Editors note (L): We had been talking about scrapping the actual writing of this blog and simply video recording our post-movie debrief —which occurs on our ride home. But I’ve been balking since I have enough video editing projects in my life. And I like writing the blog, even though it means, ultimately, that less of the movies we see will get reviewed. On this trip, we had help from GB who suggested that we audio record our rant. I took it a step further, wondering what if we put our 4 minute rant into Google Notebook LM (Language Model aka AI). It turned around a 9 minute podcast with hosts Jean and Raj in about 2 minutes…maybe less! Weirdly, or maybe not so weirdly or maybe just scarily, it understood the context of these comments without any explanation from us. It understood it was a car ride rant right after a movie and went off from there. D did a great job editing this down for time and readability. So enjoy our first ever L&D Report AI generated guest blog entry. Guest contributors always get an L&D Report t-shirt. What size do you think Jean and Raj wear?
Editors note (D): …. starring Rami Malek, Laurence Fishburne, and probably some other people.
Jean: OK, so let’s talk about this idea. Like, how many times can a movie ask you to just ignore logic before you just throw your hands up and say, nope, I’m out?
Raj: Yeah, that’s a great question. And it seems like that’s exactly what happened with the listeners we’re focusing on today.
Jean: Right. We’ve got this really interesting source. It’s basically an informal audio recording. Some folks talking right after seeing a movie called Revenge of the Nerd (L&D had just screened The Amateur)
Raj: And just to be clear, not the 1984 comedy. This is apparently a very different film.
Jean: Oh, definitely. And our whole mission here is to kind of unpack their reactions, figure out why this specific movie just, well, failed to connect with them so badly.
Raj: It’s fascinating because it’s so raw, you know?
Jean: Yeah.
Raj: You’re getting their immediate thoughts unfiltered. It’s a really unique window into that audience experience.
Jean: Absolutely. And one of the first things that jumped out at me from their chat was this idea of a suspension of disbelief budget.
Raj: A budget, huh? Okay.
Jean: Yeah. You only grant a film so many moments where you have to consciously decide to ignore something unbelievable. And for them, with this movie, they felt that budget was just blown completely.
Raj: That makes a lot of sense. We all go into a movie willing to accept certain things, right? Fictional worlds have rules, but there’s a limit.
Jean: Exactly.
Raj: Too many breaks in that believability, too many wait, what, moments, and you just get fatigued. It pulls you right out.
Jean: Yeah, you stop being immersed. They even brought up what they called the Indiana Jones exception.
Raj: Oh, yeah.
Jean: The idea that some movies just seem to get a pass, you know? They can get away with way more unbelievable stuff. Why do you think that is?
Raj: Well, I think with something like Indiana Jones, the film signals its reality level right from the start. It’s heightened. It’s adventure with a capital A.
Jean: OK, so there’s an understanding up front.
Raj: Exactly. An unspoken agreement. Maybe Revenge of the Nerd, this one, either didn’t set its rules clearly or maybe it violated the internal logic it did try to set up. So the unbelievable moments felt jarring, not fun.
Jean: That tracks. Now, another big thing for them was predictability. They felt the plot was just completely obvious. Someone said, you already knew it was going to happen just from the revenge angle.
Raj: Hmm. Predictability. That can definitely be a drag on the experience, can’t it?
Jean: You think so. How much does that lack of surprise really matter?
Raj: Well, a lot of the fun of watching a movie is discovery, right? Finding out what happens next, if you feel like you’re always five steps ahead.
Jean: Yeah, it takes the wind out of its sails.
Raj: Right. You lose those potential aha moments they mentioned wanting. You become more of an observer than like an active participant in the story. It’s a real challenge, especially in genre films, to use familiar ideas but still make them feel fresh.
Jean: Keep you guessing somehow.
Raj: Exactly. You need that balance.
Jean: And speaking of not being invested, they really hammered the pacing, especially Act One. Act One took so long, someone said. Oof.
Raj: A slow start is tough. Yeah.
Jean: They even joked about getting confused, thinking maybe they were watching The Accountant instead at first. Which, I mean, that tells you how little it grabbed them early on.
Raj: Yeah, that first act is so crucial. It’s where the film’s supposed to, you know, set the tone, introduce who matters, what the stakes are, basically give you a reason to care.
Jean: To stick around.
Raj: Precisely. If it drags, you start checking your watch, you get restless, you lose that initial buy-in, even if things pick up later. It needs to build momentum, make a promise that the journey’s worth it.
Jean: And it sounds like, for these viewers, that promise felt pretty empty. They actually pointed to a specific moment where they felt it all just went downhill.
Raj: Oh, really? What was that?
Jean: It was when the main character, after blackmailing someone, apparently just decides, OK, now I’m going to go kill them myself.
Raj: Oh, OK. That’s a shift.
Jean: Yeah, their reaction was basically, that’s totally unbelievable. It’s amazing how one plot point can just shatter everything for a viewer.
Raj: It really speaks to character motivation, doesn’t it? And, like, logical progression. Even in a wild story, you expect characters to act in ways that make some kind of sense for them.
