of a certain director you are up his/her ass.
Posted by atrueprodigy31 on May 9th, 2012Jay’s AD/HD take on AVENGERS/FIREFLY/SERENITY make me wanna just say, “Yer an Idiot!”
But then, that’s why we have 33 different flavors. Perhaps with age there will come wisdom.
Posted by Mark Stevens on May 9th, 2012Reposted from Facebook/Twitter:
For me, the worst thing to come out of the superhero franchise explosion is not the films, but the “fanboy” co-opting of otherwise interesting and talented filmmakers who, as a result of dipping their toe into the sacred world of comic book moviemaking, are reduced to pawns (or action figures) used to wage puerile pissing wars on whatever opposing opinions they find in their twitter feed. The need to pit filmmakers against each other based solely on their work within their chosen comic book universe not only devalues the filmmaker (and probably cinema as a whole), but perpetuates the thought that “fanboys” think only in immediate, hyperbolic terms drawn from a limited reserve of hackneyed “sound bite” criticisms that speak to their close minded perspectives and a general disregard for cinema outside of their self-imposed blockbuster bubbles. The “fanboy’s” generally conservative and overly-precious view of their favourite superhero properties does nothing but inhibit the output of creative minds that are likely much greater than their own. The idea of transforming vibrant, inspired filmmakers into journeymen in favour of continuity/conformity is to squander some potentially interesting takes on these characters/stories. There are those filmmakers who are culturally equipped to handle a comic book franchise (Whedon) and then there are those “outsiders” that recognize themes worth exploring within the subject matter, beyond simply maintaining the legacy of the characters (Burton, Lee, Nolan, etc.) There’s room for both (with varying results). The “My Dad (Whedon) can beat up your Dad (Nolan)!” line of “critical thinking” is for the birds. Don’t even get me started on box office pissing contests.
In short, it’s not the superhero movies that are devaluing the careers of great filmmakers…it’s the superhero movie fans.
Posted by Jay C. on May 9th, 2012truer words have not been written in a long time. Now I feel stupid for bringing up batman in my previous post.
Posted by James on May 9th, 2012The gem on Loki’s staff is thought to be one of the infinity gems that Thanos eventually commands. The powers he gets from it fit well with the mind stone where he can control people’s thoughts and moods. Very obscure reference there.
Posted by rdrouyn on May 9th, 2012I have always liked the Marvel movies more than the DC movies. But for me personally the reason is simple: I like the Marvel comics more. I’ve read them for over 25 years and maybe that is the reason I would watch films like Iron Man 2 over the Dark Knight any day. Not the most popular opinion, I’m sure but who cares. You like what you like. I’m sure that some people consider Elektra the best superhero movie ever made. Good for them.
I’m not ashamed to admit that small things like the reveal of the main villain at the end of Avengers are the stuff I look for in comic book films. Galaga reference did nothing for me though
As for Whedon, Firefly is still the best thing he’s ever done. I’m a huge fan of the series, but I never did care that much of his other stuff.
As for Nolan, The Prestige is the best thing he’s ever done. I personally would have preferred that he would have never done any of the Batman films. But luckily that’s soon over with and he can continue with other projects.
Casting ideas for a Jackie Blaze movie?
Posted by Vikke_AJ on May 9th, 2012I completely agree Jay C.
Posted by Indianamcclain on May 9th, 2012Batman Begins and TDK are great films, but they’re not without their flaws. I don’t know how we reached a point where it became offensive to suggest otherwise. Nolan’s a talented guy, but I still have a multitude of problems with his style. It’s not even the shortcomings of his films that bother me – it’s how defensive his legion gets with anyone who doesn’t bow at his altar.
As for the episode, normally Jay comes off as a guy who’s simultaneously a little too satisfied with the sound of his own voice AND also wildly insecure. In this one, he was flat out insufferable – even when he was trying to make points I agreed with.
Posted by Alex on May 9th, 2012Alex is my new favorite Film Junk Fan. I’m sure Jay would have loved the two Avengers action sequences if they were tied together with 6 training montages backed by a sweet Survivor soundtrack.
Posted by Matt Gamble on May 9th, 2012It should be noted Kobe is a pretty big movie fan. He buys out theatres to watch his movies. Also, he’s got a thing for Sour Patch Kids.
True story.
Posted by Matt Gamble on May 9th, 2012Hey, hey now, Matt, Rocky IV is awesome. Why ya’ gotta be hatin’ on sweet training montages and Survivor? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST OR SOMETHING?!
