Red Letter Media

[Marc]

I could never see Mike doing this for a single director, which really puts into perspective his appreciation for films. I'm not even sure if he likes film as much as TV.

I don't think it's a matter of him liking one more than the other: The Youtube channel doesn't exist because Mike enjoys a particular topic - It exists because Mike enjoys hearing himself pontificate about the topic, even when he isn't invested enough in it to know what he's talking about. It exists because he had more pithy comments to make about Star Trek Generations than his friends were willing to listen to.

Mike isn't going to put work into producing anything liable to hurt his feelings once he reads the critical comments disagreeing with or seeing through him - Otherwise, he would have made or helped out with another film after the reaction to Space Cop hurt his feelings. Mike does Youtube because it rewards him for doing the bare minimum to act sardonic enough that it feels like criticism is being leveled at the character he's playing, instead of the real guy whose life and filmmaking career plateaued with a Youtube channel where he writes himself day-drinking and bullying his friend from high school into every video.

 

[Hentai-Semitism]

Otherwise, he would have made or helped out with another film after the reaction to Space Cop hurt his feelings.

They shit on Space Cop every chance they get. I don't think his feelings were hurt because otherwise they would've stayed quiet about it. In my opinion, they finished SC because they wanted a sense of closure after working on it on and off for years. They probably said "fuck it, let's do this so we can stop thinking about it."

I agree about the rest of your post. I think Mike likes the sound of his own voice a bit too much, but after watching them for so long I still can't tell what kind of movies and shows he likes (other than the first two incarnations of Star Trek). With Jay you can at least tell that 95% of he watches is horror.

 

[crowabunga]

I miss the sophomoric, absurd, irreverent story arcs from Half in the Bag. My favorite is the gay pheromone cake / volcano god arc.

 

[Mussolini’s Merkin]

I always go back and watch their 3 part John Carpenter series. Such an amazing format that I wish they would do again for another direcor: David Lynch, Cronenberg, Fincher? Anyone? The ultimate comfort video with equal parts knowledge, trivia, and criticism. I could never see Mike doing this for a single director, which really puts into perspective his appreciation for films. I'm not even sure if he likes film as much as TV.

Spoiler: The 3 Parts

This is my favorite Re:View series they did, there needs to be more Jay and Rich Evans collaborations, they compliment each other really well.

 

[Dollar Store Sentai]

This is my favorite Re:View series they did, there needs to be more Jay and Rich Evans collaborations, they compliment each other really well.

That one is up there, my favorite is probably the TMNT video along with oddly enough the Susperia double feature. (Even though it features Josh)

 

[northstar747]

Fuck I would just watch rich and Mike needing out about star wars.

Fuck make them re watch tos and do a bunch of nerd outs

 

[TheMonkeyMan]

 

[Psyduck]

This is my favorite Re:View series they did, there needs to be more Jay and Rich Evans collaborations, they compliment each other really well.

Jay "Short King" Bauman is on most of my favorite Re:Views. He makes for a great straight man able to complement whoever's paired up with him, including Josh.

Long live "That's Right" Jay "Fag Shenanigans" Bauman.

 

[TheMonkeyMan]

At least they have a better grasp of AI than Neil Breen does.

 

[Evil Peter Griffin]

I laugh way too hard at this bit of unintended comedy.

Its funnier cause none of them know who JC Denton is. This is way they need Rich to edit more videos.

 

[Alabaster Disaster]

Pros: Lots of paper rattling gave me the brain tingles.

Cons: Hearing Mike completely misread half a dozen words and also say "dethaw" in the first 15ish minutes made me kill myself and now I'm dead.

7/10 it was ok

 

[I'm a Silly]

Joe Montange

Joe who?

Stock dago character actor who replaced Inigo Montoya on Criminal Minds.

Joe Mantegna -- the world's second-best Joe, the first being Joe Flaherty -- replaced Mandy Patinkin on Criminal Minds, and when that happened, my mother had only seen the Joe episodes.
"Who'd it used to be?"
-- Mandy Patinkin.
"Hm. Same thing."

 

[visara]

Mike almost makes an interesting point (but then the conversation moved on): what's really the difference between a human that learns and experiences images/movies/books/etc and creates something, and an AI that does? Is there something (e.g. the "spark of creativity" that was mentioned briefly) that allows humans do something that AI can't? Or will that just come with time?

Jay edited it, and did a ton of zooms to "AI hands" and other typical imperfections in the example footage shown throughout. But does he think the technology is going to still have those in 10, 20 years?

I'm surprised neither of them brought up something that they've been vocal about in the past. The process behind the movie (or whatever) doesn't matter too much, moreso the end product and the experience for the viewer. Some examples:. nepo babies, vs whether the performance is good. Boyhood took 12 years to make, but so what, it sucks. Maybe Adam Sandler's a super nice guy to everyone in his movies, but that doesn't make the movies necessarily good either. Etc. Does that apply here or is AI still bad even if it ends up making something genuinely enjoyable?

