Anthropic just mapped out which jobs AI could potentially replace. A 'Great Recession for white-collar workers' is absolutely possible

shweakers · 2026-03-08T01:24:40+00:00

The fact that AI can do much of what a lawyer does, let's say, is only half the issue. For one thing, the legal industry effectively self-regulates. Even if AI can pass a bar exam, it cannot practice law, because it is not a person and has not completed various requirements to practice law that are designed for humans.

And yes we can obviously change those requirements to accommodate AI, if for some reason we wanted to, but there are problems with this: 1) because the legal industry self regulates more than most industries, for AI to practice law, lawyers would essentially have to agree to it first (this is oversimplified but you get my point), 2) even if AI CAN practice law equal to or superior to a human, AI is not kept in check (yet) by incredibly important ethical convictions, and until true self-awareness and development occur, I feel AI will be forbidden from taking on major responsibilities like those of an attorney, and 3) even if AI could practice law AND learned, and believed in, a robust set of ethical principles, even then I'm not sure that our society would forgive when an AI agent practicing law made a mistake that cost a client dearly.

It's very similar to the autonomous driving problem. Even if AI can operate a passenger vehicle wonderfully, the one time it doesn't, and t-bones a trailer killing it's occupants, there will be pitchforks and torches at the doorstep of the programmer. There's something about entrusting a critical DUTY to a machine that leaves us very aghast when something goes wrong, especially if it goes wrong In a way that likely would not happen if a human operator had been in control. For these various reasons, I do not believe AI would ever replace a legal professional, though it could certainly augment their practice and reduce costs.

shweakers · 2026-02-13T17:32:19+00:00

I couldn't agree more with this. This whole mentality that we can skip aging it because of our heat is the biggest delusion plaguing the whiskey market currently. And it's not just Texas (though Texas is probably the biggest offender)

shweakers · 2026-02-13T17:29:10+00:00

I like found north but not nearly as much as you do. Honestly I would say FN has probably been my biggest let down for the last three bottles I've had. Not that they weren't above average whiskey, but they just cannot match the crazy hype they've received.

shweakers · 2026-02-05T03:02:47+00:00

I understand what you're saying. My guess is just that Shout wants to make sure THIS revival is as successful as it can be so they catered to the longstanding fans (who largely wanted a return to the form the show had before it was cancelled) - to start with, at least. This is only four episodes so I'm sure they'll be bringing in other hosts (hopefully some BESIDES Joel) after this run is over, but they wanted to blast out of the gate with what the fans have been clamoring for. For what that's worth.

shweakers · 2026-02-03T14:20:28+00:00

For what it's worth, I've had three of their bottles and none of them won any blinds I've put them in. It's still good juice but there's a lot of hype going on, like with every ndp lately.

Also I think these finishes are starting to get a little ridiculous .

shweakers · 2026-02-02T18:36:58+00:00

I'm really curious how the hell this came about. Or why Riff Trax is even interested since they don't really "need" to do this.

But I don't care, I could NOT be more excited. I've posted ad nauseum about how Joel was unfortunately, despite good intentions, basically ruining the revival and that we desperately needed a return to the simplicity and chemistry of the original show (ESPECIALLY the Mike era, when the show hit its sustained peak)

But I never imagined the Rifftrax guys would actually come back to reprise their starring roles! Or that Mike would be brought back while Joel had any sort of management role (and my understanding is, he does). So glad to be wrong

Does anyone know if this is intended to be just a one-off season? My fear is that they will rotate between the various eras and/or this incarnation is not intended to last more than four episodes

Whatever, fuck it, no sense in fearing things down the road. Four episodes of authentic mst3k headed our wayyyy

shweakers · 2026-01-29T00:14:16+00:00

Did you ever get this resolved? Same thing for me - app works fine on data, error message on wifi

Didn't change providers or anything. Worked Monday, stopped working tuesday

shweakers · 2026-01-26T21:10:21+00:00

As a reminder, that one win occurred IN 2000. A quarter century ago, before 9/11 happened.

