The RedLetterMedia thread

[QDRPHNC]

Yeah, this was a good one - I'm still not enamoured with Culkin, but he's a lot more bearable than he used to be. And I was glad to see Tim Higgins show up. Especially for coining "Fuckbutt Point".

[New folder]

Hmm, I feel quite different actually. To be honest, I think RLM is going to shit. The new episode might be funny, yes -- they are funny people after all, but I feel they have become more like a Podcast Friendship Simulator than a film studio, which they apparently are. I really don't like that.

It's something I saw happen to many channels on Youtube. When the viewer clearly begins to see the creator as a substitute for friendship -- expecting identical, reliable videos of people just talking. Forever. And I feel like this is where dreams go to die. They become revered and enabled by your average lonely redditor and obsessive fan. Until comedy videos feel like another day at the office. The Culkin is just there to make a chore more bearable, isn't he?

I've been watching them for ages, and they just feel... tired now. Mike pushing Rich Evans more and more into the foreground is another symptom of this. He is the funniest character we've ever had after all.

I do think that they have much more potential, which they're squandering away. They can do better than just be another bunch of movie-review-lads on Youtube, because they used to be more than that. MAKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND INTERESTING FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP TALKING ABOUT STAR WARSTREK SEQUELS YOU APPARENTLY HATE ENDLESSLY.

[DrGreggles]

Needs more Canadians.

Well, it needs the usual Canadians more often.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Hmm, I feel quite different actually. To be honest, I think RLM is going to shit. The new episode might be funny, yes -- they are funny people after all, but I feel they have become more like a Podcast Friendship Simulator than a film studio, which they apparently are. I really don't like that.

It's something I saw happen to many channels on Youtube. When the viewer clearly begins to see the creator as a substitute for friendship -- expecting identical, reliable videos of people just talking. Forever. And I feel like this is where dreams go to die. They become revered and enabled by your average lonely redditor and obsessive fan. Until comedy videos feel like another day at the office. The Culkin is just there to make a chore more bearable, isn't he?

I've been watching them for ages, and they just feel... tired now. Mike pushing Rich Evans more and more into the foreground is another symptom of this. He is the funniest character we've ever had after all.

I do think that they have much more potential, which they're squandering away. They can do better than just be another bunch of movie-review-lads on Youtube, because they used to be more than that. MAKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND INTERESTING FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP TALKING ABOUT STAR WARSTREK SEQUELS YOU APPARENTLY HATE ENDLESSLY.

I'm of the exact opposite opinion. I much prefer the "Podcast Friendship Simulator" aspect of the channel to their more deliberate attempts to be funny or ambitious. Maybe that's why I don't like the Caulk episodes as much, because it feels like he is on there because it's a big YouTube channel rather than because they are organically friends.

Give me more DVD commentary tracks where it is unscripted Jay, Mike, and Rich just talking about a movie for two hours. Mike, for example, is very naturally funny but his most production intensive content (the Plinkett Star Reviews) I find very unfunny.

[Fambo Number Mive]

Watching the latest episode caused me to then check out a similar sort of channel: Good Bad or Bad Bad
A bit more celebratory of shit films, but more in depth than BOTW.
Pretty entertaining stuff.

Thanks for the recommendation, I watched a few Good Bad or Bad Bad videos today and really enjoyed them.

[QDRPHNC]

I'm of the exact opposite opinion. I much prefer the "Podcast Friendship Simulator" aspect of the channel to their more deliberate attempts to be funny or ambitious. Maybe that's why I don't like the Caulk episodes as much, because it feels like he is on there because it's a big YouTube channel rather than because they are organically friends.

Give me more DVD commentary tracks where it is unscripted Jay, Mike, and Rich just talking about a movie for two hours. Mike, for example, is very naturally funny but his most production intensive content (the Plinkett Star Reviews) I find very unfunny.

Yeah, I don't really get the criticism either. RLM are what they are. Some of their content is better, some of it worse, but I've never watched them for their ambition.

[marquis_de_sad]

In the last Black Spine episode, I swear the Christian abstinence video was made by the people who made the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. The art style was the same, and the pushy wingman guy sounded like he was voiced by the same actor who did Michelangelo, California accent and all.

