No different from any other set expense. Then again, no one's going to Home Depot and hanging up warped 2x4s on their wall so it's not really hypocritical to whine about lumber prices.
>No different from any other set expense.
Yeah, but if the point of the video is to criticize people who spend absurd amounts of money on franchise products, why spend thousands of dollars to make that point? You're still doing exactly what you're critiquing, it doesn't matter how good your point is, you still shifted money from your pocket into Disney et. al.'s
A person did not buy those products a company bought them to use as props to make more money and subsequently destroyed them as props to make more money off of their destruction
You on the other hand will personally spend $10000 to have a signed baseball
>a company bought them to use as props
Which company?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Red letter media the production and entertainment company that produces red letter media videos
I thought that would be self-evident given that this is a thread about a red letter media video which was produced by the company red letter media and posted to their YouTube channel red letter media
11 months ago
Anonymous
I actually googled it, and RLM is an LLC. So legally speaking it's a distinct entity with its own SSN, but that doesn't diminish the fact that someone still made the active decision to give thousands of dollars to Disney
>Guy who isn't moronic and doesn't put up blinders for an e-celeb
you're a delusional Black person and I'm not going to engage with you anymore
Lol you're so fricking mad
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Red Letter Media
I don't watch shit. I've only saw that snippet in other videos.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Red letter media the production and entertainment company that produces red letter media videos
so it's the guy from the op and two his homosexual friends he made the video with, what's the fricking difference. that's like saying lucas didn't sell star wars it was his company who did that
>A person did not buy those products a company bought them to use as props to make more money and subsequently destroyed them as props to make more money off of their destruction
Company and corporation are both terms derived from words for 'group of people' so it hardly makes a difference to me >You on the other hand will personally spend $10000 to have a signed baseball
Lol no, I don't buy merchandise or posters or anything like that. The only branded stuff I have is a couple of shirts from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, and only because my mom bought us matching sets after I introduced her to the shows
Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a point. They needed them as props to make a convincing set so they could make a good video. It's that simple.
I didn't say it invalidates the point, I'm saying the point doesn't diminish the consumer behavior
>Yeah, but if the point of the video is to criticize people who spend absurd amounts of money on franchise products, why spend thousands of dollars to make that point? You're still doing exactly what you're critiquing, it doesn't matter how good your point is, you still shifted money from your pocket into Disney et. al.'s
israelite or redditor?
>israelite or redditor?
Guy who isn't moronic and doesn't put up blinders for an e-celeb
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Guy who isn't moronic and doesn't put up blinders for an e-celeb
you're a delusional Black person and I'm not going to engage with you anymore
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I didn't say it invalidates the point, I'm saying the point doesn't diminish the consumer behavior
Okay, yeah, but why bother bringing that up at all then? Are you trying to make a point with that or just pointing it out for knowledge's own sake?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I wasn't even the first one to bring it up in the thread
Even if those were "Props" they still gave money to those industries. Simple as that. >Muh they did more money
Doesn't change the fact they paid for "The Props"
11 months ago
Anonymous
see
>I didn't say it invalidates the point, I'm saying the point doesn't diminish the consumer behavior
Okay, yeah, but why bother bringing that up at all then? Are you trying to make a point with that or just pointing it out for knowledge's own sake?
>Yeah, but if the point of the video is to criticize people who spend absurd amounts of money on franchise products, why spend thousands of dollars to make that point? You're still doing exactly what you're critiquing, it doesn't matter how good your point is, you still shifted money from your pocket into Disney et. al.'s
Are you being moronic on purpose? Watching a movie and then reviewing it is quite a bit different from mindlessly buying merchandise to support a franchise even if you hate the things being made.
>I would argue the exact opposite since physical consumption increases plastic waste in the environment and keeps shitty companies afloat more.
NTA but that gets us into the moral quandary of how downstream the pollution is. Media isn't just created with bits on a computer, there's production, people eating and producing waste, sets, props, etc., etc..
Right, but the physical tie-in products still require that the media was made in the first place, so they don't decrease that at all. You have to take the entire chain into account. And a movie can be shared infinitely for countless generations, so the initial impact will get more 'diluted' while every individual who wants one would need an entire toy. They can't just share a picture of one, like what digital movies essentially are.
So context and intent just don't matter to people any more? Everything has to be reduced down to general vagueries and all arguments have to have a universal answer that can't just be applied to a specific situation?
I would laugh if it wasn't so sad, but these hacks don't realise the irony of them complaining about repetitive slop, when they make several videos with the exact same joke
>Mocks consoomist
>Look at all those products behind him
Isn't it ironic?