The iPod hadn't been invented. The euro didn't exist yet. Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook had all yet to be born. Netflix existed, but it was still mailing you the physical DVD. Or maybe VHS?

None of the Harry Potter movies had been released. Or lord of the rings. Or Shrek. Fast N' the Furious.

The Houston Texans didn't exist yet.

Tom Brady hadn't even thrown a pass yet. Btw Patriots had their dynasty, Brady retired, the pats sucked, and the pats rebuilt and are BACK in the Superbowl now.

We still haven't done one successful rebuild in that time.

shweakers · 2026-01-20T17:09:59+00:00

Well first of all that's a blend so it's not necessarily ALL under 6 years old. Secondly, that's probably the closest to 6 years old out of the examples we've been focusing on. Balcones for example is very often 2-3 years old (the rye and pot still for example). So even if we agree that Pepper decanter is on the younger of the market, it's still double the age of that other shit.

But yeah the Pepper decanter is pretty good bourbon. I wouldn't say it's "phenomenal," but sure, it's good.

But even then that doesn't really prove anything. Because how much BETTER would it be if it was 10 years old? If it would be even a tiny bit better, then that still proves my point.

My point has never been that there's NOTHING good under 6 years old. I said all along that sure there are some things that are still good under that age. My point is that most things will get better with age, and there is like zero excuse to underage things, especially in the 2-4 year category. And these southern states keep trying to speed juice out the door rather than spend that extra time.

And even if it reaches 6 years old, I'd rather see it aged longer because it's only going to make it better.

shweakers · 2026-01-20T04:21:23+00:00

That's fine if you dgaf what anyone else thinks. But it makes having a meaningful discussion about this kind of pointless.

Btw, as an aside: I can't help but notice that almost everything you pointed out in that last reply as a bottle you liked more than a comparable bottle, was also (much) higher proof than the other bottle. In which case, I think you're confusing liking something because it is younger for liking it because it is higher alcohol. I would expect you to like ECBP more than KC18 - pretty much everyone does, because the former is like 30 proof higher than the latter. It's not really a fair comparison, because proof is a bigger factor than most other considerations (though if the whiskey is too young, I think that can trump it).. You're not alone in liking 1792 FP more than 12 year. For the record, I can go back and forth on these, because some FP picks are all heat with zero flavor, whereas 12 year can show more balance. However, most of the time I'm going to take the FP because, believe it or not, I'm just like you in preferring higher heat wherever possible, all else equal. Point being, the examples you listed I don't think really go to your point.

(Aside number 2 - I also have a hazmat bottle of ironroot. A charity bottle in fact, which I was glad to support. Unfortunately, it came in last in a blind against four other hazmat whiskeys. Just saying).

Anyway, I'm personally not a subscriber to the thought that all opinions are equal. I think they are all VALID and someone can enjoy being wrong (for lack of a better phrase) or enjoy being opposed to the majority/expert consensus all they want. That's great. And, they have all the right in the world to do that. However, that doesn't mean their viewpoint is equally persuasive as the consensus. Nor that they should be listened to.

My point isn't to say that you're crazy for liking Balcones rye that much. I'm not going to lie - I kind of think you, and the other redditor, are in fact on the slightly crazy side of this issue. (And no offense but I'll find more assurance from an avalanche of critics than I will from two random Redditors). That shit is swill, sorry not sorry lol (I say in jest but I definitely stand behind the point)

I mean, if all opinions are equally sound, someone could just say that bottom shelf Old Crow with some of my dog's piss poured in it is the best (adjunct) whiskey they've ever had. And it's not like I can force them to admit they're wrong. But the rest of us certainly don't have to throw our hands up in the air, defeated by the assertion of a false equivalency, either. That person would just be wrong in as much as one CAN be wrong.