[idunnosomename]

In the last Black Spine episode, I swear the Christian abstinence video was made by the people who made the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. The art style was the same, and the pushy wingman guy sounded like he was voiced by the same actor who did Michelangelo, California accent and all.

I thought it was weirdly familiar too

it was at least made as a Spanish version at the same time, and was animated by Bon Art:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/si-me-quieres-demuestralo/oclc/30568181

as far as i can tell they were a South Korean inbetweeners really, that american studios outsourced to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Cartoons
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/BonArt

I suspect a Catholic group commissioned it and the art style just ripped off stuff the studio did for the US. like Tom and Jerry Kids bullshit. it's 1992

TMNT's first season was animated by Toei and its actually pretty good for the time when kids cartoons were falling off into total shit. it's limited animation yes but pretty good stuff and why the toys did so well: it was different. the VAs did loads of stuff (Cam Clarke in Akira, all the way down to video game and CD-ROM shit) so probably

[New folder]

I'm of the exact opposite opinion. I much prefer the "Podcast Friendship Simulator" aspect of the channel to their more deliberate attempts to be funny or ambitious. Maybe that's why I don't like the Caulk episodes as much, because it feels like he is on there because it's a big YouTube channel rather than because they are organically friends.

Give me more DVD commentary tracks where it is unscripted Jay, Mike, and Rich just talking about a movie for two hours. Mike, for example, is very naturally funny but his most production intensive content (the Plinkett Star Reviews) I find very unfunny.

It's fair enough to like the Friendship Simulator stuff. But I stuck around because of their older more cinematic stuff, and Mike's various projects, however I think I'm in the minority of the viewership these days. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy their casual production too, in measure. Not when it becomes the only type of content. But oh well.

The hypocrisy of Nerd Crew wears thin on me as well. As some of their videos unironically begin to resemble it more and more, it becomes a bit rich of them to parody this culture. They make a video for almost every Disney release, if there's some nerd franchise involved. As if it's an obligatory thing to do. Mike always professed to despise the assembly line corporate productions and kept going on about his disillusionment with the movie industry itself. A 70 minute special for Star Wars: Age of Despair 7 certainly does not echo that sentiment at all. I feel like he should put his fucking money where his mouth is, and stop making these videos.

But anyway, I don't even dislike the guys at all, but the consistent hypocrisy and lack of principle are becoming increasingly disappointing.

[idunnosomename]

the nerd crew doesn't parody nerds making over-analytical youtube videos in general, it spoofs the particular sort of corporate shills like collider who get excited about everything they're told to for money.

and yes it is a way to have their cake and eat it by making videos about popular stuff when there's nothing to say

to a degree they make the content their viewerbase wants because they need to keep making some sort of income and not just pissing them off. and the parasocial relationships can only go so far: they aren't pretending to be your friend and ask you to comment and like and ring that bell like most youtubers. it's more like MST3K.

[marquis_de_sad]

I think New folder has a point about what material they choose to critique. They constantly complain about how boring Hollywood is, but they never fail to review the big Hollywood blockbusters. They could do with some rebalancing.

[Blumf]

I think New folder has a point about what material they choose to critique. They constantly complain about how boring Hollywood is, but they never fail to review the big Hollywood blockbusters. They could do with some rebalancing.

They do review smaller films (e.g Green Room), maybe not full on art house stuff, but films they genuinely find interesting. They also often do round ups of films they haven't reviewed in the main videos, which include smaller stuff too.

[idunnosomename]

well they started up that "X and X Talk About" to try and highlight interesting shows/movies that people might not know about, but haven't done that many. Half in the Bag is just sorta phoning it in these days, they're doing stuff they feel they obliged to do (but notice they don't stoop to doing stuff like Cats, even though people want them to). it's probably the least interesting strand they do now because they don't even try to frame it with funny bits anymore.

[New folder]

the nerd crew doesn't parody nerds making over-analytical youtube videos in general, it spoofs the particular sort of corporate shills like collider who get excited about everything they're told to for money.

and yes it is a way to have their cake and eat it by making videos about popular stuff when there's nothing to say

to a degree they make the content their viewerbase wants because they need to keep making some sort of income and not just pissing them off. and the parasocial relationships can only go so far: they aren't pretending to be your friend and ask you to comment and like and ring that bell like most youtubers. it's more like MST3K.

