How come reviewers with supposed good taste and know how of what makes a movie good can't make any good movies?

Why can't a novice painter can't recreate the Mona Lisa perfectly? Knowledge and skill are not the same thing.

The RLM guys have said they've worked within their means, and that they've never tried with an actual budget. Rich said in one of their recent PreRec streams that if they were ever to invest their money in making an actual movie (ie something that's more than an inside joke like Space Cop or their other movies) they'd give it more effort that their previous shit and make it look and function like an actual movie.

Whether they can or plan to do it or not is unknown to me.

I still don't get why they didn't try to make an actual movie out of Space Cop, instead we had a "look, we're ironically making this movie, isn't that great? SPACE COP".

I get the impression that Space Cop is a reaction to the success they've had to the people who made them successful, just a thanks and some fun.

Spacecop wasn't ironically bad it was just bad and not in a good way.

People that make movies for a living often look up to those like Roger Corman who made fantastically bad yet profitable movies.

There are different values at work between reviewers and movie makers.

One is looking for an overall positive experience while the other seeks profitability.

Roger Corman made fun movies on a shoestring budget, that's what any filmmaker should aspire to. I also think the biggest difference between a critic and a guy in the industry is talent, not intent. When you love something but suck at it you do the next best thing and comment on it.

bait-tier argument: the thread

It's difficult to criticize accurately, and on the work's own terms. The old prequel Plinkett reviews accomplished this, they're the only thing from RLM worth watching.

Not really, it's just a souped up nostalgia critic tier rant, it doesn't go into what George wanted to accomplish at all and always stays puddle deep.

How so? Wouldn't actual directors be able to better criticize films?

You didn't like the Next Generation reviews. I always found those really comfy and I've never even watched any of those movies.

I don't see why they can't at least aim to make a movie like Turbo Kid, or Hobo with a Shotgun. Something that uses it's goofy premise to grab you, but actually tries to be a semi-decent movie beyond that, instead of a series of cringeworthy Scary Movie gags.

What, exploit a fanbase?

Hello, Mike.

Critics are people who failed for one reason or another to succeed in their field of passion and thus have gained the only position of relevant power leverage they could assertion with their plebeian skillset. Aristotle recognized that one of women's biggest flaws was their incessant ability to sit around and complain and critique everything around, while they themselves did nothing to better themselves or the subject at hand. These critics echo that impotent rage and femininity in this age of limpwristed beta's who think their failed opinion is relevant.

Do you know what a critic's role is? To help people figure out if they should watch a certain movie, since guess what, nobody is omniscient and most have busy lives where they can't afford to waste 10 hours on the fucking internet to learn about shit from people who may or may not be wrong; and it's way easier to take into account the words of a guy that specializes in judging movies, since it's his job. In a perfect world these critics would not be (a) retarded and/or (b) pushing agendas, but unfortunately everyone thinks it's a perfect world until they bought the hype to go watch Ghostbusters 2016.

Point is, the fuck does that have to do with Aristotle, are you retarded or just feel the need to complain about something? Take a fucking suppository for that, don't make everyone read your pseudo-intellectual barf.

Criticism is easier than creating.

Because it is easier to criticizes than it is to create.

UR MUMS XDDDDD

Is this fun?

...

They did literally nothing with the whole; 'cop from the future teams up with cop from the past' set up, instead there's a crappy plot driven alien story, the cop from the past is only there too say "wow spacecop, you're so wacky" every now and then.

Feeding Frenzy was a fun movie. Space Cop was dog shit. They probably could make something decent if they had the money and made it something other than a dry comedy.

...

True. I think if Space Cop came out before RLM became popular, it would have probably played up the whole politically incorrect aspects of the character. And it definitely wouldn't have that awkward moment where the female alien tells him about how "womyn can du everythin' a man can du".

I know what tastes good when I eat it. Doesn't mean I can cook anything other than hotpockets, cheesy cheetos, and double dew.

Ebert was a pretentious fucking faggot with deplorable taste.

No.

They make $168k a year thanks to Patreon alone. They have had more than enough money for a few years now.

The same reason that gourmets aren't world class chefs.

a 6 figure budget isn't going to do much in making a quality kino. Either you're a hack or you're not.

Jay and Mike are hacks and even if they fell into a 7 figure budget they'd still make schlock that would at the least have some professionals making the edges look nice.

They're never going to make a good movie and that's fine. There are like 8 directors who could so w/e .

Do they like making movies?

There are hundreds of movies that were made on shoestring budgets that qualify as kino. Jay is just scared of trying anything serious and getting savaged. Mike doesn't know his arsehole from a camera lens so whatever.

Being able to discern other peoples mistakes and recognizing them is not the same as not making mistakes yourself. Keep in mind that when you spot a mistake another person made you've only spotted one mistake out of countless that a person can make when making a movie, and it's not even certain that you'll remember that mistake and avoid doing it yourself.

Not repeating a mistake you've seen requires only having an alright memory, not making a new kind of mistake you've not seen requires an ability to think ahead and plan accordingly which while most people are capable of doing such not many people are able to do so very in depth.

I agree with this. It's why they keep bringing up Ed Wood. They're deathly afraid of becoming that, so they play everything off as ironic.

Why don't a bunch of you really funny guys gte together and make your own show? :)

because having good taste isn't the same as having skill or talent

it's easy to tell an amateur from a professional when spectating something

being able to do so doesn't make you a professional yourself though

it's something you have to work at

This. Maybe about 5% of the Plinkshit review was on point criticism. The rest was hipster-nerd faggotry tbh.

Would they be good at making interracial films?