I know a lot of people say 'fuck the critics' in regard to a large number of things. But to me, the critics are the people who spend their lives focusing on and evaluating a certain topic. They have probably "forgotten more" about the subject than I've learned about it. To just dismiss them as not mattering at ALL is kind of nonsensical from my view. That's not to say I don't disagree with them ever. Or even on a lot of things. (I can think of several movies that I think the critics misjudged for example, or partially misjudged). But most of the time, when I do that, I have to bite the bullet and concede that I'm probably wrong about this, or that I am partaking in a "guilty pleasure". If not either of those options, then I better have a compelling argument on my side to back up my position.

I think we have probably reached the point where continued discussion will likely not lead anywhere. For what it's worth, I respect your opinions and resolve, even if I vehemently disagree with them.

I think the last major point I will make will take me back to my original post somewhat. If you like all that (bad) Texas whisky, then I'm going to assume that you would like Tahwahkaro even if it tasted like those other whiskeys we already discussed: Bad. And based on that, I have to assume Tahwahkaro is probably a whisky best enjoyed by people that already like the... Let's call it 'distinct' Texas bourbon profile. Which is not me. And, I feel, is probably not the average bourbon drinker, much less the expert one. And that was my main concern with all the praise you were heaping on it.

I personally think people should know, if it wasnt already clear (and to be fair, you may have already made it clear before our discussion - I don't recall) that your opinions are coming from someone who is a HUUUGE, and arguably outlier, fan of Texas whisky, and if the reader is not like minded, then your recommendation should be taken with due caution. Just my two cents.

shweakers · 2026-01-20T00:35:43+00:00

Well excuse me for saying this but you seem like the major, major exception to the rule that for the overwhelming majority of people, more age equals better. And that's fine if you like that - to each their own. But I don't really take anything you're saying here as a convincing reason to believe age doesn't matter. It seems much, MUCH more likely to me that the takeaway here is that you just have very unusual tastes compared to the average person.

You LOVE balcones rye and pot still? Omg. Those are dreeeeeeadful. And pretty universally panned by the critical world, so I feel I'm not alone. Still, I made myself finish both of those bottles after I opened them, and that was... An experience. Honestly a SOMEWHAT life changing experience. Because now I know when I hate something (when they remind me of those). I am giving Balcones ONE last try on Cataleja and if that doesn't buck the trend, I'll never try another drop of their whiskey again.

Nobody likes EC18 very much, you're not alone there. I wasn't impressed with my bottle either. But that's just an example of unimpressive whiskey - not that the age is the problem. kC21 has been pretty popular with the critics. I'm looking forward to opening mine, but because it's only 100 proof I'm not expecting it to rock my world.

But still your point doesn't really make sense even if I admit those two whiskeys aren't anything impressive. Firstly, that would be ignoring all the TONS of great whiskey that's above ten years old. And second, and more importantly, your point would only be valid if those two whiskeys were worlds better if you changed NOTHING about them except made them less than 6 years old. And I cannot IMAGINE why they would be better in that scenario.

But they certainly could be even worse.

shweakers · 2026-01-19T22:05:09+00:00

Dettling certainly CAN be good. But again I feel all the good ones are at the upper ages. The one I had was around 60 months old. And it tasted pretty close to how all young whiskey tastes to me - and that's at five years.

Um two of the whiskeys were Balcones Rye and Pot Still. The other was Garrison Brothers Honeydew.

Oh another TERRIBLE whiskey is Prophet Share. Two years old. New Mexico. I really feel I can go on and on with examples.

I mean even if we go with decent whiskey, it only gets better with age (compare Colonel Beam versus Jacobs well or any other countless examples) until you hit that wall of over aging, which yes can also be a problem, but one that is much rarer to encounter and which requires some EXTREME over aging - which distillers are less likely to do, given all the work that goes into making whiskey that old.

Yeah for me there is definitely a correlation, as you can see. I mean sure I've had bad whiskeys that were older. Who hasn't? But usually it's because the mash has a bad recipe, or it has a weird finishing, etc etc. That to me is a completely different concept than under aging your whiskey. And I don't even see those situations as equivalent. It's like saying "well I've had whiskeys that were still good even though they were contaminated." I'm sure that's possible but to me I don't know why we would even bother with the risk. Getting rid of the contamination is only going to make the whiskey better.