Collider shills are just a symptom of the same cancerous corporate nerd culture which Mike&co. also encourage. For example: They do their episodic reviews of Picard -- this  animates the nerd to watch along. It does not really matter how much they criticise or bitch about it in the end, they've still enabled the consumption of the product and therefore the culture itself thrives. The fact that you believe yourself they're doing it for income proves my point. Mr. Collider's got to eat as well, how does this not justify their shilling? With time the distinction between them will become just a superficiality while the end result is all the same. Just sneering at the other side does not make much difference.

However, I do not believe they're making videos with an intent to pander to their viewership or for the monetary gain. They never did. It's something that earned them mine and many other people's initial respect and I'm sure they know it. They used to have a website where they put their content on, outside of influences of broader internet and the mainstream. Just things they wanted people to see. Not what people wanted. They couldn't give a shit what people wanted. Then they moved to Youtube. And unfortunately, today's Youtube is like a fucking disease for the imaginative mind.

Their true problems lie in complacency, laziness and, foremost, being trapped in the monotony of week-to-week production cycle, that's what I reckon. Encouraged by machinations of Youtube, all these things can easily nurture a creative void.

[New folder]

They do review smaller films (e.g Green Room), maybe not full on art house stuff, but films they genuinely find interesting. They also often do round ups of films they haven't reviewed in the main videos, which include smaller stuff too.

These are good, but it's still only movie reviews. There was a time when they made their own films -- short and feature length. Sure, they were mostly shite, but they are still more memorable than just, people sitting and talking. Ideally, for me, they would talk about interesting non-corporate films, while making their own, interspersed with some comedy stuff. Feels like they gave up on that. Space Cop was shit, yes, but at least they tried!

[AliasTheCat]

New Folder probably has a point about the friendship simulator. I live alone and don't have a television: I genuinely look forward to their uploads as - Nerd Crew aside- I'm usually guaranteed to be entertained by these people I've been watching for years. This is the exact same reason that I check in on this site daily.
I never watched any of their features, but didn't Space Cop take years to come together? Given that most of their funding is coming from Patreon and advertising, who's to say that they're not currently working on funding a follow-up by putting out "more of the same" to continue receiving the funds they need from their backers on Patreon?

[Famous Mortimer]

Collider shills are just a symptom of the same cancerous corporate nerd culture which Mike&co. also encourage. For example: They do their episodic reviews of Picard -- this  animates the nerd to watch along. It does not really matter how much they criticise or bitch about it in the end, they've still enabled the consumption of the product and therefore the culture itself thrives. The fact that you believe yourself they're doing it for income proves my point. Mr. Collider's got to eat as well, how does this not justify their shilling? With time the distinction between them will become just a superficiality while the end result is all the same. Just sneering at the other side does not make much difference.

This is a very strange argument. Do you really think corporate PR and satire of corporate PR are exactly the same? Also, which "they" are you referring to when you say "they do their episodic reviews..." because RLM doesn't do that, unless you have access to some special feed I don't?

I see quite a large difference between paid, approved shilling for a product, and a genuine critical analysis of that product. Yes, they're both about the same thing, but to call them the same seems utterly meaningless. You also seem more upset at RLM talking honestly about movies than you do Collider simply being an advert for them. I honestly don't understand where you're coming from.

[Blumf]

There was a time when they made their own films -- short and feature length. Sure, they were mostly shite, but they are still more memorable than just, people sitting and talking. Ideally, for me, they would talk about interesting non-corporate films, while making their own, interspersed with some comedy stuff. Feels like they gave up on that. Space Cop was shit, yes, but at least they tried!

Yeah, I'd like more of that. I suspect Space Cop burnt them out.

Recently there was that thing Macaulay Culkin did with them, which was okay.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I think New folder has a point about what material they choose to critique. They constantly complain about how boring Hollywood is, but they never fail to review the big Hollywood blockbusters. They could do with some rebalancing.

I'm not sure about this assertion. I think they've reviewed every Star Wars movie and for a while they were doing every major Marvel movie, and those probably end up being their most viewed Half-in-the-Bags overall, but aside from those franchises their movie selection is already quite balanced.

