Whew! Only 20 more pages to go...
Ohhh, I am definitely not one of those MST3K viewers that think everything they did was gold... between my original VHS tapes from the "keep trading the tapes" days, the grainy MST3K Archive Project MPEGs, the Rhino releases, etc... I have pretty much every available episode in one form or another. All that said, most of them I would never revisit. Tons of episodes just weren't that good. BUT, that wasn't the appeal of the show... the appeal of the show, taken in the context of the dark ages of the 1990s, was that when they did hit a home run it was entirely out of the park, across the street and into the next zip code... When source movie, writing and delivery all converged, MST3K was impossible to beat... granted that only happened 10-20% of the time... but when it did happen it was fucking glorious.
As far as Rifftrax, there is a difference between an "a-movie" and a "b-movie with a budget"... I would classify T3 as a b-movie with a budget... along with stuff like Road House. But yea, in general I agree, they realized within the first few years that they needed to go back to the roots... that everybody involved from both the creator and fandom side seemed to underestimate how important a good schlocky source movie was to the overall success of the episode.
The riffs of all the star wars films and matrix movies are solid. Let's not even start on twilight.
I do like the idea that they can put out riffs for movies oh so very deserving of riffs even if they can't get the film rights. The problem is them losing their edge.
There was a thread of communists on Twitter where someone asked ”what do you want to do after the revolution?”
Almost everyone had picked a white-collar job that could only exist under a capitalist society.
I would kill to see that thread so much.
There's a good reason why the drop between The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi was so massive and also why The Rise of Skywalker was a billion dollar disappointment. "Passing the torch" only works if you actually show respect to what came before (see the success of the Creed spinoff series). The Disney trilogy did nothing but show contempt for the male characters of the OT and basically erased the accomplishments of Anakin and Luke Skywalker. The latter became a hermit sucking on green tit milk while abandoning his family and friends to die before his "redemption" arc that consisted of an astral projection that killed him. The fans obviously didn't like it and that's what left the eye boggling fall in the box office after the normies had their one weekend viewing.
I bring Star Wars up because Disney showed it can't handle torch passing and soft reboots properly for one of the most influential properties in the history of humanity. Given how obnoxiously woke it has become (poor Walt would hang his head in shame), I shudder to think what it would do to the MCU. It may be cliche capeshit and it certainly caused some horrible problems that the industry can't shake, but what it accomplished in terms of coherent storytelling and character moments, I think, are beyond commendable. Disney would eagerly torch all of that to start over and wouldn't hesitate to desecrate the older characters to make their woke replacements look better, fan opinions be damned. If it could do that to Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, then Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are nowhere close to safe. Hell, I wouldn't count Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther as off limits.
In the grand scheme of it all, Bobert would, of course, praise to the nine divines because it's Disney and the Lefty trend setters would demand their acolytes praise it. He is one of the greatest sellouts and lapdogs in his field.
Precisely. In theory you can do passing of the torch stories (just look at how much the fandom loved Batman Beyond) but STEP 1 is: "So respect to what came before." Otherwise, literally what's the point? Why should we care about "star wars" if you're literally telling us to not care about star wars?
He really does hate Gibson with a passion. Anyway, it really is a damn shame he couldn't have been in
Fury Road. That script was made more for an older Max what with the crazy visions and all. Tom Hardy was just plain miscast.
Reminder: Bob lost his first reviewing gig over passion of the christ. I assume he feels like Mel Gibson personally fired him.
Let's hear Bobby's comment. Echoing AOC's accusation against Ted Cruz, Bobby thinks Carlson wants to get Lorenz killed.
One of the things that just triggers me so much about Bob is how he'll literally condemn anybody that does what his side does. I know I know, "bad tactics/targets" and all that, it's just sheer frustration to watch his side doing the equivalent of shooting at people and then whine about how unjust it is that anybody is shooting back at them. It's like they're so coddled they can't even grasp common sense that other people will hit back.
