They say they won't review animated movies because they

>>94602796
No serous critic cares about your kiddie cartoons.

We've been over this anon. Normalfags don't consider animated movies "real movies".

>>94602807
Half in the Bag are hardly serious critics. That's their appeal

File: IMG_0121.jpg (163KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 300x300px

>>94602796
>I didn't see any of the movies nominated for Best Animated Feature, and I don't care
>The category is bullshit because kidshit like Shaun the Sheep is alongside art like Anomalisa

>>94602796
Yeah but they would still only be able to talk about some parts of the movies and good animated films tend to use their animation to convey the story beats/mood/character emotions, film is a primarily visual medium and in an animated film the visuals are completely different

>>94602922
Shaun of the Sheep is amazing because it's 90 minutes of literally no fucking dialogue and just body language and comical situations.

But I guess they fell for the drama meme and considered that not "art". I mean, I agree, you can't really compare the two movies when the only similarity they have is "being animated". But there simply isn't enough material for there to be best animated comedy, best animated drama, best animated sci-fi, etc.

>>94602936
So many films, including the ones they watch, are basically 80%+ digital animation. Like, I can imagine RLM being fine with a 2016 Jungle Book review but they wouldn't bother with the original movie, and that's where it strikes as "but why?" to me.

>>94602796
>Can't they still judge it on story or comedy merits?

They don't review movies based just on the plot, they have a background in film making. They don't have a background in animation, but it's not like they hate the medium. I know Mike is a huge Simpsons fan and I think Jay talked about enjoying Kubo on twitter or a stream.

>>94603026
Yeah, it is somewhat arbitrary, but I can understand them drawing a line in the sand, especially since a lot of those effects are trying to look realistic and are build around human elements, like the boy in the Jungle Book, there is also just sort of a different language to film than their is to animation, for example you can cut much faster in animation before it gets disorienting, because the brain has to process less visual information

>>94603143
> there is also just sort of a different language to film than their is to animation
This isn't really true for anime though.

No one cares what they think. Do you want an hour long video of them making fun of a good movie?

>>94602835
they have no appeal.

>>94603266
Eh I like Jay's taste in horror movies, I checked out movies based on his recommendations.

>>94602796
They have good knowledge of film theory, they have zero knowledge of animation.

Theyre not a Chris Stuckkman or Angry Joe, making a quick vid saying "Durr, I liked the action scenes". They actually say something of worth about the films they talk about.

>>94603266
>>94603266
that would be great. as long as it's popular. no one needs a video mocking the room. we know it's shit.

File: babby.jpg (19KB, 385x383px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 385x383px

>>94603317
>They actually say something of worth about the films they talk about.
Jesus fucking christ

>>94603317
Say that to Zods snapped neck

>>94602796
>Do you really need to be a pro in animation to treat Iron Giant like it's just a regular film that happens to be animated?
No, but treating it as a regular film for the purposes of reviewing just happens to be fucking stupid.

File: this-summer.jpg (854KB, 4080x2040px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 4080x2040px

>>94602796
I'm guessing they're being pressured to review the Emoji Movie or something? Honestly, they're kind of whorish when it comes to that kind of thing, but I'm actually impressed they stuck to their stance about reviewing animated stuff. Good for them.

Why would they? Animation involves as much specific criteria that goes beyond live action as the amount of criteria for the latter that doesn't really apply to the former.

If you're not really equipped to analyze the whole of it beyond basic storytelling and all-purpose visual language and feel no real interest in the medium to begin with, why would you want to hack together a bunch of buzzwords and general confirmation bias fodder and pretend you know what you're talking about Unless you're the Nostalgia Critic, that is?

>>94603356
I don't see how. Being able to criticize aspects that are only relevant to animation is not vital, and animation movies aren't aimed only at people with a deep interest in animation.

>>94603341
Their later HitB videos make them seem very obviously tired. But their early work and the movies they do care about, they're actually very specific with their critique. They point out specific things they like down to exact dialogue, they even point out things they hate and offer up a possible better alternative rather than just going, "That SUCKED!" and ending it there.

It really comes down to you disagreeing with their opinions, but they at least do articulate them well enough when they DO care.

>>94603242
It is true especially for anime, anime has it's whole unique set of character expressions, trends, references, techniques, visual language from chibifying, to sweat drop and shifts into abstract art styles, different uses of color, pun based names and all the other stuff can apply as well

>>94603390
>Being able to criticize aspects that are only relevant to animation is not vital
It is if you want a good, informative review.