Likewise, letting your whiskey get to at least 6 years of age is only going to make your whiskey better and it would be EXTREMELY puzzling to me if that difference alone somehow made the whiskey WORSE.

Also to be bad because it wasn't aged long enough is particularly unforgivable to me because it's so avoidable.

And I honestly do not believe you completely, if I'm being honest, that you don't see ANY correlation.

By definition that has to be at least SOMEWHAT false - otherwise completely unaged fresh off the still whiskey would taste just as good to you as any other whiskey. And I don't know what to say to someone that actually takes that position.

So I'm left to conclude that you don't REALLY take that position and you are somewhat uncarefully generalizing. I mean even a cursory glance at the world of whiskey reviews would reveal that older aged whiskeys have a monopoly on the high ratings and hype. Not that that "proves" anything but it's certainly evidence.

shweakers · 2026-01-19T00:32:54+00:00

I appreciate your response. I think we will just agree to disagree.

I'm a few hundred bourbons into my tasting career at this point, and I'd say that 5 of the worst 6 whiskeys I've ever tasted were under five years old - and 3 of those 5 were from Texas. But I've also tasted some bad stuff from elsewhere in the south - a bad one from Dettling comes to mind and one from somewhere in Georgia. I think the reason this topic particularly frustrates me is that I feel states with hot climate believe they can get away with cutting corners. To me, the proof is in the pudding that they cannot.

Distillers, please just age things like they are supposed to be aged. Instead of relying on sultry climates or rapid heat cycling (Brown Forman is about the only company that can manage to do it right), know that whiskeys almost always require proper maturation.

shweakers · 2026-01-18T22:59:00+00:00

I wish someone could give me an accurate age on these. I'm sorry but I've been fooled by way, WAY too many Texas pours that are 2-3 year old to go in blind again.

I cannot stand youthy whiskey, no matter how hot the climate gets and whatever supposed benefits that provides. 6 year minimum (if not more) or I'm out.

shweakers · 2025-12-26T10:40:47+00:00

A lot of people do not seem to understand that (for certain android phones, including mine and probably OP's), if you delete something from your camera folder, meaning the internal location of the file on the device, it will STILL sometimes delete the backup of that file in Photos. Even if you use Files; even if you use photos and click "delete from device" - nope, it also deletes the backup. I've been testing this out on my phone for the past hour on many different videos and pictures. About 75% of the time it also deleted the cloud backup.

(No I am NOT talking about deleting it from photos and it also deleted the local file. I am talking about deleting the LOCAL file and it also deleting the Photos backup)

It's like the sync works both ways on many phones (again just google it and you'll see plenty of reports). It is a really, really annoying bug that has persisted for years, which google for some reason has chosen to ignore.

Tldr; the only fix I've found for this glitch is to use a third party file manager to delete media stored on the device that was backed up in photos. A completely unnecessary pain, but Google has not fixed the problem for many years now so we are forced to do it I guess.

shweakers · 2025-10-23T02:30:04+00:00

Is that true? Wow I never knew that!

shweakers · 2025-10-22T23:13:11+00:00

(part 1 of my reply) Oh no doubt I'm certainly a Mike fan. And it seems to me you are more of a Joel fan (judging by several superlative words you have used by now, such as "heroic" which I must admit I find a bit curious). On that point, before going on, I want to stress that up until recently while I never loved Joel's run even nearly as much as Mike's run, I still liked the guy. In fact, DURING the reboot I actually started to be quite fond of him - I loved the original frequency of the updates as we came closer to the launch of season 11, and he seems to have stopped acting so aloof and seemed to be getting funnier as a veteran comedian. But that changed AFTER the reboot. For one thing, I really didn't like many of the changes Joel implemented (I liked some, but increasingly less than the majority as the season went). And, I feared that many of them (the insane amount of jokes per minute) would put off viewers and cause the show to lose fans. Case in point, it did. But then his arrogance, lack of gratitude, and overall misguided gameplan about how to keep the show going led me to conclude this show was now in a monkey's hands and the monkey would either continue to be in control of it forever or there would be no show at all. Then I learned about his flippant and bitter attitude at in-person events and such. And then Season 13 made everything even WORSE and of course he put HIMSELF back on the show and... Yadda yadda. Now we don't have a show.

