New Charls Carrol/MDE

youtube.com/watch?v=eoqfYKE1NMM

Charls talks about art, how liberals are trying to overly sexualize children for nefarious reasons, how recycling=picking cotton as a slave, and some stealth porn on Youtube.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KZjmAT4BK98
youtube.com/watch?v=58eaYbkIHeg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

JUST

I wish I could be more like Charls

I wonder if he editted this, up there with that piece of slime John Pelechs editting

nice intro Tbh

"kill em all"
-charls

what is it with DYEL manlets and youtube fame? Anyone that doesn't even try to take care of themselves physically shouldn't be taken seriously.

same
his comedy is my favorite out of the MDE group.

Post your body if its better than mine
Protip, you fucking won't pussy.

that headwhip at 0:55 is kino

Worst MDE member.

>Post your body if its better than mine

Protip if you're so ashamed of your mantits I've won by default.

Charles > Sam

Nick > Both
he's underused and busy all the time, I feel we haven't got the full Nick package

nick > sam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaz

i have the charls hairline

nick has a real job

Who is this midget? Is he on TV?

Please post your vlogger off topic people in Sup Forums

exactly, plus Sam even said he thinks Charles is funnier. I think Sam wouldn't even mind if Nick quit MDE, he's underappreciated

>being new
>posting
Fuck off back to where you came from if you have no respect to LURK MORE FAGGOT

...

a fuckin pile of wood and windows too

that's not charls' channel?

King of the manlets.

/this

nick
sam
chuck

Nice to see he's not still living in that basement with rats

I'm not new. Who is this little guy?

Is he a vlogger? Is he some normie retard? I watch a lot of movies and TV shows but have never seen him before.

the gay guy from MDE, that shitty Adult Swim show they astroturfed for a while but got cancelled.

youtube.com/watch?v=KZjmAT4BK98

based charls kino

Ah, so he's one of the fat, tranny fuckers mates? These guys are such fucking wasters. Imagine being convinced you were funny by a small bunch of low functioning racists and then having the general public watch your show and point out the fact that it is utter trash. Puerile, idiotic, humor-devoid TRASH.

lol

>those window transitions at 0:30-0:40

charls breaking new ground eh??

>being this out of the loop

lmao

>liberals are the pedos
Hahahahahahahahaha

thats Andrew Ruse's apartment

Oh my, I feel like such a silly goose for not recognising this non-entity. I've wasted so many years exploring high-brow cinema that I must have missed this vlogger.

I still think this stuff belongs on Sup Forums.

(((You)))

>someone who had a Sup Forums show isn't allowed on Sup Forums

nice logic. funny you mention vlogging because your posts contribute nothing, reading more like gay little blogs.

MDE is one of the few comedy projects exploring some interesting new space.

But it's not for everyone ofcourse, especially not posers who think they will impress anyone with their "high-brow tastes".

You little failure. I am smarter than you, funnier than you, richer than you and have more chance of getting an Adult Swim show than you.

Stay low-brow, dude. Not everyone wants knowledge to pose with. Some just enjoy bettering themselves. Try it.

I just don't understand why you guys keep on and on about how well shot these MDE things are. I assume you are being ironic?

I'll give them this: Good Idea, bad execution.

With all the liberal lefty echo shows it made sense to try to make one from the right. But I suspect these guys are just playing the long con. Am I supposed to believe a bunch of Art School kids from New England are right wing?

Exactly. They are just fame-hungry moneygrabbers. Can't wait to see them re-brand themselves as liberal comedians when the alt-right fad is over.

Where the fuck did i say it's well shot?

MDE members' politics are completely irrelevant to any of this.

The important part is that they are one of the few who are making fun of the sacred cow.

>they are one of the MANY who are MILKING the RACIST cow

Ugly dwarf

Your hysterical response only proves how disconnected from reality the extreme left got and why MDE is needed.

But keep yelling some shit about racism, hitler and alt right any time you disagree with someone. I am sure that will work wonders.

ohhh man if this is the best you got as far as sowing dissent in mde threads you need to regroup and come back with something new.