>and animation movies aren't aimed only at people with a deep interest in animation.
And live-action movies aren't aimed only at people with a deep interest in cinematography, but people with in-depth knowledge of the medium can still make better reviews than people without.

>>94603379
>why would you want to hack together a bunch of buzzwords and general confirmation
They've admitted on the show to talking about movies and genres they aren't familiar with, but they do it anyway. Animation seems to be the primary exception, though. And most Brad Bird movies are directed like films, not just animated movies, regardless.

>>94602796

Red Letter Media are hacks.
For all their 'amazing' critiques they can't make a single good fucking film. Red Letter Media is that one friend you have who thinks he's a real "creative type" and is always shitting on anybody elses projects, artwork, movies, or animations, but he NEVER does or makes anything himself and constantly gives excuses, OR he DOES make stuff himself and it's just SHIT, it's just unquestionable fucking GARBAGE, but when you tell this to him, when you say to him, "Hey, this is fucking garbage, what the hell man?"
He says it's "ironic" or "no, dude, that's the point! It's funny, right?"

Red Letter Media are hacks.
They're full of shit and should only be watched as just noise to listen to and not be taken seriously beyond the most superficial, basic, messages.
They opt out for comedy in their own personal projects because they possess no actual talent.

>>94603468
>they can't make a single good fucking film

Oh fuck this argument. I'm no master chef, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to say food is bad.

>>94603468
Spoken like a true RLM fan

>>94603468
They are not always shitting on something though, they have recommended a bunch of movies in Half in the Bag and even when they are talking about a movie they do not like, they usually mention some positive aspects

>>94603430
We're talking about film, which is normally different from television anime. And television anime doesn't necessarily have all that stuff either.

Films like Kimi no Na wa can be reviewed as just films, it's not necessary to have any in-depth animation or anime knowledge.

>>94603454
>It is if you want a good, informative review.
If you're writing a review for people with animation knowledge.

>And live-action movies aren't aimed only at people with a deep interest in cinematography, but people with in-depth knowledge of the medium can still make better reviews than people without.
Many things that apply to live action also apply to animation, and in the case of anime almost everything applies. Then you're left with the things that are only relevant for animation, but it's just not necessary to have a handle on those for the purpose of writing a general review.

>>94602796
At least they're better than Rich and Jack. And especially Josh.

>>94603734
I like Jack on Best of the Worst, but yeah I tried watching Previously Recorded once and I think it's unwatchable.

Josh is certainly the worst of the regulars, I miss Jessie.

>>94603768
Jack has his moments, but most of the time it's just embarrassing watching him fail to keep up with the others and fumbling his prepared material

>>94603546
Nah most anime films are connected to some series/ovas and because they tend to have more animation there could also be said a lot more about said animation, for example in Kimi no Na wa, if anything talented anime film directors try to use the medium more, without the constraints of a tv show, of course there is a lot of overlap with live-action movie-making

> If you're writing a review for people with animation knowledge

Makes no sense people who already know all that stuff would not need to watch it, generally speaking people like it if a reviewer is more knowledgeable about what he is talking than the average viewer so that he can make informed critiques/recommendations

>>94603975
Not talking about films that are part of a television series. Those are rarely relevant for wide audiences.

The vast majority of what goes into anime filmmaking is the same stuff that goes into live action filmmaking. It's useful to be familiar with how animation/anime is made but it just isn't necessary.

>>94604111
Yes, we agree that they have a lot of overlap, but there is a difference and technically there is nothing necessary to talk about any piece of media you have consumed, they just stick to what they know best, which is understandable, anime films relevant for wide audiences are so few compared to regular films for wide audiences, that it would be unlikely for them to talk about one, even if they would theoretically cover them, anyways

>>94604356
>technically there is nothing necessary to talk about any piece of media you have consumed
We are talking about reviewers. It is necessary for them to understand filmmaking and storytelling.

Wide release anime films may not come out often but that doesn't mean anything.

>>94604479
I don't know about Jay, but Mike dropped out of film school. They met on an amateur film making web forum. They're just passionate about movies, and the process of making them.