DC vs Marvel capeshit:
1) They already did it, Bob. Both stories drawn by Alex Ross. "Kingdom Come" for DC and "Marvels" for... well you know.
2) No, it literally doesn't make any sense because there's no way to tell who's a mutant or not. I mean what's to stop any mutant being abused from just claiming to be another FF member?
Leave them Mutants alone!!!! They are just trying to exist and have basic human rights!!! Unlike those Uncle Tom, passing-privileged Fantasic Four!
You moron, that was the ULTIMATE marvel comic series, which had at least the consistency of Spiderman constantly being accused of being a mutant.
Is he actually proposing that someone should make a Superman story that focuses on Clark Kent as a journalist? I don't think you could make a more boring idea if you tried. Also, how in the hell does he think characters would get rid of kryptonite? Throw it all in a rocket and launch it into the sun? I'm sure gathering all the worlds kryptonite like that wouldn't just result in supervillains stealing it.
Done in the comics already. Several different styles also.
Remember we're talking about a character that's been around for like....80 years now and once had 4 books come out a month. Good chance somebody's done whatever story you're thinking of.
The oddest thing is Bobs "idea" was already done in the DC comics. I remember there was whole story arc where Clark lost his powers, while this new mystery hero.appeard to take his place. An thus you had Clark trying to gather clues/info on who this guy was and what was the reason for him losing his powers.
That was during the 52 weekly comic. Except Clark knew why he lost his powers, because he flew through Krypton's sun to stop Superboy Prime and that depowered him for a time.
Also the new hero turned out to be a Booster Gold in disguise.
I have to disagree. That sounds unoriginal because similar storylines have already been told in other superhero cartoons.
I can name two of them right now, The Spectacular Spider-Man and Ben 10: Alien Force.
Look at this episodes, Identity Crisis(Spectacular Spider-Man), Grounded(Ben 10).
It was also done in Batman the Animated series too.
Probably Superman's series as well but I haven't watched all of it.
One of the problems with Clark Kent is that a lot of people despise journalists these days. Being a journalist was a good profession for Superman back in the day, but now it's so tarnished that it really doesn't match the type of character that Superman is.
Actually trying to fight Journalistic corruption and regain respect would be interesting for Superman because it's a problem his powers can't solve.
Robert the Cassanova, who's even dated above his station, comments on male physique:
You are an "it" if you want to stop children being poisoned and castrated.
OH I'm going to photoshop that later. Marking it down.
Sperging about something called Mojo:
Let's be honest, Bob is dying for Mojo because it's the only possible way he'll ever get a role in an MCU project. (Heck I'm surprised nobody here took some of these tweets with pics and inserted bob pics in them.)
... much more:
Bob you dense dumbass. Let me spell it out for you in a way I heard someone else put it once:
The best satire stories, are the ones that would still work on their own as stories if you removed all the satire.
Shrek is a good example. GalaxyQuest? Another great example.
All bob's doing in the most dumbass way is trying to make this point. Seriously click above and reread his tweets with the above interpretation in mind and you will come close to grasping just how much of an idiot playing at being smart Bob is.
Pretty soon
the thread took a detour and morons think of edgy ways to modernize Shakespeare.
No Bobby doesn't read 500-year-old plays; they are too problematic.
Geez, MST3k already DID THAT SKETCH! And Bob, we saw your old blog page - WE KNOW YOU WERE A FAN.
"These people! How dare they pick on me! I even knows how to look things up on Wikipedia".
Wow, it's like he's getting within the same zip code of self-awareness but still not reaching it.
So why doesn't Bobby STFD and STFU, given he isn't going to -- and can't -- enlist?
I... buhwhat?
That's... I mean whatever the military does,
the entire country has to pay for it. How can any man work so hard to be so dumb?
The Roman Empire, for example, would have a base tax rate of about 10%, and on a bad day, it can go up to 30%. Here in America, the income tax alone will take 30% of your earnings before the IRS even comes in to collect their share. Not to mention that even liberal "democracies" had laws up the ass restricting speech and gun ownership, and after 9/11, (some would say even before) our security and intelligence apparatus and their deeds would put even the Oprichniki to shame.