Ugh this guy is a moron.

lol keep trying kiddo we still like them

these are some pathetic attempts at splitting the fanbase. I see the same shill posts every time nobodys buying them either.

...

Hi Sam.

>we still like them

You like yourselves? How very narcissistic. Your show was bad and you are a bad influence to young people by sucking tranny cum without health insurance.

I'm hardly a bleeding heart liberal. The show was utter dogshit. How is a show made by a bunch of talentless, unintelligent amateurs needed by anybody? What do you feel the show achieved in its short run apart from showing how comically inept its creators are?

Thats cool brah, way to make him feel shit with all your awesome life achievements.
Why dont you enlighten us all with your patrician knowledge my dude as your clearly in the top tier breeding stock with the amount of success oozing off you.
LURK MOAR YOU RAGING FAGGOT

>How is a show made by a bunch of talentless, unintelligent amateurs needed by anybody? What do you feel the show achieved in its short run apart from showing how comically inept its creators are?

That's your opinion. I don't think WP was MDE's best work anyway.

t. bleeding heart liberal

I've been posting here since 2009. I have a decent job in animation. Yeah, I've done okay for myself. I could probably get in the ear of some quite powerful industry types with a couple of phonecalls. You probably like at least one of my shows. Feels good.

Ugly? He's really fucking handsome, you must be a jelly neckbeard

Clearly not consistently if you missed the whole MDE thing thats been ongoing for the last two years.
Also
>job in animation
>get in the ear of powerful industry types
Come on bruh, maybe you could be part of a show but your own? I doubt you could just place some calls then get funded for whole season on AS.
Prove me wrong though, maybe it will be a great career opportunity for you.

I really liked the show, go fuck yourself.

You probably think content from Vice or BuzzFeed is good.

charls is so fucking handsome like his eyes are fucking dreamy and his jaw has to be chiseled by adonis himself what a fucking stud

>Thats called a dog park
>sometimes you find yourself in there, no dog.
what did he mean by this?

Charls exists on multiple platforms. Some not as conventional as others.

Go back to somethingawful faggot.

i think charls is a comedic genius

i only watch his videos after 3 am when i can't sleep

it's like some weird calling where i am drawn to his stuff will find a new video he's done only at late hours of the night

if i actually cared about redpilling faggot 16 year olds i'd do comedy like this. he's obviously gone down the rabbit hole like me.

but i have a $10M startup to run and plenty of my own anxiety to deal with

if i was some hollywood jew i'd give this guy a blank check. he's this generation's apatow if he can channel his energies

what does your startup do? i'm a vc

vcs are cancer and sandhill rd should be nuked. though we raised an angel round. it has to do with bioinformatics, see GRAIL etc.

also to add to my post, andrew ruse is great and a patrician

Imagine being Sam Hyde and having to shill his youtube videos at 2 in the morning because he knows that is the only time he can get away with it without people calling him out for the 31 year old washed up loser he is. Imagine staying up from 2 to 6 am shilling from multiple IPs about your new youtube video. That is the life of Sam Hyde.

I didnt know we had super hackers who can tell when the same person changes ip all the time

I've worked with AS quite a lot over the years. I've been part of lots of projects, some my own and some collaborations. I am aware of MDE and was being facetious. I do not like their material or what I have heard about them as people (mainly the tall guy). I have lunches with people that you guys would recognize on a weekly basis. It's not a huge deal for me to speak to some of the top brass. I have ideas run by me all the time, and vice versa.

Never shit where you eat. That was the mistake of MDE.

>though we raised a seed round
you're mostly right though. even as a vc, I only advocate funding for businesses that need to accelerate because of competitive pressure or funding up-front (like in drug development, SAS with longer payback periods, etc).
good luck bruth

It's not hard to tell when Sam is shilling his shit from multiple accounts.