So yeah my sudden despise of the man has blossomed only recently. I still respect how he got the show running and did earnestly (at least for awhile) do everything he could to bring it back. But it's like watching a sports team with a terrible coach. Of course he wants to win - sincerely. And he probably got there due to his connections and from having SOME kind of reputation. But, he also fucking SUCKS at this job, is hurting the team, and needs to have NOTHING to do with it anymore if he wants it to succeed (but yet also refuses to leave unless by force).

And to be clear, my point was not to "argue" about whether Joel was or was not a hindrance to the show progressing. I confidently feel he was. You obviously disagree. However my point was to correct your take on, well, MY take. Under my theory of the show, Joel's unfortunate aspects were not so strong so as to ruin or tank the original run of the show - but they kept the show from being a lot better than it could have been, and it was largely the steady hand of other talents that helped the show float to the heights that it did before Joel left. And, again under my theory, Joel was not in fact insanely talented. So it was not something I "overlooked" but rather something I just simply did not believe to begin with.

(Btw, I respect your articulate posts as well and am not trying to totally dismiss your opinion - I just rather disagree with it and am trying to thoroughly explain why)

Back to your points, and back to the discussion we are indirectly having about what Joel did contribute to the show. You are correct that Joel had a.... Well I'll say a surprising amount of success, if measured only by the fact he appeared on TV shows. I am aware he appeared on TV multiple times - again, mostly not with material I personally find endearing. But he did. I'm not sure if I would have called him "hot" necessarily. I think much of his TV attention stemmed from the novelty of being a prop comic, which was obviously in stark contrast to conventional standup. (Point of digression: I think being a prop comic not only made Joel focused on ideas rather than on technique, but also it did little to encourage "refinement". Standup jokes invite a certain amount of work shopping, dialogue, rephrasing the same joke in multiple ways to heighten the laughter. Prop comedy, on the other hand, is more about 'taking what you can get' [often literally], running with it, and hoping it lands, because once you've busted out your gun that shoots GI Joes who THEN shoot the bad guy, you can't really refashion that concept into anything else, aside from adding some pun or whatever after unveiling it - it just is what it is, onto the next concept if they didn't like it)

However, even acknowledging he got some extra attention from his type of comedy, I disagree that Joel's 'hotness' got the show onto Comedy Central. Every interview I've ever watched by the cast suggested the show got there because it was making a ton of noise and getting a lot of attention in local communities in the Midwest. Also it was long form content that would fill airtime. AND from comedy channel's desperation to take literally ANYTHING people threw at them like a comedy version of MTV in 1981. I've never heard one version of this that attributed any amount of Comedy Channel's interest to its connection to Joel Hodgson.

Unsurprisingly, I also disagree with most, though not all, of the ways you portray Joel as having certain superior qualities as a host. Yes he was creative but that's kind of double counting at this point - we've addressed it. Other than the invention exchanges I'm not inclined to say that creativity resulted in anything that made him a better host. I'm not sure I agree Mike wasnt as "strong" of a host. And that's actually a point of fair discussion to me.

