This is something I probably should have done long before now, back when I was reviewing Kickassia, Suburban Knights and To Boldly Flee. For those who have read them, you'll know that I praised the films (overall) as great comedies, but that could be my enjoyment of satire. But at face value, there may be a lingering belief, does this mean that I enjoy movies like the Movie movies, and to that I say no. But why? Why is there a difference between To Boldly Flee and something like Disaster Movie?
First off, its the references. With To Boldly Flee, yes its satirizing many different movies like Star Wars, Star Trek, Terminator, Men in Black ect, the same as the Movie movies. But at the core, they're still satirizing themselves. Jesu Otaku being electrocuted and becoming Edward from Cowboy Bebop as a example. With something like Meet the Spartans, there's no smart self satire, just crude satire of anything thats popular and, in particular, current. In To Boldly Flee, every reference has something to do with either the genre or the characters, whereas with the Movie movies, the humor is aimed at anyone who has watched the mocked films, often resorting to "jokes" that to many people, aren't funny as it is just a reference. There were ridiculous amounts of "jokes" I've seen in some of those Movie movies that got nothing out of me other then "really?". Now granted, there have been cases where the films got a laugh out of me, like the road marker signs showing which path leads to safety, and the other leads to death. That was funny for me as it mocks one of tropes in Horror films. With the Movie movies, it comes off as a mockery of the original source, even if the source movie was still being worked on at the start of the production, with To Boldly Flee, the only obvious, at least for me, reference that wasn't anything to do with the producers and actors was the mockery of S.O.P.A, and that was because it was an issue during the production for them as Internet Critics. Every other reference is, at least to me, more of a homage to the source material. Yes it makes it look comedic, but in a more controlled way then the Movie movies. The use of Mario Kart's Blue shell as a example: its absolutely stupid to see it in To Boldly Flee, but it still has the weight of the shell in the games. The dread on their faces, the way the shell moves, the way it behaves is very similar to the way it works in the Mario Kart series. If you've ever had the shell float over you when you were in the lead, about to win, you know the feeling of dread when you see it, the feeling when you process "there goes my victory".
A big problem I personally have with the Movie movies is the budget, or lack there of, in the production. You can tell these movies were made as cheep as possible, and to me its insulting. But I hear you asking "But these movies were also done cheep, why are you praising them and hating the Movie movies?" And the reason why is because the Chanel Awesome anniversary movies were never at a cinema. I can't walk into a store or my local DVD rental shop and borrow them. The movie movies are. I remember first herd of the Movie movies when I saw the Epic Movie poster at one of the nearby cinema's here, same as Disaster Movie. So to see that these films were put into cinemas is a genuine insult for me. For the anniversary films, I can forgive the cheep budget, and they make do with what they can, producing some great films with what they had. The Movie movies scream "We did this so that we can make more profit". It looks intentionally cheep which is why I find it disgraceful. I give the Bayformers films a lot of hate, but at least they look like they deserve to be shown in cinemas... whether they do or not is subject to opinion. This is going to sound like another contradiction, so feel free to raise any Objections. But while I haven't seen the film yet, I also don't have that problem with Spaceballs because it adds to the comedy factor. To see the Millennium Falcon as a glorified RV, I think its hilarious, Darth Vader's costume being massively over sized and on someone as pathetic looking as Lord Dark Helmet (think, feel free to tell me I'm wrong if I am) I find hysterical.
So why am I defending Spaceballs and not the Movie movies? Because Spaceballs is, in concept, similar to Young Frankenstein. Both films take aspects of their source material and add comedic aspects to it. What if the blind made accidents? What if the denial of characters like Igor was to such a extent, they had no idea about parts of their bodies? It adds a comedic edge to the original source material. That's what people like about Young Frankenstein, Airplanes, Spaceballs, what I like about the Anniversary films and what the Movie movies lack. Its also one of the reasons why projects like Video Games Highschool took off and why spoof animations like Batman eating a Hotdog keep getting views to this day. Anyway, that's it for now, tomorrow: The Pikmin shorts