I think they should have taken more time to gather thoughts and topics, before shooting the video. Even with their next-to-zero knowledge about AI (same as us all, probably) there are a lot of interesting things to think and talk about. Mike in particular: shouldn't these sort of ethical dilemmas and human considerations be right up his alley?

Unlike what seems like the rest of the thread, I still like these guys, but this was a poor showing.

 

[Acoustic Virgin]

Pros: Lots of paper rattling gave me the brain tingles.

Cons: Hearing Mike completely misread half a dozen words and also say "dethaw" in the first 15ish minutes made me kill myself and now I'm dead.

7/10 it was ok

Mike's illiteracy is really on display in this one. I almost spit out my dank drink combo when I heard him say "dethaw".

 

[McMitch]

what's really the difference between a human that learns and experiences images/movies/books/etc and creates something, and an AI that does? Is there something (e.g. the "spark of creativity" that was mentioned briefly) that allows humans do something that AI can't? Or will that just come with time?

Personally, I would say the difference between the two is a human can (is supposed to) conceptualize and action visual concepts that are not explicitly shown onscreen, an element you would think film students like Mike and Jay would be familiar with, despite today’s media landscape. It is inherent to foreshadowing and thematic implication and I don’t think there will be a level of computer development that can replicate this. Remember, AI is not intelligent: it is a computer algorithm (i.e. a series of IF… THEN statements) that uses external data to generate additional IF… THEN statements.

 

[The Mighty Banth]

Real art has passion in it that a sensitive person can see. It may not be flawless or even very good, but you can see the love it was made with and it transforms it into something more. It's the difference between a million mass produced Barbies and the little, hand-stiched ragdoll made by a great-grandmother for her first great-grandbaby even though her hand shakes and see can't quite see like she used to.

 

[Jobama]

Mike's illiteracy is really on display in this one. I almost spit out my dank drink combo when I heard him say "dethaw".

He’s just Cobra fan Trole

 

[King Dead]

Personally, I would say the difference between the two is a human can (is supposed to) conceptualize and action visual concepts that are not explicitly shown onscreen, an element you would think film students like Mike and Jay would be familiar with, despite today’s media landscape. It is inherent to foreshadowing and thematic implication and I don’t think there will be a level of computer development that can replicate this. Remember, AI is not intelligent: it is a computer algorithm (i.e. a series of IF… THEN statements) that uses external data to generate additional IF… THEN statements.

Which touches on a deeper point that they didn't quite talk about: is a creative work invalid if a human is directing an AI to produce something? They talked about how some of the slop trailers have more effort put into them than others with regards to figuring out what they want to show and editing it appropriately, likely prompting each scene separately. That's why some are hilariously awful while others look somewhat decent. Either way, there had to be a person behind the scenes coming up with the prompts, so is it not still an act of creativity? (If the idea of AI slop trailers doesn't work for this argument, then consider someone who just wants to make a short film and uses AI to do it.)

This has been a point of debate since the first AI art models dropped. Some view them as a lazy cheating method to getting the results you want, some view them as a useful tool that improves their ability to create. But again, is the creative impulse not there? Is generating a picture through an AI model inherently uncreative, and if so, why?

Honestly surprised that Mike didn't once bring up Star Trek in this discussion, specifically Data and his desires to become more human, attempting to express himself through creativity. AI models may not be sentient now, but what happens if they are one day? Will we still view their acts as lacking a creative soul, only able to replicate what they've already seen? Is that truly different from the human mind?

Lot of questions that they didn't really touch on at all, but I do thank Jay for pointing out near the beginning that a lot of the anti-AI backlash is very much performative.

 

[Travoltron]

I really couldn't care less if AI destroys Hollywood or not. 25 years ago I would never have said this, but most of the entertainment media we're getting these days is soulless pandering garbage pumped out by DEI panels and nepo babies. How many times has some false prophet like Shyamalan or JJ Abrams been propped up as "the next Spielberg" only for us to sadly realize the next Spielberg is never coming.

The thing to fear is AI creating fake videos intended to influence elections or start wars.

 

[I'm a Silly]

I really couldn't care less if AI destroys Hollywood or not. 25 years ago I would never have said this, but most of the entertainment media we're getting these days is soulless pandering garbage pumped out by DEI panels and nepo babies. How many times has some false prophet like Shyamalan or JJ Abrams been propped up as "the next Spielberg" only for us to sadly realize the next Spielberg is never coming.

The thing to fear is AI creating fake videos intended to influence elections or start wars.

Also, I never wanted the first Spielberg.