I mean, where else can an intelligence organization like the CIA get away with spiking CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY with LSD? (
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/7589...d-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief /
https://www.history.com/news/did-the-cia-secretly-dose-people-with-lsd ) If a monarch tried to do that, not only would his peasants revolt, but his lords would denounce him, and maybe even other royal family members would be leading the charge against him. In a modern-day republic where people just take it as an accepted truth that democracy = freedom, they sure as hell can get away with using citizens as guinea pigs for their crazy experiments. Or doing stupid shit like sending guns to drug gangs (Operation Fast and Furious) or financing terrorists (Operation Cyclone).
Sure, monarchies have invaded other countries for taxation, slavery, and exploitation, and in the case of some, they've even eradicated entire tribes now and then, (like Spain with the Aztecs/Incas) but that can hardly get close the crimes done at the hands of so-called democracies, such as slavery, (which existed in America up to 1860) eradication of entire tribes, (which kept on going up until the 20th century) and forced sterilization (which continued up until the end of WW2). Democracies are no better than monarchies, hence why the Founding Fathers wanted a very limited government, with them being very aware that a democracy can be just as oppressive as a one-man dictatorship. And of course, Communist China did start off as a sort of "republic" in that they won the support of local farmers and the populace, and gained their support against the Guomindang, before they went full mad tyrant and began eradicating entire segments of the populace for defying them.
This is what I was talking about when it comes to virtues and vices of monarchies and democracies. With monarchs, the worst thing they've done is push down on peasants to pay taxes or go brigand and attack other nations for lebensraum and resources. As much as the average American would like to imagine medieval life as Game of Thrones, in actuality, many Medievalists can tell you that such a portrayal is hardly accurate. If you want a clearer picture of what went on in those Medieval days, go read up Regine Pernoud's books on the Medieval Era, such as "The Crusaders" and "Those Terrible Middle Ages!" The era of monarchs is hardly as bad as the democracy-lovers tend to portray it to be.
To put it in modern terms, having a monarch was more like having a president for life who still has to ass-kiss enough people to gain their support, because they're afraid that if they lose the support of enough bishops, lords, and towns/cities, they could get overthrown by their dissatisfied subjects who could just as easily crown someone else in their stead. Especially since having standardized national armies were a modern innovation, for eons the kings relied on whatever bannermen who supported them and whatever mercenaries they could hire, and those guys could just as easily join the opposite team and support usurpers instead. Both Western European monarchs and Asian monarchs have been overthrown now and then, with Byzantium having at least 30 Emperors get overthrown violently while some Chinese dynasties ended with them losing the Mandate of Heaven and the people's support.
How exactly would the Roman empire tax more of a people that were largely illiterate? You're not exactly going to be able to report on your income if you can't write it down now are you?
And like I said, we can see now China experimenting on people even worse than the CIA's little drug efforts. (not to mention what was done over in Europe)
Or doing stupid shit like sending guns to drug gangs (Operation Fast and Furious) or financing terrorists (Operation Cyclone).
Umm....
Yeah, they did that too.
I'm not saying the era of monarchs was bad - I'm saying what kept it from being bad
was the primitive nature of technology NOT anything inherent to monarchy itself. You even prove this point by comparing
modern democracies to primitive monarchies when primitive democracies (i.e. America during it's first hundred years or so) lacked the faults you bring up. If the issue was endemic to any kind of representational government, then it should have all arisen much sooner within America. But most of them did not. Almost every fault you bring up results once society reached a technical level capable of carrying out that fault - and that we can see other pseudo-monarchial systems (or even the fun of WW2 Japan) in the modern world pull the same kind of shit proves the point: it's not the system of government, it's man's own flaws.
TL;DR - you keep making the assumption that limitations of reality were limitations of the system. That is a category error.
