In all seriousness, is Space Cop worth watching? How does it

I'm going to guess that poster is more visually competent than the actual movie, which is the opposite of how it usually works.

Haven't seen it yet but it sucks that they spent years making it only for it to come and go.

Hopefully they'll just stick to web videos.

>>86989239
It's very bad.
Feeding Frenzy had some charm, this has none.
Space Cop may look like it has slightly more production value (more elaborate sets, action set pieces, etc) but it's all for naught because the movie itself is just not funny or enjoyable to watch.
If you're a huge fan of RLM's style of humor you may find a few jokes here there, or get a kick out of the len kabasinski cameo, but you'll still probably find the whole thing to be huge disappointment.
At best this movie is just incredibly "meh".

>>86989603

Correct me if I'm wrong but Feeding Frenzy was made right before their web videos, right? It may have to do with expectations, back then they were just making a movie for the hell of it but Space Cop was after they found internet fame, when you feel like you have higher expectations that can make it harder to live up to.

Plus it sounds like they were a little too ambitious, Feeding Frenzy had some charm, like you said, mostly because it was low fi but surprisingly well done, in trying to go bigger they bump up against the fact that they just don't have a Hollywood budget as opposed to keeping it more low key.

>>86989239
Not really. I think I found two or three jokes mildly amusing in the whole thing. Every thing else felt flat on it's ass.

It's main problem is that almost all the jokes are variations of the same one. The same one used in all their Youtube videos.

>Say something so stupidly obvious it's a joke.
>Silence for a few seconds.
>Mike "Whhhhyyy, who who ever think that"?
>Look at the camera for added effect.
>Few more seconds of silence.

It's this over and over. That poster is fucking awesome though, looks like more effort went into that than the film.

File: le dead inside schlock critic.jpg (23KB, 196x190px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 196x190px

It's simple.

Mike Stoklasa has become the very thing he once ridiculed. Look at the Avatar review for instance; he spends 90 minutes going on about Cameron's blatant pandering to the lowest common denominator, marveling (no pun intended) at Cameron's proficiency for manipulating the audience to make them feel how he wants them to feel, how he wants them to think.

Fast forward a couple of years later. Jurassic World is released -- its heavily established to be a soft reboot operating on the hype of faux-nostalgia and Pratt's recent Guardians of the Galaxy success.

Mike loves it. Hits all the right buttons. Really gets his inner manchild going. He basically reveres the film to Jay Bauman's utter disgust.

This is the first sign of Stoklasa's downfall, his immediate descent into the anti-thesis of Mr. Plinkett. He's become lazy, brainwashed, unwittingly indoctrinated into the modern Hollywood machine sculpted by the likes of Disney executives.

It's October 2015. Disney gets in touch with Red Letter Media. They offer him a deal he simply can't refuse; he's instructed to praise Disney's numbered Star Wars episodes while taking critical albeit nonsensical liberties with the standalone films, all the while consistently spewing a casual commitment to every Marvel film that is released. Mike and his goons are heavily compensated for this, successfully turning the likes of the internet's pseuds into DDs (Disney Dudes).

The real enemy isn't Collider, or Loot Crate boxes.

It's Mike Stoklasa.

>>86990419
>manipulating the audience to make them feel how he wants them to feel, how he wants them to think.
Isn't that what ALL directors do, or at least try to?

>>86990830
You'd think, but no. Plenty of movies out there that go against audience expectations and desires, openly challenging them instead of slyly taking advantage of them.