Posted by Kasper on May 9th, 2012Cheel taking it to the fanboys for the win!
Posted by Cringe on May 9th, 2012It’s been pointed out to me that the big climax which consists of waves of aliens attacking from above is basically the premise of Galaga. That either makes the call out better or worse depending on your viewpoint on self awareness.
Posted by Robert Reineke on May 9th, 2012Boom. Whedon is god.
Posted by Sean on May 9th, 2012o. m. g. Whedon is god.
Posted by Kasper on May 9th, 2012Frank: Quentin Tarantino has a director credit on Four Rooms (that counts as a bad movie) and has producer-credit on loads of wet noodles. Not that big on Death Proof either.
Posted by James on May 9th, 2012@James Yes, but his segment was the highlight.
Posted by Nat Almirall on May 9th, 2012#41 His producer credits has nothing to do with his actual filmography as a director – and Death Proof is awesome.
Posted by Kasper on May 9th, 2012Paul Thomas Anderson has a perfect filmography.
Posted by rjdelight on May 9th, 2012#43. just pointing out that QT dosnt have a perfect filmography. And I love the fact that his fans always disregards Four Rooms as a Tarantino flick.
Both Paul Thomas Anderson and Chris Nolan has a flawless filmography so far.
Posted by James on May 10th, 2012“I didn’t like this, or this, ot that, and it was boring in the first half and everything wasn’t that interesting, and I don’t like robert downey jr. And etc. But I’ll give the film 3/4.”
Classic Jay
Posted by Anthony on May 10th, 2012Yeah, Jay Cheel was trying to hard on this podcast. Still, makes a change from the somnambulism he usually affects.
I gave Avengers 3.5/5 btw. Loved the build-up in the movie, was slightly bored by the final battle mayhem.
Posted by DavidM on May 10th, 2012I can’t argue with Jay’s assessment of The Avengers. There were a few things that worked well in the first hour but overall, that first half was very flawed and a bit of a struggle to get through. I enjoyed the second half and felt that the film went out on a strong note.
I’m finding that I’m appreciating isolated sequences and certain character moments a lot more while thinking back on the film than when I actually watched it. Maybe I’ll be more acclimated to the overall experience upon a repeat viewing.
Posted by Nuno on May 10th, 2012Would the “Cheel haters” out there prefer Jay not to be in the podcast, I wonder? I was just visualizing Film Junk without him. It would be Dark Shadows without Barnabus Collins.
I’ve got a mate in his late 30′s, smart as shit, got it together, great worker etc. even suggest to him that TDK is 20 minutes too long, or that Batmans voice is too weird and he turns into a petulant 13 year old. It’s fucking embarrassing. It’s been a bit cringe inducing for me reading half of these comments. I’m up Nolan’s ass…Scorceses too. I appreciate Jays opinion, even if I disagree with it (I usually agree, actually). Haven’t caught the avengers yet but so can’t add to that discussion. But fuck, it,s amazing to see all this sudden blind fanboy devotion clouding reasonable analysis and acceptance of valid opinion.
Posted by James on May 10th, 2012I’m still waking up so my actual point may be lost somewhere…
#45 Just because you state that the opinion of everyone that disagrees with you is the words of crying fanboys and your own opinion is fact, that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
So you dislike Death Proof – so what? I love Death Proof, and if it were so that I also liked the rest of his directorial efforts that would mean that TO ME he has a perfect filmography. And on that note I actually dislike the first Kill Bill and haven’t even seen the second one, so according to your logic I guess it’s a fact that they’re bad movies and if anyone else likes them they’re just predictable fanboys.
Also, I haven’t seen The Room, but if a person likes Tarantinos part in the anthology, then how does the rest of it being bad have anything to do with him or his output? Anthologies are just a bunch of ever so slightly related short films grouped together, so if the other parts are bad then that shouldn’t really affect Tarantino. At least not in my opinion, but it’s a grey zone I guess.
Posted by Kasper on May 10th, 2012@ James: I don’t have an issue with Jay giving a negative review. I really liked the Avengers, but I can see why someone like Jay wouldn’t be getting a massive hard-on for it. But you can’t speak that negatively about a film and then give it 3 out of 4 stars and expect us to take the review seriously. If he had given it something like a 1.5/4, I would have disagreed, but it would have made more sense. But what he did was the equivalent of an english teacher making a shit ton of corrections, markings, and comments about the flaws on your essay and then giving it a B+. It’s like he said what he wanted to about the film, and then maybe thought he was too harsh so gave it 3 stars to make up for it or something.
