Talk:Robot in the Family

Red Letter Media
I've removed the review of Red Letter Media. They are self-published YouTube group that has reviews that start with skits and while they do comment on the merit and non-merits of the flick, they are not established critics and are just self-publishing web content. I do not think they should be included here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I like RedLetterMedia as much as the next guy, but their opinions are indeed simply internet criticism. If anything about their video must be said, some article do simply state, "this film was covered in an episode of Best of the Worst by RedLetterMedia", or something along those lines. I do not believe that is necessary to include in this article. The mention of RLM likely stems from the fact their video on Robot in the Family is recent, piquing interest in the movie. --128.54.192.139 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 04:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But even thats kind of trivial as it has no context. Like they reviewed it, so what? Several blogs/youtubers/critics do reviews of films all the time. We don't really include that one user or another commented on an item just as much as we don't really include that a film was on an episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 unless there is some context to it (reviews of the specific episode, the episode's released caused some release deal with the film, etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the notion that they are not established critics. Their Plinkett reviews have themselves received reviews and analyses, and their "Best of the Worst" show has been noted by multiple, independent reliable sources. Additionally, when it comes to lesser-known films like Robot in the Family, which are notable enough to warrant articles per book sources but have few reviews, RedLetterMedia is sometimes one of the only sources of genuine commentary. However, if the consensus is to toss them, let's toss them. — Matthew  - (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are they noted? The Plinkett reviews are part sketch comedy again. Just because we can't find notable reviewers, does not mean we start breaking rules on sourcing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some articles (and a book) in which the "Best of the Worst" series is referenced or discussed:
 * Ashworth, Boone. "Authority Figures: Movie Talk and the Rise of Review Culture." Wired, 1 Oct. 2019.
 * Brittany, Michelle. Horror in Space: Critical Essays on a Film Subgenre, p. 209, 214. McFarland & Company, 2017.
 * Cusumano, Katherine. "Could Julia Roberts Really Be Inside This Bear Suit?" W, 30 Nov. 2018.
 * Hough, Q.V. "What Macaulay Culkin Has Done Since Home Alone." Screen Rant, 11 Aug. 2019.
 * Lussier, Germain. "Star Wars Bits: Maker Studios to Do 'Star Wars' YouTube Videos; Plus Warwick Davis & Millennium Falcon." /Film, 31 Dec. 2014.
 * Nadler, Lonnie. "Yes, There Is a Canadian Movie So Bad It Rivals 'The Room'." Vice, 31 Jan. 2020.
 * Much of the above coverage is rather trivial, but we're not talking about the notability of a stand-alone article here. In fact, if someone were to create a stand-alone article for the "Best of the Worst" series, I would be against that. However, I think the above sources demonstrate that the series is an established source for reviews (I find the Wired article to be of particular note), especially in comparison to average YouTube movie review channels, which often receive no independent coverage whatsoever.
 * I'm not saying that the "Best of the Worst" series should be considered a reliable source for information beyond the hosts' reviews. I just think that they may be suitable for inclusion in Critical reception sections of articles for films like Robot in the Family, as long as their assessments are given due weight. Additionally, I'm not sure why their use of skits or sketch comedy in their videos is relevant here. — Matthew  - (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My main issue is that their reviews are played for laughs, its the same reason we don't include The Angry Video Game Nerd's review of his game Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde video game in that articles review as their per talk page discussion. The other articles mentioned definitly had these guy unearthing some obscure genre films, but their reviews still self-published reviews which are played for laughs and are not serious critiques. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that lots of established reviewers and critics play their reviews for laughs, or at least try to criticize the films they discuss in a way that entertains the reader or viewer. Roger Ebert is a great example of this.  The Angry Video Game Nerd's reviews do often overplay negative elements for laughs, and probably shouldn't be taken as legitimate criticism, but the reason Red Letter Media's opinion is mentioned in articles like those linked above is that they give their honest opinions and back them up with analysis.  On "Best of the Worst"--which is supposed to be a show about the worst movies imaginable--they'll state outright that they loved a movie if that's the case, and they'll fess up to whether they loved it genuinely or ironically too.  After just a few days the video involving Robot in the Family has racked up over 700,000 views.  That's a wider audience than newspaper critics have, and their articles would presumably be perfectly allowable as sources on Wikipedia simply by virtue of being published in print media.  Trouble is, as has been noted elsewhere in this discussion, nobody else talks about these movies despite them being notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article. 73.175.184.175 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with 73.175.184.175 for the most part. Ebert is indeed a good example, as he often used comedy in his reviews, from calling The Brown Bunny less entertaining than a colonoscopy to writing that Battlefield Earth is "like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time". The real stumbling block here, I feel, is editorial oversight, which I don't think RedLetterMedia has. It makes me wonder, as film criticism and the internet continue to evolve, how Wikipedia might adapt to such a changing landscape. — Matthew  - (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting critics write reviews that are humorous, but again Red Letter Media are self-published reviewers which makes them fail WP:SPS. We have done this with several other reviewers such as Piero Scaruffi which was discussed (here [|here]). What I meant for humor in their reviews was that their reviews begin with sketches (like Angry Video Game Nerd) and are self-published (again see WP:SPS). As for Ebert writing reviews with humor, he does delve into humorous writings, but these are published reviews and Ebert does not create fictional personas etc. to talk about films or whatever. I'd suggest putting this up for review as they had done with Piero Scaruffi for music reviews, but I don't think this will hold a lot of weight. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * After some thought, and given the precedents set forth for personalities like Piero Scaruffi and the Angry Video Game Nerd, I will concede that RedLetterMedia should probably not be used as a source for film reviews. The main thing that I find problematic is their lack of editorial oversight. Violation of WP:SPS is also a factor, though a case could probably be made that RLM (or at least Stoklasa) can be classified as an "established expert on the subject matter". I doubt such a case would hold much water though. — Matthew  - (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just move it to a section on "in popular culture", then it's not a source of a review, but pointing out its use by an entertainment outlet. 24.235.74.199 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with 24.235, from my experience this is how Mystery Science Theater 3000 has been mentioned as well.LM2000 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

redlettermedia is more noteworthy than the movie is you cucks lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6E16:876D:4D6B:B925:DABC:B059 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Based 107.184.172.37 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Based 152.117.43.167 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)