They made a video of them destroying all of it to prove that they're cool and don't care.
they paid money to corporations to uh "own" them?
They were more making fun of the people that support them, not the corporations.
>Destroys them to get the appeal of the mass crowd
Cringe.
But that still means that they spent thousands of dollars in service of billion dollar media companies. At least consumers keep something from it
No different from any other set expense. Then again, no one's going to Home Depot and hanging up warped 2x4s on their wall so it's not really hypocritical to whine about lumber prices.
>No different from any other set expense.
Yeah, but if the point of the video is to criticize people who spend absurd amounts of money on franchise products, why spend thousands of dollars to make that point? You're still doing exactly what you're critiquing, it doesn't matter how good your point is, you still shifted money from your pocket into Disney et. al.'s
A person did not buy those products a company bought them to use as props to make more money and subsequently destroyed them as props to make more money off of their destruction
You on the other hand will personally spend $10000 to have a signed baseball
>a company bought them to use as props
Which company?
Red letter media the production and entertainment company that produces red letter media videos
I thought that would be self-evident given that this is a thread about a red letter media video which was produced by the company red letter media and posted to their YouTube channel red letter media
I actually googled it, and RLM is an LLC. So legally speaking it's a distinct entity with its own SSN, but that doesn't diminish the fact that someone still made the active decision to give thousands of dollars to Disney
Lol you're so fricking mad
>Red Letter Media
I don't watch shit. I've only saw that snippet in other videos.
>Red letter media the production and entertainment company that produces red letter media videos
so it's the guy from the op and two his homosexual friends he made the video with, what's the fricking difference. that's like saying lucas didn't sell star wars it was his company who did that
>A person did not buy those products a company bought them to use as props to make more money and subsequently destroyed them as props to make more money off of their destruction
Company and corporation are both terms derived from words for 'group of people' so it hardly makes a difference to me
>You on the other hand will personally spend $10000 to have a signed baseball
Lol no, I don't buy merchandise or posters or anything like that. The only branded stuff I have is a couple of shirts from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, and only because my mom bought us matching sets after I introduced her to the shows
I didn't say it invalidates the point, I'm saying the point doesn't diminish the consumer behavior
>israelite or redditor?
Guy who isn't moronic and doesn't put up blinders for an e-celeb
>Guy who isn't moronic and doesn't put up blinders for an e-celeb
you're a delusional Black person and I'm not going to engage with you anymore
>I didn't say it invalidates the point, I'm saying the point doesn't diminish the consumer behavior
Okay, yeah, but why bother bringing that up at all then? Are you trying to make a point with that or just pointing it out for knowledge's own sake?
I wasn't even the first one to bring it up in the thread
Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a point. They needed them as props to make a convincing set so they could make a good video. It's that simple.
yeah they sure convinced me that they're consooming morons. shartner was right
Even if those were "Props" they still gave money to those industries. Simple as that.
>Muh they did more money
Doesn't change the fact they paid for "The Props"
see
>Yeah, but if the point of the video is to criticize people who spend absurd amounts of money on franchise products, why spend thousands of dollars to make that point? You're still doing exactly what you're critiquing, it doesn't matter how good your point is, you still shifted money from your pocket into Disney et. al.'s
israelite or redditor?
The irony of course is that Jay consumes product for a living. But since he's doing it ironically, you're supposed to clap.
Are you being moronic on purpose? Watching a movie and then reviewing it is quite a bit different from mindlessly buying merchandise to support a franchise even if you hate the things being made.
It's exactly the same. One person consumes on a physical level, the other consumes on a psychological level (arguably worse).
I would argue the exact opposite since physical consumption increases plastic waste in the environment and keeps shitty companies afloat more.
>I would argue the exact opposite since physical consumption increases plastic waste in the environment and keeps shitty companies afloat more.
NTA but that gets us into the moral quandary of how downstream the pollution is. Media isn't just created with bits on a computer, there's production, people eating and producing waste, sets, props, etc., etc..
Right, but the physical tie-in products still require that the media was made in the first place, so they don't decrease that at all. You have to take the entire chain into account. And a movie can be shared infinitely for countless generations, so the initial impact will get more 'diluted' while every individual who wants one would need an entire toy. They can't just share a picture of one, like what digital movies essentially are.
So context and intent just don't matter to people any more? Everything has to be reduced down to general vagueries and all arguments have to have a universal answer that can't just be applied to a specific situation?
>you're a delusional Black person and I'm not going to engage with you anymore
these guys are gays
I would laugh if it wasn't so sad, but these hacks don't realise the irony of them complaining about repetitive slop, when they make several videos with the exact same joke