Posted by Anthony on May 10th, 2012Frank, the ‘White Squall’ plot sounds formulaic but I thought it was really good with a couple of unexpected things in the movie. You should definately check it out.
It’s out on blu this week but via a smaller label so I’ve no idea about the transfer or if the aspect ratio will be right.
Posted by Gerry on May 10th, 2012#49 I don’t think anyone wants Jay not to be on the podcast, I sure as hell don’t. But that doesn’t mean you always have to suck his cock either. I usually agree with Jay for the most part, but not in this case and so I voice my opinion. It seems like no one can criticize/disagree with Jay in your opinion, kinda like a fanboy. Maybe people just really liked the movie and think that Jay is wrong.
I don’t get the hate for “fanboys” really.. I would guess that the Dark Knight is probably most fanboys favorite comic book movie. So why are people using Nolan as a stick to beat everyone with as soon as they like another comic book movie? The Dark Knight is far from perfect btw, lets get that straight. The action is not very interesting for one, and a lot of things doesn’t make sense.
“The “fanboy’s” generally conservative and overly-precious view of their favourite superhero properties does nothing but inhibit the output of creative minds that are likely much greater than their own. The idea of transforming vibrant, inspired filmmakers into journeymen in favour of continuity/conformity is to squander some potentially interesting takes on these characters/stories.”
Again, I would guess that the Dark Knight is most peoples favorite comic book movie so I don’t get this statement that the fans are inhibiting the filmmaker? If that is the most artistic comic book movie, then clearly people responded to it. The studios are the only ones doing any inhibiting, not the fans. All the fans want is an awesome movie.. Sure, fans bicker about characters not looking right and that stuff like with the Joker but they loved the end result didn’t they? Didn’t seem to stifle Nolan one bit.
Posted by patrik on May 10th, 2012#51. Quite a few “James’” out there so not sure if directed at me, but I see your point there. I just didn’t think that Jay disliked it as much as people thought, and therefore the knee jerk reaction from some is unwarranted in my opinion. As I mentioned, I haven’t seen it yet (Saturday is the plan) but I have read and heard a lot that the film has a slightly clunky start, and that the enemy lacks some depth. I’ll either agree or disagree. To my ears, Jay just kind of hammered home why, and hated in particular the “Galaga” scene. I never got the sense that he didn’t enjoy the film and for me a 3 out of 4 demonstrates that he enjoyed it , but felt it had flaws. I will be listening to the episode again though, I usually do.
Posted by James on May 10th, 2012You boys sure love talking about other guy’s butt holes, huh?
Posted by Falsk on May 10th, 2012Patrik:
” It seems like no one can criticize/disagree with Jay in your opinion, kinda like a fanboy”
Really?
“The Dark Knight is far from perfect btw, lets get that straight. The action is not very interesting for one, and a lot of things doesn’t make sense.”
Yes, I agree with portions of that. I might have even said so in some earlier post.
Posted by James on May 10th, 2012#56 Well, the first part was kinda meant to be tongue in cheek, maybe it didn’t come across well.
I kinda skimmed through some of the comments so that’s quite possible. Then we’re in agreement. =)
Imo, The Avengers is a pretty awesome popcorn movie. I thought it flew through the running time. I also thought it made better use of the characters and their powers in the various action scenes then what their respective solo movies did. The Galaga scene is literally a 5 second scene, I really don’t understand how that can bother anyone that much. If you like Galaga, you’ll enjoy the joke and if you don’t, then it’s a five second scene out of a two and a half hour movie.
Posted by patrik on May 10th, 2012I’m glad to see Hook getting some appreciation from Frank. That movie is dismissed too often as one of Spielberg’s duds. I love it. But, then again, I’m also one of the few who enjoyed 1941.
I like that Frank fit in another Nothing But Trouble reference right at the end of the show. Gotta get that in every episode.
Surprised there wasn’t any Celebrity Apprentice talk, especially since it’s close to the end now. Perhaps a special podcast on the finale is in order?
Posted by Aaron on May 10th, 2012Quality show gents. Fanboys of anything are annoying.
Posted by KeithTalent on May 10th, 2012#57
Posted by James on May 10th, 2012All is good, Patrik.
I am a fan of Hook also although it is too long. The scenes showing The Lost Boys helping Peter become Pan again, drag on. Overall though, Frank knows of what he speaks.
Nothing But Trouble, on the other hand, is a horse of a different colour.