>Never shit where you eat.
Totally agree, sammy shouldnt have poked that buzzfeed faggot.

for sure man, are you in the valley? i relocated to cambridge last fall after being in sf the last 5 years. i got burned out by your type, no offense. i played the game.

it would amaze me if sam's taking time to shill his shit at this point

there's a rabid fanbase of thousands of neckbeards ready to eat up any material he puts out at this point.

having their show cancelled only increased their "punk rock" sensibilities

traditional media is dying anyway. he could partner with a 'brand' and have the same organic growth

You mean guess? Because theres no way to tell fo sho

For example, is Sam.

Imagine being so retarded that you can't even figure out that this video has nothing to do with Sam Hyde.

I think you are Sam Hyde.

Na i think these must be sam
All sam, right?

>giving out so many (you)s so recklessly

watch what the fuck you're doing man!

yeah bro i'm definitely sam hyde xD

This stuff always reminds me of a Pauline Kael essay on art films which I can only half remember. Something about using a mask of freewheeling self-expression as profound truth to mask that lots of 'artists' are just too shit and insecure to make an honest attempt at expressing themselves intelligently, and instead just wallow in this pointless intuitive haze which can only be admired by people who see themselves in it. I'll try and find it.

Sounds like Pauline has a case of the fox's grapes Lol

>thinks Charls is expressing himself

Oh user...

LIKE just about everything else at the moment, movies seem to be out of
control. Is it possible that, as we increasingly hear suggested in discussions
of civil rights or air pollution or Vietnam or education, "nobody's
minding the store"? At Georgy Girl you may find yourself laughing,
but intermittently, in discomfort or even stupefaction, asking yourself,
"What are they doing in this movie? Do they know what they're doing?"
They're obviously very clever, very talented, but what's going on? To get at
the peculiar nature of Georgy Girl, let me go back a bit to Morgan!, which
probably just because of the way it's out of control has touched a nerve for
this generation.
Thirty years ago in My Man Godfrey, when Mischa Auer, as the parasitic
left-wing artist, imitated a gorilla to entertain the rich family who kept
him as a pet, the meaning and relations were so clear no one had to signal
us that it was symbolic. In Morgan! David Warner isn't nearly as good at
the gorilla act, which is plastered with so many tags and labels that all we
can be sure of is that it's meant to be symbolic. He's not just a parasitic leftwing
artist with a gorilla act, he's the misfit as hero, and a childlike romantic
rebel, anarchist, outsider, nonconformist, etc. ; he's also crazy, and in his
pop fantasy life he's King Kong. Morgan! is Ionesco's Rhinoceros turned
inside out : the method of Rhinoceros may have been absurd but its meaning
was the conventional liberal theme - the danger of people becoming
conformist-animals. Morgan! is a modernized version of an earlier􀅑 romantic
primitivist notion that people are conformists, animals are instinctively
"􀅒rue" and happy and, of course, "free."

Morgan! was maddening to many older people because of its kids' notion
of nonconformity as crazy fun, its way of giving adolescent confusion the
borrowed significance of symbols, its maudlin, schizoid mixture of comedy
and whimsy and psychopathology and tragedy and pathos. It 􀆅eemed the
ultimate in grotesque pop homogenization: Trotsky's .death acted out in
farce with a smashed eggshell went even farther than Edward Albee turning
a great writer's name into a stupid joke.
I haven't bothered to say that Morgan! is a bad movie because 􀆆tqough
that's implicit in. what I'm saying, it's a minor matter. The point is that 􀆇t's
not an ordinary movie and whether it's good or bad is of less ·interest than
why so many young people respond to it the way they do, especially as, in
this case, they are probably responding to exactly what we think· makes it
bad. Sometimes bad movies are more importaqt than good ones just because
of those unresolved elements that make them such a mess. They may get at
something going on around us that the movie-makers felt or shared and
expressed in a confused way. ·Rebel Without a Cause was a pretty terrible
movie but it reflected (and possibly caused) more cultural changes than
many a good one. And conceivably-it's part of the function of a n;10vie -critic
to know and indicate the difference between a bad movie that doesn't much
matter because it's so much like other bad movie􀆈 and a bad movie that
matters (like The Chase or Th.e Wild A ngels) because it affects, people
strongly in new,, different ways. And if it be said that this is sociology, pot
aesthetics, the answer is that an aesthetician who gave his time to criticism
of current movies would have t be an awful fool. Movie criticism to be. of
any use whatever must go beyond formal analysis - which in movies is
generally a disguised form of subjective reaction to meanings and impli,cations,
anyway.