I hate movie reviews in general and rarely agree with their precise arguments, but I appreciate RLM for taking an approach that seems genuinely independent in a way that is different from any other professional movie reviewers that I can think of. They tend to only talk about blockbusters when they have something interesting to say (or at least think they do) and the rest of the time it's just movies that Mike and/or Jay are personally invested in for one reason or another. I've discovered multiple new releases that I otherwise never would have watched because they committed to make a 50 minute video about something nobody else was talking about. Under the Silver Lake being an excellent recent example.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Watching the latest episode caused me to then check out a similar sort of channel: Good Bad or Bad Bad
A bit more celebratory of shit films, but more in depth than BOTW.
Pretty entertaining stuff.

Only watched one of these, but the Dancin': It's On episode is great. I would even try being a lesbian!

[New folder]

I see quite a large difference between paid, approved shilling for a product, and a genuine critical analysis of that product. Yes, they're both about the same thing, but to call them the same seems utterly meaningless. You also seem more upset at RLM talking honestly about movies than you do Collider simply being an advert for them. I honestly don't understand where you're coming from.

If RLM makes 4 videos about Star Trek Discovery, then that's 4 hours of talking that a RLM fan wants to watch. Now they must watch Star Trek Discovery, in order to join in. They have been advertised to, and have purchased a product because of this. It's just more indirect. There's a big market for watching things "critically" these days -- but the same people get the money in the end.

I hold RLM to higher standards than Collider. First and foremost, because they claim to have these higher standards themselves. Hence, hypocrisy. Also because they were better than this in the past. Collider is such an obvious pile of arse that it's not worth being bothered by.

[Deanjam]

If RLM makes 4 videos about Star Trek Discovery, then that's 4 hours of talking that a RLM fan wants to watch. Now they must watch Star Trek Discovery, in order to join in.

Speaking for myself, I can tell you that while I love RLM's Discovery videos it hasn't made me go watch a single episode of it.

[DrGreggles]

Only watched one of these, but the Dancin': It's On episode is great. I would even try being a lesbian!

Cheg on that, Bernie Tarpaulin!

[Default to the negative]

Speaking for myself, I can tell you that while I love RLM's Discovery videos it hasn't made me go watch a single episode of it.

Yeah, I've watched them review films I have no intention of seeing. I doubt anyone rushed to watch Jack and Jill after RLM discussed it. They usually give you enough information that you can get a good sense of a shitty film without having to inflict it on yourself, and you can easily 'join in'.

[marquis_de_sad]

I'm not sure about this assertion. I think they've reviewed every Star Wars movie and for a while they were doing every major Marvel movie, and those probably end up being their most viewed Half-in-the-Bags overall, but aside from those franchises their movie selection is already quite balanced.

Fair enough, I should have qualified that as the big nerdy blockbusters.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

If RLM makes 4 videos about Star Trek Discovery, then that's 4 hours of talking that a RLM fan wants to watch. Now they must watch Star Trek Discovery, in order to join in. They have been advertised to, and have purchased a product because of this. It's just more indirect. There's a big market for watching things "critically" these days -- but the same people get the money in the end.

I hold RLM to higher standards than Collider. First and foremost, because they claim to have these higher standards themselves. Hence, hypocrisy. Also because they were better than this in the past. Collider is such an obvious pile of arse that it's not worth being bothered by.

So if they tell you not to watch some load of rubbish, that's advertising and bad, but if they advertise one of their own rubbish films, that's good?

I certainly don't need to see them do another Marvel review that boils down to, "I'm so sick of these movies... go see it!"

[QDRPHNC]

If RLM makes 4 videos about Star Trek Discovery, then that's 4 hours of talking that a RLM fan wants to watch. Now they must watch Star Trek Discovery, in order to join in. They have been advertised to, and have purchased a product because of this. It's just more indirect. There's a big market for watching things "critically" these days -- but the same people get the money in the end.

I think you're just pulling this out of your arse.

[bgmnts]

I specifically watch RLM talk about things I don't want to watch.

[kngen]

I was leaning towards not bothering my arse with The Last Jedi, but the Half in the Bag episode swung it for me to the point I might not watch it ever, even when it pops up on Disney Plus. That's a valuable public service.

[oy vey]

They are good for avoidance checks. Ghostbusters 2016. Never gonna watch it.