Posted by MovieViewerMan on May 10th, 2012Too bad all the Buffy fans didn’t watch Firefly when it aired, or it may have lasted longer. I don’t think the resume of the show’s creator had much to do with it’s viewership. I saw a couple episodes when it aired, but then re-watched the whole series on DVD because I heard about how quality it was. I wasn’t a fan of the Buffy TV show, so I didn’t care who the producer was. But now Firefly is the first thing I think of when I hear his name. He’s still hit or miss for me, so I wouldn’t see something just because his name is attached.
Posted by Steve on May 10th, 2012I wouldn’t say the Hulk had two “failed” movies, like Jay said. Both the 2003 and 2008 films netted about $150 million each. They both got similar critical response, which was generally middle-of-the-road.
It’s more accurate to say that they didn’t meet expectations. I think the 2008 Leterrier film suffered more in that they thought it would do much better than the first, but it only managed to do about the same. It did earn a bit more than Ang Lee’s movie, but the budget was also higher, so it was a wash.
So I’m not surprised, especially after The Avengers, that they’re willing to give it another go.
Also, am I the only one who felt Ruffalo’s Banner was reminiscent of Bill Bixby? Not only his look, but his voice especially reminded me of him.
Posted by Brendan on May 10th, 2012I think the FJ social media scene is better off in the comments sections and the Facebook page. Too bad!
Posted by Jonny Ashley on May 10th, 2012I was glad to hear your criticisms of the Avengers, because it seems most fans and critics have given this movie a pass because it had some fun scenes. I really felt that the movie showcased Joss Whedon’s glaring limitations as a writer. You called it “wit”, but I saw it as a lot of “faux-wit”, and worse still, every character that he writes speaks in the same “voice”. Stark is interchangeable with Zander, Loki with early Spike, Banner is Angel, and the rest are, collectively, Buffy, Willow, and Giles…not realistic characters at all, but rather the types of imaginary friends that Joss wishes he grew up with.
Posted by P. Traum on May 11th, 2012Sean slapped the sass out of my mouth at lunch when I said that I would have given The Avengers a 2 out of 4.
Despite the promise of more beatings if I get out of line, I still maintain my stance that no movie with a running time of longer than two hours can be defended as a ‘popcorn’ movie.
Posted by Wintle on May 14th, 2012@Wintle
Sure it can. You just have 2 large buckets instead of 1.
Posted by MovieViewerMan on May 14th, 2012@Wintle, would you elaborate on your reasoning? I feel as if any time limit on any movie is somewhat arbitrary simply because, with every person having different attention spans, one can’t say that one person’s idea of a long running time is somebody else’s idea of a long running time.
Posted by theocean85 on May 14th, 2012The ratings on filmjunk have become progressively more arbitrary as the years have gone by and by now should really be ignored.
Posted by John Gibson on May 14th, 2012@Anthony – You’re right Jay’s review specified where and when he felt the movie failed but he then awards 3 out of 4 in line with all the other junkies. This has been happening for ages now and as such renders their ratings meaningless.
It usually breaks down like this –
Greg agrees with Jay since he can never argue a point in specific detail beyond bland platitudes. Frank sticks to his predetermined viewpoint no matter what which leads to recent interesting disagreements with he and Jay. Sean comes out in the middle somewhere and only when he has a personal interest in the subject matter does his grade vastly differ from the rest.
I was actually waiting to see if Greg could manage to offer more detail than usual in his opinions on a movie that I assumed would be simplistic enough for his tastes but to no avail. Until Frank started speaking he sounded as if he hadn’t even seen the thing – such is his half-assed laidback incompetent manner when talking about film. If you don’t have an interest in sport or bad puns then there is no reason for him on the show except – in the guys case – as friends hanging out. I have read his TIFF reviews from the last few years and whilst they go into a little more detail than his spoken reviews they also tend to deviate into areas such as what he ate that day and anecdotes about people that offended him and other unfunny bullshit.
I find it incredible that he is able to sit there offering nothing and the others tolerate it. A few times in the recent shows I have sensed Jay and Frank getting pissed at his lack of effort or engagement but stopping short of calling him on his obvious “don’t give a fuck” delivery.
Finally each week the guys state “What we watched” and without fail every week Greg is the only FILM junkie to not have actually watched any FILMS!. This has been going on for months now and its very tedious not clever or cute.
I think we would all agree that the ratings are just a quick reference and we don’t put a ton of effort or scientific thought into them. As far as your analysis of our review habits, I can give you plenty of examples where we deviate from these supposed patterns. But hey, I guess you’ve got us all figured out!