Jean: Right, based on who they are, what’s happening.
Raj: Yeah. And that sudden jump from blackmail to personal execution, it sounds like it felt completely unearned or illogical to them. And boom, there goes that fragile connection to the story’s reality.
Jean: Snapped just like that. They also seem to go in expecting something… Different, like maybe more of an action movie.
Raj: Ah, genre expectations.
Jean: Yeah, they felt this wasn’t really it. And the comparison they used was pretty brutal. A poor man’s Enemy of the State.
Raj: Ouch. OK, that’s telling. Enemy of the State suggests they were geared up for a certain kind of thriller, you know, tech, conspiracy, maybe some slick action.
Jean: Right.
Raj: And calling this a poor man’s version implies it just didn’t deliver on that level. Quality, pacing, maybe the thrills just weren’t there compared to what they expected. It really shows how important it is for a film’s marketing or even just its basic premise to line up with the actual movie.
Jean: Manage expectations, basically.
Raj: At least meet the expectations you set up.
Jean: Then there was, well, the ghost of the wife show, as they put it.
Raj: The what now?
Jean: Yeah. Apparently, a subplot involving the protagonist’s dead wife appearing. Their reaction was just universally negative. Pointless. Nobody bought it.
Raj: Oh dear. That sounds like a subplot that did not land.
Jean: Not even close, it seems. What happens when something like that, intended maybe for emotion, just falls flat?
Raj: It could be really detrimental. If a subplot feels forced or unbelievable or just unnecessary, it distracts from the main plot. Instead of adding depth, it just muddies the water.
Jean: Makes it feel cluttered.
Raj: Exactly. Or worse, unintentionally funny or just awkward. Sounds like this ghost wave thing felt like a total misstep that pulled them further out of the story.
Jean: Despite tearing it down pretty hard, they actually had ideas for how it could have been better.
Raj: Oh, like what?
Jean: Well, shorter runtime for one, maybe even cut most of Act One, a simpler plot, fewer bad guys maybe, and a more believable escape for the villains.
Raj: Okay, streamlining it.
Jean: Yeah, they specifically called out a very public kidnapping scene as being so unbelievable it sounds like they just wanted something tighter, more focused.
Raj: That makes sense. Taken together, their suggestions point towards wanting a story that was just more plausible within its own context. Faster pace, clearer conflict, and events that didn’t constantly strain credulity. That kidnapping scene sounds like a real breaking point for them.
Jean: A bridge too far. And maybe the biggest issue, which came up near the end of their chat, was the protagonist himself.
Raj: What about him?
Jean: They just couldn’t connect. Someone said flat out, you have to sympathize or empathize with the protagonist. And here, there was nothing really redeeming about him at all.
Raj: Wow. That’s tough for a film to overcome.
Jean: Isn’t it? How crucial is that connection, really? Do you have to like the main character?
Raj: I mean, not always.
Jean: Yeah.
Raj: But you need something to hold on to. Empathy, understanding, fascination, even. If you find the central character completely off-putting or unrelatable…
Jean: Why should you care what happens?
Raj: Exactly. It creates this huge emotional distance. It’s hard to get invested in the journey if you have no connection to the person taking it. I bet a lot of you listening have felt that, where you just can’t find anything to latch on to with the main character.
Jean: And it wasn’t just him. They pointed out they knew almost nothing about the wife he was supposedly avenging.
Raj: The ghost wife.
Jean: Well, the wife before she was a ghost, presumably. The only detail they could recall was that she goes to conferences for work.
Raj: Goes to conferences. That’s it.
Jean: Apparently, it just highlights how underdeveloped things felt. If even the core motivation, the wife’s significance, feels vague or underdeveloped.
Raj: It makes the stakes feel really low, doesn’t it? Why is he going through all this? If her character is just a cipher defined by professional conference attendance?
Jean: Yeah, it feels almost absurd.
Raj: It makes it hard to buy into the emotional core of the story. Those little details, or lack thereof, they add up.
Jean: So summing it all up, their final take was pretty scathing. Worst movie since Mother, one person said. Another thought it was definitely one of the worst of all time.
Raj: Pretty definitive judgments there.
Jean: Yeah. It really brings us back to where we started, doesn’t it? The whole deep dive was about why it failed, and it seems it was a failure on multiple levels for these viewers. Believability, pacing, plot logic, character connection.
Raj: And connecting this back for everyone listening, thinking about valuable insights, this conversation really highlights how vital that narrative contract is.
Jean: The unspoken agreement.
Raj: Exactly. Audiences need consistency. They need believable motivations, even in fiction. You push that too far, ask for too many leaps, make characters act nonsensically, you risk losing people completely, like these viewers were.
Raj: It’s a fragile thing, that suspension of disbelief.
Jean: Very fragile.
Raj: So maybe a final thought for you to chew on. What’s the movie that tested your limits the most? Was there one specific moment, one plot point, one character choice that just made you mentally check out and say, nope, not buying it?
Raj: And thinking about that, what does it tell us about that unspoken relationship, that delicate dance between the storyteller and the audience?
L&D Report 