Those who made Morgan! probably not only share in the confusion of. the
materi􀆉l but, like the college audience, accept the ,confusion. This indifference
to artistic control is new. I think Morgan! is so 􀆊ppealing to college
students because it shares their self-view : they accept this mess of cute
infantilism and obsessions and aberrations without expecting the writer and
director to straighten it out or resolve it and without themselves feeling a
,necessity to sqrt it out. They didn't squirm as we did : they accepted the
grotesque and d1scordant elements without embarrassment. I'd guess that
to varying degrees they felt they were Morgan. And tha􀆋 suited them. just fine.
They may 􀆌e shocked when they see that he really. is crazy and in pain,
but they can quickly accept that, too, because he's mad ip a pop way they
respond to - madness as the ultimate irresponsibility for t}le ,rebel, the
only sanity for those who see what the "responsible" people supposedly did
to this world, and all that. If ftipness is all (as it is in so many of the new
movies) the flip-out is just an accepted part of life. Students liberally edpcated
not to regard analysis and breakdowns and treatment as anything
shameful refer to their own crack-ups casually, even a little proudly, like
battle scars, proof that they've had experience. They even taJk about breakdowns
as "opting-out" - as if it were a preference and a moral choice.

charles=arrogant unfunny limmy

hes nothing without sam, and sam is swiftly becoming shit too.

wheres that nick solo project HMMMM

>watching everything to decipher 'profound truth'

Besides, Charls isn't making art for self-expression, his very existence is art in and of itself. We merely tag along for the ride.

And of course to flip out and then flip back again, that makes you a hero
because you've been there. It also takes the fear away.
Georgy is a misfit heroine : it isn't that she doesn't want to conform but
that she can't because she just about is a gorilla. She's a brontosaurus of a
girl, with the bizarre problems of a girl who's too big to be treated as a girl,
and she's . childlike and "natural" and artistic and all the rest of the t>araphemalia
which now decorate characters designed to be appealing to
young audiences. Georgy Girl is so shrewdly designed it will probably appeal
to older audiences as well. The out-of-control thing is so bad you take
it for granted from the beginning. What's offensive al;lout it is that Georgy
Girl is already a commercialization of what in Morgan! seemed a genuine
split and confusion. Lack of control is made grotesquely cute. Although it's
funny, it's tricky and imarchistically chic and on the side- of-youth {like The
Knack) - as if the most important thing that the writers and director could
imagine was to be "larky."
Georgy Girl is so glib, so clever, so determinedly "kinky" that everything
seems fo be devalued. It's the cleverness of advertising art, of commercials,
of fancy titles - it's as if nothing really meant anything and nothing simple
could work any more. It's "touching" one moment and weird the next, and
like The Knack, it has evaporated before you're outside the theatre.

Even that sense of discomfort, of puzzlement, evaporates, because it is
all made trivial - Georgy's pain as well as her bright remarks. For example,
without any preparation or explanation, there is a horrifying sequence
in which she makes fl monstrous fool of herself at a party, and then everything
goes on as if it never happened. Will the episode or the lack of reac:
tions to it be upsetting to a younger audience? I doubt it. I recently saw a
famous professor make such a spectacle of himself on a public platform
that I had one of those great feminine intuitions - a premonition that he
would go home and kill himself. As it turned out, he gave a big party for his
students later 'that night, and his students didn't think anything special
about how he'd behaved on the platform, because he did it all the time.
Maybe they liked him for it; it made him more colorful, more of a character.
His lack of control brought him closer to them. And I assume that we're
supposed to like Georgy more because she acts out her ludicrous and selfpitying
impulses and doesn't think too much about it afterward. She has all
the blessings of affect and of affectlessness.
Is Georgy Girl a good movie or a bad one? It just isn't that simple. To
discuss the cast (Lynn Redgrave, Alan Bates, James Mason) or Narizzano's
direction wouldn't help. It's a less important movie than Morgan!
because it isn't so seriously confused; it doesn't touch a nerve, it only comes
teasingly close. It's more enjoyable partly because it doesn't get at anything
so fundamental.