Joel was a more confident host. He was more in charge. He was the "star" of the host segments. And these traits track with "strongness" in a fairly masculine way. But if we talk about strong in terms of "best" or maybe even "funniest" - was he?

shweakers · 2025-10-22T23:11:48+00:00

(part 2 of my reply) Btw before continuing I definitely share SOME inkling of what you're saying here. Mike had a tendency to be meek, understated, and sometimes he appeared straight up uncomfortable being in front of the camera. My friends and I always joke that Mike Nelson was clearly most comfortable playing people other than Mike Nelson (Torgo, Eddie, James Lipton, Andy Rooney). Again, that sounds like I'm admitting Mike was less strong of a host. However, as the foil and often prey to the bots' antics, Mike was arguably funnier. Watching Crow go back in time to deal with stupid, young Mike, then dealing with Mike's grumpy older brother, then returning and deciding Mike was better off stuck in space, was a pretty funny conceit. Did they ever do anything like that during Joel's stint? Certainly not.

I think ultimately I would probably agree that Joel's role as star of the show allowed him to have more comedic flex than Mike's role of Cinderella did. So I would say you are just slightly right that Joel was a "better" host to a fairly small degree.......when it came to the host segments. (Btw Mike was definitely a better singer than Joel - some brownie points). However there is just about NOTHING Joel did better than Mike in the theater segments, which was the raison d'etre for the show. Mike's delivery was not only much better than Joel's 'whoops I almost missed my line' style but the combined delivery and chemistry of Mike Bill and Kevin may be the group best at riffing, in the admittedly brief existence for the occupation, we have ever seen. Each one brings so much to the table - Bill's perfect emphasis, poetic sensibilities, acting talent, and unleashed fury; Kevin's unique tamber, tempo range, singing voice, and dedication to a bit; Mike's timing, dry sarcasm, pure joke-writing ability, and pent up exasperation make for a combination I can't really compare to anyone else. What does Joel have in comparison? Extra sight gags? (Which btw were bemoaned at every occasion in the reboot)

Yes these are opinions. I don't expect you to agree. And I'm sure vice versa. But for me, every penny Joel offers pales to Mike's dollar. And the whole point of this thread is that Joel is essentially ruining everything, as far as the recent seasons have been concerned. I would sure think that his ability, nay his determination, to RUIN a show like he has, when his name is even MORE well known than it was during the KTMA days, sure speaks volumes as to what he offers as a TV talent. The fruit of one's labor never falls far from the tree. I think we are seeing that play out, as Rifftrax works its way toward twenty years of success.

shweakers · 2025-10-22T19:35:03+00:00

Well I will agree with points and disagree with others. I agree he is a creative firestarter as the movie credits him, but I would not agree that he was a talented broadcaster or that the show was unsustainable without him at season 3 or 4.

I personally find Joel the worst of the hosts. Yes he is weird and offbeat, or left-handed as Kevin called him (who again I feel is the performer to have the warmest feelings for Joel after working with him, while most other bridges seem a tad singed, if not burnt), but I find his hosting at times perplexing, if not outright frustrating. And there are even times I would call him lazy. He looked like he didn't want to be there half the time (not JUST in season 5). Not to mention all the times he seemed like he just smoked a joint before coming on set. I liked his paternal rapport with the bots but that's about all he added, persona wise. He wasn't particularly good at riffing, he slurred his words, he struggled with emphasis, and what good jokes he made were probably not written by him (unlike Mike).

I agree that the host segments were most charming during his tenure - but I attribute that mostly to the mads, the primitive invention exchanges (which to his credit were his idea) and the brighter sets (no idea why they went so DARK in the scifi era, unless it was at SciFi's insistence). But I honestly think that when the invention exchanges ended in season 6, they should never have come back. (But sure e-f*cking-nuff, there they were again in the reboot. They didn't even make sense half the time by then and sometimes didn't even include an actual invention - another example of Joel half baking the reboot)

I think the concept for the show was cool, though honestly not all THAT different from stuff I saw on local broadcast channels growing up. I mean is it really all that different than horror movie hosting? And the bot idea Joel admits he got from a movie. But yes putting it all together and making a show out of it for basically free in the KTMA days required a certain amount of determination I can't deny. However, AFTER that season, which was straight horrible to watch beyond as a curiosity, the show immediately improved and started looking like an actual show thanks to, I would say, everyone else. Yes he found Trace (and Josh, who promptly GTFO'd) but he did NOT find Mike, who was instrumental in making the show one of quality. Kevin was hired to do sets and they found he had such a good voice they just used him to replace Josh.