Posted by Sean on May 14th, 2012I look forward to Greg’s TIFF reports every year especially because he gives you the full experience of what it’s like to be there, not just about the film’s themselves. If that means getting reports about the people and the food, I’m all in.
Posted by MovieViewerMan on May 14th, 2012I wonder if Greg saw Roger Ebert eating cheese burgers again. Or if he got a 2nd chance at biting Salma Hayak’s ass.
Posted by Lucas3D on May 15th, 2012Ummm…John Gibson (#69) may not be a fan of Greg. That’s a wild guess.
Posted by Bob on May 15th, 2012Sean – These deviations you offer as mitigation would be in the minority of cases if you peruse the last few dozen casts. I think you’ll find that there is an overwhelming acquiescence with each other in your reviewing habits and this is compounded by the inadequacies of certain members. I am not trolling with these comments since I have been a listener for close to five years and have listened to all 367 casts and associated spin-offs with great interest for the most part. I spend more time indulging in podcasts than any other medium due to the convenience of doing so and you guys did inspire me to start my own a few years ago. The reason I specifically mention Greg in these harsh terms is that I don’t think comments like this unduly bother him and with other positive developments in his life of late he would not mind greatly if he gave Frank the room to truly grow as a contributor. Oh and he effectively bullied Gerry into a neurotic rejection of the little love he was getting on his rare appearances and was generally an asshole to him when he was appearing. Jay knows him – so it was informed criticism on his part whereas Greg clearly did not and did not really want to so it was just destructive. Any thoughts about him not actually watching movies…?
Posted by John Gibson on May 15th, 2012We’ve had discussions about it, and while I’d love for Greg to watch more movies, I’m not his boss and I can’t tell him what to do. As long as he participates in the main review every week, I’m happy.
Greg’s outside interests allow for a different point of view on things and I think most listeners would agree that when he’s not there, something is missing. I find it hard to believe that you’ve stuck with Film Junk for so long when you have these issues with Greg, but to each his own!
Posted by Sean on May 15th, 2012Interesting point about the topic having been brought up. I’ll cut my losses here Sean but I do appreciate your, as always, organised and balanced approach to those who contribute on these issues and more specifically your logistical strengths which allow Film Junk to endure.
Posted by John Gibson on May 15th, 2012Have you seen Triangle? Aussie psycho-time-travel headfuck from 2009. It’s got Liam Hemsworth, brother of Thor, which I suppose means something nowadays. Perfect fodder (Greg’s new favourite word courtesy of Frank:)for a quite week sometime when you like to surprise us.
Any news as to when this week’s ep is going up? I have a mountain of paperwork and need FJ content to make it bearable!
Posted by sansho1 on May 15th, 2012John: I know we talked a bit about Triangle somewhere back in the archives, but not as a group review. I enjoyed it.
Sansho: New episode will be up later tonight, probably about 3 or 4 hours from now.
Posted by Sean on May 15th, 2012Sweet!
Posted by sansho1 on May 15th, 2012Wow, what a fucking lashback. I hope you dudes know that some of us aren’t massive assholes with sticks up our asses. You guys do a great show.
As for the criticism of the – uh, casual nature? of the show, that’s one of the things that raises it above other podcasts. I can’t even listen to a lot of the other popular ones because they take themselves so seriously. FJ is great precisely because there’s no attempt to sound like official radio or to whip anyone into stuff – it’s just a bunch of friends hanging out and talking about movies, some with more depth than others. It’s awesome and I hope you guys keep it up, even if the comments section seems a graveyard of rationale.
Posted by csidle on May 16th, 2012csidle – thanks for the fairminded retort. Just checked and I never actually mentioned anything about a casual nature of the show or hating the show or anything like that. The point of the whole thing was Greg. I like casual. I just don’t like Greg’s participation. It appears that you took this to heart since no-one else has commented apart from Sean. I’ll assume you’re a Greg fan and so that explains your “casual” browsing of my original post. Obviously I had to mention the other participants to illustrate how Greg was failing them and the show. Read Sean’s post and you’ll see there is an element of validity to that claim. Anyone who has listened to the development of the show and the guys can see that, like all artistic endeavours, they peaked years ago and the original trio will know that but that’s friendship. Hope this isn’t too long for you but I realise I have to keep this short since you couldn’t handle absorbing the actual content of my original posts. Saying something negative and being critical about a very specific and quite negligible aspect of this show is a clear indication of my affection. I care man, I really do.