Does everyone on MDE have terrible vision? What's with the thick lenses?

These movies are not just symptoms that will go a\vay. I think a pretty
good case could be made for including Lord Love a Duck and Who's
A fraid of Virginia Woolf? among the American works that are out of control,
and this may suggest that here, as in England, some of the most talented
people. don't really quite know what they're doing. At best, we may
get something that makes a new kind of art out of embarrassment; at worst,
lack of control may become what art is taken to mean. There is already a
generation for whom art is the domain of the 'irrational, of whatever can't
be clearly expressed or clearly understood, and they have adopted film as
their medium, their "religion.''
The general public probably cares less about artistic control than has
been assumed, or the public is also changing. One of the most surprising
box-office successes of last year, A Thousand Clowns, laid some claims to
being about nonconformity and it, too, went more and more out of control,
becoming redundant and embarrassing and gross in that same they-don'tknow-
what-they're-doing way. It didn't take its hero as far as Morgan's
romantic insanity but only to romantic crackpotism - harmless American
nonconformity. The hero's idea of freedom was to wander in Central Park
with a kid and make TV -style jokes about TV before going back to do
it for nioney. Basically, it was about as nonconformist as Mom's apple
pie, and it even fudged on that much daring by giving the Madison Avenue
spokesman the audience-pulling speech, which the Motion Picture Academy
promptly and gratefully honored with an Academy Award.

Should I really be taking a lot of vitamin c or is this just a troll?

These movies are full of contradictions. Is part of their appeal the ancient,
wheezing plot devices which crank them in motion? The kid is being
forcibly taken away from the TV gag-writer; the gorilla is being separated
from his mate; Georgy gets a baby to mother only to have the authorities
take it away. Underneath all the nonconformity gear are the crooked little
skeletons of old Shirley Temple pictures. Heartwarming. Georgy Girl, like
The Knack, is the story of the ugly duckling, and by beating Funny Girl to
the screen it jumps the gun on the new exploitation of comic pathos. Somehow
those who made Morgan! managed ( instinctively maybe but certainly
shrewdly) to· alter the original TV play hero from a tired adulterer to
a monogamous free spirit - probably the purest-in-heart hero of recent
years: The director Karel Reisz's method is so· eclectic, in the most blatant
sense of that word, that he has taken what he feels will "go" together; the
last sequence, which so many people have tried to interpret, is borrowed
from the end of Bufiuel's El, where it made perfect sense. Here it supplies a
"larky" finish. The obscenely "happy ending" of Georgy Girl is so off-beat
we lose the beat.
Because these movies all use and manipulate pop, it's easy for serious
critics to attack them for their mixture of conventions, for the infantilism of
a Morgan, etc. Yet I think that, for example, the meanings of The Red
Desert were basically just as confused and uncontrolled.

Those who tried to make sense out of The, Red Desert as an attack oq
industrialism had their best efforts quashed by word from the source that
nothing of the sort was intended. What was ,intended? No one covJd be sure,
yet the moyie did express certai􀈬. modern emotional states with which we're
prob􀈭bly all (amiliar. I once v).sited a woman in Beverly Hills who sat in a
settee backed by a huge inlaid .table covered with a marvelous cpllection of
art books, but when I referred tq one of them, her face 'Yas blank .and
confu􀈮ed, as if to say, what are you talking about? She ijJmost quiv􀈯red with
terr;:or whenever anyone came into the room, although G9d knows the putler
h,ad screened them carefully. Her conversation, or rather the phrases she
propped from nowhere into nothing, were about whether sh􀈰 sho.uld open
an 􀈱rt gallery or give up her marriage or take a trip, but to where? I .. think
she would have been perfectly likely to take a sandwich ourof smnenne's
mouth if the idea of food suddenly occurred to her.
Oqviously, she couldn't think of anything to do with her life 􀮥 she