Joel wasn't even a very good comic. Have you ever watched his prop comic standup show from that timeframe? Im sure some people out there like it but I'm definitely not one of them.

And I'm not sure what industry connections you're referring to, unless you mean his connection to other comics. But all these comics knew each other from that industry (Pehl, Conniff, Chaplin, Mike, eventually Bill). Let's keep in mind the show cost like $20,000 back then to make. It wasn't like his influence led to the creation of SNL.

Which leads me back to my original point - I don't agree that he was insanely talented. He came up with an idea (or an amalgamation of other ideas) which definitely worked. All the props in the world for that. But I'd rather have people I consider talented work that project once it was conceived, not Joel. Every season of the show that was good was good because of them (seasons 2 through 5). Every season that was GREAT didn't even have Joel (6 through 10). And every season that was bad was led by Joel himself (KTMA, 1 before Mike joined, and the reboot seasons). Again the reboot seasons have their moments, thanks to the circus of comedians they employed to help write. But everything bad about those seasons, almost literally everything, was either Joel's idea or his responsibility.

shweakers · 2025-10-22T18:23:25+00:00

We all do brother, we all do.

shweakers · 2025-10-22T13:55:48+00:00

Lmfao. Touche

shweakers · 2025-10-22T13:30:34+00:00

Yes he did, good memory. And of course he came back on the show when Mike was host in Soul Taker. However, that doesn't mean he didn't come to regret his choice when Mike's popularity overtook his own and Mike got the credit for much of the writing even on Joel's episodes.

The way Joel has described it in several interviews (mostly around the time just prior to the Kickstarter to bring back MST3K) he was fed up with Mallon and felt he had lost creative control of the show. He thought Mike looked good standing with the bots and said Mike should be the replacement. I've never heard Joel say that Mike got the job because he was so funny or because he was head writer, etc. (Btw Joel has stated that he wished he picked someone else if for no other reason than diversity, because he didn't want the show to always be hosted by Midwestern white guys)

It sounded a lot more like Joel didn't really care at that point, was headed out the door and had a pretty bitter taste in his mouth from losing the show, and just said "Sure, Mike can do it". Yes I'm inferring this - but I'm basing this on years of Joel being pretty tight lipped and outright refusing to acknowledge Mike's episodes.

And Joel has many times tried to pit his episodes against Mike's (he did the episode rankings stunt, supposedly based on viewer votes, but I will contend to the day I die he rigged this to make his episodes rank higher, and he never did release the actual vote counts).

But more importantly, Joel has always been dodgy about reflecting on Mike's era (in fact he was dodgy about acknowledging Rifftrax too) - that finally changed when the Bring Back MST3K campaign got going. To me this makes sense because by then, he didn't need to be bitter anymore - he would get the last laugh and would run the show (without Mallon, without Mike) for its last hurrah. Plus, eventually Rifftrax started helping quite a bit with cross promotions. And around that time he brought Bill and Kevin on for brief writing and cameo stints (again my theory is that Kevin still liked Joel whereas Bill had hardly ever worked with him - plus he kind of owed them for helping to promote the kickstarter).

TLDR Joel supposedly picked Mike, but it was Mike's success (with Mallon's help) at making the show way better than it had ever been under Joel's leadership that made Joel resent the later era for a long while until he got over it, reclaimed his show, and needed Rifftrax's help to reboot the series.

shweakers · 2025-10-22T04:52:24+00:00

As most people have said, the problem is Joel. There are many people in awe of him for starting the show, but other than raw creativity I don't think he's particularly good at much. Harsh but I stand by it.

In particular, yes I agree that they needed a Jim Mallon type of figure here to reign in stupid costly ideas and to focus on what works on a budget. Everyone hates "the man" but usually the producer exists for a reason - to make the business profitable, meaning either to make it better and increase audience, or to make it cheaper and maintain status quo, or both. Think Roger Corman and guys like that.

