It is much easier to destroy than to create.

To be fair, they're trying to be bad on purpose.

And they're poor.

But it's hard to be bad on purpose and charming in the same way as all those terrible 00 + unlimited coke productions of the 70s and 80s were, because they really WERE trying...kinda...

"Being bad on purpose" is an idea I can't quite wrap my head around. It's basically the same as parody, isn't it? Like, they're making a film that spoofs dumb movie cliches, and they're using their particular brand of humour to draw attention to bad cliches and Hollywood formulas. So the story is "bad on purpose" because it's skewering cliches. This is also a slacker comedy, which means the hero is "bad on purpose." Space Cop is a lazy, fat slob who has to save the world. That's also fine.

But why the avoidably terrible sound quality and cinematography? I know movie-making is harder than it seems, but even their episodes of Half in the Bag or the live-action Plinkett sequences (in his basement or whatever) look better and sound better than this trailer. It goes beyond parody and into a realm of technical laziness that I just don't get. Is it part of the joke? Is it "bad on purpose" in the same way Kung Fury is, or is it different?

I can't express how pointless the idea of spending years making something that's "supposed to be bad" sounds to me. I'd get it if it was a Canon Films-style moneymaking scheme, but these "bad on purpose" internet projects don't have the intelligence to grift money out of suckers. Does anyone have insight into this particularly 2000s-era phenomenon?

I should say "grift significant amounts of money out of suckers". This was probably kickstarted like Kung Fury, but nobody's getting rich enough off it to rightly claim con man status.

I think I put it on here, but it reminds me of Hamlet ADD, another film from people who worked at that same movie theatre. On paper it sounds great. Hamlet gets distracted and does everything else in time except for what he's supposed to do, but honestly it looks like a mess and it's been in production hell longer than Duke Nukem Forever.

Their normal shows are filmed on what looks like a really well-lit set. Filming dark stuff is harder (which is why so many older movies just use blue filters in daylight), and I wonder if they tried lighting the set that way instead of fixing it in post or something.

It's also a lot easier to deal with sound when you have people mostly just sitting around and talking into lapel-clip mics, and even then they fuck that up a lot on Half in the Bag et al.

And yeah, it's way easier to pick something apart than to make something good.

Oh and from the other trailers they look like they're filming with shitty equipment, like someone's old camcorder or something. And they probably could use a sound engineer who knows how to reduce and mask background noise.

When you try and make something of quality that fails here and there, the Internet anti-art rape mobs tear it apart and call for your murder. When you feed them intentionally made slop with a shovel in contempt, they piss themselves in a frothing fury of throwing you their money and kill all who oppose you.

:(

Don't be sad, this is still above Marvel and DC quality.

I'm mostly repulsed by the lame, tired gags. Like the throwing the picture away gag with the breaking glass sound effect. It's not funny on any level.

Thats the Kurlan naiskos sound effect and I will laugh at it anywhere after permanently associating it with Star Trek Generations. Its a RLM callback you philistine!

Well at least it'll be better than the Ashens movie.

"But it's hard to be bad on purpose and charming in the same way as all those terrible 00 + unlimited coke productions of the 70s and 80s were, because they really WERE trying...kinda..."


It's because those were almost always shot on film, so no matter how incompetent they were, every second of every shot had to count because even in the 80s 16mm film was EXPENSIVE.