>>94604432
Thats why I said technically, the thing is that understanding storytelling and filmmaking is important which is why it makes so much sense for them not to cover them, it's like twice removed from their comfort zone, being foreign and animated

It does mean that even if they did animated movies, anime movies would be unlikely to be covered

You went from "why don't they review animated movies" to "why don't they go out of their way to review anime original movies, relevant to a wide audience" and the answer to both is they don't feel comfortable about it, because they lack knowledge. Whats so hard to understand ?

Just watch Double Toasted,
It's like Eddie Murphy and Half In the Bag merged

>>94602796
>They say they won't review animated movies because they don't have much knowledge in the field to do so.
When did they say this? I heard Mike simply doesn't give a fuck about cartoons.

>>94603768
PreRec has some interesting moments but it's full of pleb tier opinions. I'd still rather watch that than see Josh. Any time you see Josh you know you're in for a really boring show.

>>94604658
Film critics review foreign and animation films all the time, there is nothing special about HitB preventing them from doing the same. Animation and anime and foreign films are not from outer space.

>It does mean that even if they did animated movies, anime movies would be unlikely to be covered
Because they often don't get wide releases, but as I just said it doesn't mean anything.

>>94603949
This.

Though I found Jessie much much worse desu. All the other girls they had on were awesome, but Jessie seemed like she had mild autism or something. She just sat there giggling at everything 90% of the time and occasionally contributed some grade school level humour like fart jokes. Then everyone kinda had to laugh so as to not make it awkward.

I know a lot of others liked her. She had fab tits though.

>>94604800
Nope if you look at RedLetterMedia specifically, they rarely do foreign films and it's not just that anime original films rarely get a wide release, it's also that they are just a drop in the ocean, compared to all other movies, btw you first brought up the point how only films that matter to a wide audience count, you are also not even defending your previous position of "whydon't they do animated" anymore. This debate has become pointless

>>94604907
If an anime film gets a release then it'll be reviewed, simple as that. It doesn't matter how often it happens just like it doesn't matter how often director X releases a film.

>you first brought up the point how only films that matter to a wide audience count
Obviously.

>you are also not even defending your previous position of "whydon't they do animated" anymore.
What previous position?

>>94602796
Their review of Spider-Man Homecoming should tell you how bad they are at reviewing things they aren't familiar with.

>>94603304
Looks like someone had their favorite shit movie made fun of.

>>94605090
Eh, they're opinion on something and critique are two different things. The problem with film and animation is that what you look for in each are rapidly different. Even ignoring terrible opinions or a lack of subject on the plot they till know how the moving parts work and how to analyze them. Both foreign and animated films have different techniques and merits they need to be judged on.

>>94605322
Have you actually ever seen foreign and animated films? They are not as exotically weird as you make them out to be.

>>94603468
>going on a long super serious tirade about how something shouldn't be taken seriously
Wew. Also I'll only accept your opinion about reviewers if you've done good reviews yourself because apparently that's how it works.

>>94605322
They make claims like "It's more faithful to the source material" without being aware that it honestly isn't. Homecoming is more Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man than Ditko's ASM.

These guys don't even do basic factchecks before making wild claims.

>>94607026
Rich "Shit for brains" Evans is their comic book guy.

>>94607293
Yeah, and they just believe him to a fault when he clearly only knows Spider-Man second hand.

Imagine if they relied on AIDSMoby for their anime knowledge.

File: whenyoureaclownnoonetakesyouseriously.jpg (300KB, 900x1047px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 900x1047px

>caring about RLM
>1945+
This is an 18+ site, lads

>>94608035
Is that a Jojo reference?

>>94602796
The real reason is because they don't fucking want to, and I don't blame them considering most animated movies released today are bland balls of cliches

File: C9vQyD6VoAAdyEl.jpg (79KB, 750x635px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x635px

>>94603379
post more redlettermedia cartoons

>>94602796
Why do you care....what other people do???

They're not going to review crap like the Emoji Movie or other cartoons aimed at kids.

Jay, at least, has no outright bias against animated movies, and has talked about the absurdity of the animation category of the Oscars when Anomanlisa got nominated alongside kidshit like Shaun the Sheep.

>>94610605
>>the Emoji Movie
I'm pretty sure they'd take a crack at it seeing as how bad it's supposed to be. They watched The Mummy even though it had no hope of being good.

>>94602796
They don't watch cartoons because they're adults who don't have children.