Posted by John Gibson on May 16th, 2012I find it amusing that some people have issue with Jay’s rating not matching his mostly negative comments about a film. I get accused of this all the time! In my case, whenever a film is highly praised, I like to lend some perspective and balance by pointing out the negative aspects even though I might enjoy a film overall. I also don’t like to repeat accolades that I know the other guys say or will say.
@John Gibson: I just wanted to say that I have no hard feelings against Greg’s jibes towards me; even though, as you pointed out, Greg doesn’t really know me, I always thought Greg’s “insults” were said for comedic effect. I appreciate people feeling pity for me, but my feelings were never hurt by Greg. The reasons for my limited appearances on Film Junk have nothing to do with Greg.
Posted by Reed Farrington on May 16th, 2012Hey Reed. I guess not being in the room makes it hard for listeners to determine intent but Greg is not subtle enough to be joking when he said those things so many times. If you ever want to make another appearance I for one will be interested to hear what you haven’t been up to in the interim.
Posted by John Gibson on May 17th, 2012I’m bunned that I just saw all of this now..
1) I have nothing against Gerry. It’s a show. Gerry is a nice guy unless he’s playing board games apparently.
2) I am not a film reviewer and have never claimed to be. When I write unfunny bullshit for the site you do not have to read it.
3) I’m just a guy that likes going to the theatre to watch a movie and talk about it with my friends. I do not like to sit in front of my TV or computer and watch movies. I don’t get the same enjoyment out of it that I do when watching it on the big screen.
4) If I tried to compete with Jay, Frank or Sean in how they critique films, I think we can all agree that it would sound pretty fake and disingenuine.
5) I would agree that the other three do get annoyed that I don’t watch as many films as them and I’m sure they’ve talked about it a few times and when the time comes that they want to part ways with me, I’ll shake their hands and wish them well in their future endeavours. Who knows, John Gibson, maybe it’ll happen this week.
6) I’ve never been called negligible before. I have been called much worse though.
7) Thanks for listening to all 367 shows with such disdain for my ‘contributions’. I’ll have some good stuff for you next week.
Posted by Greg on May 19th, 2012I think Greg should stay on the show!
Posted by Henrik on May 19th, 2012John, it is possible to voice your opinion about the show without sounding like a total prick.
Who cares if Greg doesn’t have a huge list of stuff he watched in a given week? These are grown men with full-time jobs, relationships, kids (in one case), interests outside of film, and yet somehow they still manage to catch at least one new release each week and discuss it on a ~2 hour show. And they’ve done it for years. I’d say that’s pretty remarkable. Besides, the show is already so damn long, it’s probably a good thing.
As for Greg’s review style, fine, you don’t like it. Fair enough. He’s a casual reviewer. He admittedly doesn’t have much interest in delving too deeply. But for me, that perspective is unique to the show, and it’s nice to have at times. And I don’t think it’s always the case. For instance, I find his reviews of the 30-for-30 docs interesting.
I also disagree about Greg’s personality and humor. I find it meshes well with the rest of the crew. It’s just a lot of fun to listen to the four of them chat about movies and whatever they feel like for 2 hours a week. I don’t think they’ve peaked – with the inclusion of Frank, I think the show is as good as it’s ever been.
So anyway, I guess my takeaway is this: continue to voice your opinions, but perhaps work towards not being a smug asshat in the process. And show Greg some respect – he’s been a major part of a show that has supposedly entertained you free of charge for years.
Also, Greg, I’m the guy who said hello a couple TIFFs ago before a screening of My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? Your hearty laughter throughout the film was the most entertaining thing about it.
Posted by Chris M on May 19th, 2012Ahh yes…My Son, My Son. A LOT of people walked out in that screening. I never understood how film festival goers have the easiest time of walking out on films. I’ve walked out on movies before too, but there’s always a record number of people jetting at TIFF.
Posted by Greg on May 21st, 2012@Greg: I’m bunned that I just saw all of this now..
lol – still can’t keep food out of it can you!
Posted by John Gibson on May 22nd, 2012Granted I haven’t read all of the above comments so my opinions may have already been posted. This just was a boring sounding podcast. Everyone was tired sounding and so unenthusiastic about the main topics that I stopped listening 40 minutes in. I don’t mind if you guys didn’t like the Avengers, but what was bad is most of your nit picks about the movie were just factually wrong. I’ll probably purchase some of the premier podcasts from this site just because I like to support sites like yours, but this particular show is not a good selling point for the rest of the series…
Posted by Dken1 on February 20th, 2013Leave a Reply