Knowing there are people lil,ce this, I can understand that The Red Desert
relates .to something. But tpe title and Ravenna and industrialism, that's ({11
a, red herring, and so, I think, is. tpe use of color in the movie. The,pored,
indolent Jadi�s of Beverly Hills and elsewhere are much more likely to feel
that their clothes have suddenly gone gray and to rush out to buy others.
Their lovers go gray, too, '}.nd they try on others. Despite this relationship
to the world around us, I fo􀈵np the movie deadly: a hazy poetic illustration
of emotional chaos - which was made peculiarly attractive. If I've got to
be dri'{en up a wall, I'd rather do it at my own pace - which is (considerably
faster than Antonioni's. I thought it qualified as the definitive example
of art cinema·: a movie beco)lles cinema when it can bore you a􀈶· much as
your worst experiences at , lectures, concerts, and ballet; i.e., when it becomes
something you feel you shouldn't walk out on. Those who loved the
movie, the TY producers' and architects' wives who feel that their Iive.s are
waste4 and who are top "gifted" to do good, useful work, were likely to say
things like, "I loved looking at it, I didn't care what the content was," ·which
probably means not just that they found it visually pleasurable but that they enjoyed
drifting away into vague, stylish emotional states - which is about
·only way one can respond to the frozen rhythms. I think they thought it
the story of their lives : they identified with that crazy sensitive broad
way college students do with Morgan. And as reacting to the movie
for these women not an 4lterpretation which could be validated by
-􁖦ar ...,. n it against the meanings and connections in the work, but anything
happened to occur to them as they saw it or thought about it afterward,
didn't necessarily care that it didn't make sense. What it comes down to
of these bad movies is their movie, or which fantasy of themselves
. they adore?

You can wait to see if the high arts will put us in touch with these distortions of
experience, or if the social science􀎿 will deal with them in the "fullness of
time," ot you can go to the key bad movies now.

[November 1 9 66]

Would it surprise you to learn that this woman inspired Armond White?

I feel like you missed the point. Maybe try marathoning the whole essay, or failing that at least a complete paragraph. The point is to try and take something tangible from what you see. If you walk away from something only able to vaguely describe what it was 'getting at' either you're stupid or you just wasted your time on a flashy pile of nothing.

What can we take away from an MDE piece? Let's use the one posted ITT as an example. What the hell is it?

the recycling quote was pretty good

that alone made it worth a watch

Why couldnt you post a link instead of a wall of text?

It doesn't really make any sense as a whole though. If he wanted to shittalk recycling/bullshit civic-duty nonsense he could have just done that. Why did he need to devote half of the video to posing in a bathroom and pouring drinks with piss sound-effects?

I like MDE but I don't see them as anything more than spazzy weirdos who talk on my wavelength. I even unironically enjoyed World Peace.

I tried to find one but Kael's writing is hard to find online.

They're meant to be funny, the only 2deep4u thing in world peace was the guy going to prison bit

I actually laughed at 'The Man Who Wouldn't Be What They Made Him To Be.' I think that at least 1/3 of the skits didn't really work as straight forward humour though, even to someone like me who can appreciate nonsense like this:

youtube.com/watch?v=58eaYbkIHeg

The show is too full of strange non-sequitors, dead air and things which seem to only be there to make you uncomfortable for me to take it as straight comedy. Unless you were to argue that they've discovered some new form of comedic rhythm to which the oddness is indispensable. If you were to say that I really wouldn't have any good reply. But I find that hard to believe.

We finally found someone that's even less funny than Sam..

Didn't think that was possible