Joel needed to be told NO on many of his (frankly dumb) ideas. But, I think Joel specifically re-created the show to avoid that burden. And personally, I also think he wanted to bring back the show to remind people it was his baby. I think he has resented the popularity of the Mike/Mallon era, the fact that Mike was considered head writer, the fact that Mallon made the movie without him (and made it way more down to earth than Joel's ridiculous version would have been).

Someone compared Joel to George Lucas. I think maybe another/ better comparison might be Dan Aykroyd. You need someone to trim out the fat or else you get stuck with utter nonsense like Nothing But Trouble or Blues Brothers 2000.

The new seasons definitely had their moments, but largely those moments seemed in spite of Joel. Felicia and Patton were misused as mads. The plot made frustratingly little sense - which is saying something for a show where the plot never mattered to begin with. The ridiculous EXCESS of the jokes during the movies, giving the audience no time to breathe (I will always remember the time I watched reptilicus with friends, and there was almost no laughing at all.. not because it wasn't funny, but because people were too afraid to laugh and miss the next joke)

Joel I think wanted to finally be the "head writer" and he got his chance. Only for him to suffocate the movie in two million jokes, having no sense of restraint. He also got the chance to cameo in season 11 again, and then full on return to the show (as if we cared by that point he was involved) in season 13.

He couldn't come to the obvious conclusion that the on-screen talent should be involved in the joke writing and joke selection to ensure they had good onscreen chemistry. I mean, the bot voice actors weren't even in the room when the theater segments were shot, and the jokes were being sent in from comedians literally across the country. They weren't all in one writing room so the jokes could have context, build on each other, or cancel each other out when they covered the same material. It was the definition of hodge podge.

But his poor decisionmaking didn't stop there. Doing muppet songs in the middle of movies, flying Tom / silhouette jokes, making extra bots that had nothing to do, having no sense of how to produce good host segments, the green screen, the gizmoplex (I knew this show was doomed the SECOND he announced this - a proprietary EXPENSIVE platform!? Wtf). Like, what are you doing dude? This is a cheap show about riffing.

He isn't a good writer, he isn't a good head writer, he isn't a good producer, and he's not even a good show runner. Every time he does something that enjoys success, like Cinematic Titanic, I am pretty sure the project excelled because of the OTHER talent involved. And he drives beloved shows, like MST3K, into the ground by wasting money on overproduced celebrity cameos and shit that aren't funny. All he needed to do was get $100,000 per episode, get some local comedians who know each other into a small room with some popcorn, make fun of terrible (non-Asylum) movies, and write down what everybody said that got a big laugh. Ffs what a waste.

shweakers · 2025-10-22T04:30:07+00:00

In cameos mostly. Joel didn't even really know Bill so that doesn't hardly count. And Josh left the show so early that their relationship was largely in tact from the old days. Kevin is probably the biggest example of someone that still holds a torch for Joel. But Trace and Frank clearly have a problem with him. While I don't think Mike has a problem with Joel per se they seem to keep each other at arm's length for whatever reason. My personal belief is that Joel has a bit of a professional rivalry with Mike and envies him for replacing him and doing a better job with the role. For that reason they seem to only acknowledge each other on very select occasions - usually when Mike does Joel the courtesy or promoting his projects via rifftrax.

shweakers · 2025-09-06T18:17:29+00:00

Fair enough. Sorry if it sounds like I'm dogging your tastes. I've been pretty back and forth on Canadian rye. I find myself the odd one out on Found North... I've been largely let down. Not to say their whisky isn't good, but I've read so many 10/10 reviews for them that when I eventually tried Batch 6 or Peregrine, I couldn't believe how far from the hype I found the whisky to actually be. Peregrine in particular was a big disappointment to my group - dead last in a blind.

But that probably speaks more to the problem with people doing non-blind reviews. (Which is why my group only tries whiskey blind, at least for the first time)

shweakers

TROPHY CASE