Response To The Gold Man's Superman (2025)...Was It Good?

 Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we debunk and disprove people who are objectively wrong. Today's case is The Gold Man, a video essayist and critic who makes adequate at best videos. His review on Superman, though, is especially bad because it's full of misinformation about world building and DC Comics mythos. It's also the first video of his to get a significant amount of dislikes so it's clear even his fans think he dropped the ball on this one. Without further adieu, let's get into it.

2:51: He's not actually weak. He’s simply outmatched by people that are stronger and more skilled in combat than him. Even in Man Of Steel, he was outmatched by the other Krytonians, particularly Zod.

3:39: That's a lie! He subdues and incapacitates them, not kill. Those Raptors he used his heat vision against? They're shown on the grown in pain but otherwise alive. Ultraman getting sent to a black hole? Well, if he's as durable as Superman, he'll live but it'll be a long time before he comes back (*if* he comes back). Not sure where you got the idea that Superman kills people when that is objectively not the case.

5:06: Uh, no? It wasn't lazy. It was necessary for him to get it off his chest because he's been feeling down ever since the full message from his biological parents was revealed and despite all of it, he still does the right thing. It's Clark telling Lex, and in turn the audience, that yes, he gets hurt, he gets angry, he gets scared, but he still does what's right like a decent human being should. It's also the perfect response to Lex calling him an alien. You're not going to be taken seriously by calling the writer lazy.

5:14: I think we had a good amount of scenes that focus on Clark. Clark's not just the mild mannered journalist, he's also the guy who sips hot cocoa with his girlfriend and the farmboy from Kansas who loves his parents. Clark is so much more than his Superman persona, and that's what this film explores.

7:46: Lex doesn’t just want to kill Superman. He wants to kill Superman and be worshipped for it. Lex has always been a self-absorbed, egotistical, narcissistic maniac that wants people to kiss the ground he walks on. He views Superman as a threat because people love and respect Superman and Lex is fueled by jealousy (like he says in the movie). If Lex just killed Superman out of the blue, people would not praise or respect him for doing it. He needed the whole world to turn against Superman so that he can have legitimate cause to kill him and be seen as a hero. How did you miss that? They clearly explained it in the film.

8:18: I've seen the film twice and Krypto really only has a handful of scenes he's in. I don't know the exact number of minutes of screentime he has, but I guarantee you it not nearly enough to be distracting. And in just about every scene he's in, he's just acting like a dog. Granted, he's undisciplined and reckless, but at least he helps Clark when he needs him and he's pivotal in saving the day. So, he's not really annoying. It'd be annoying if he was in every scene barking his head off and Clark not being bothered to stop him.

8:37: Ridiculous? That's what dogs do! Chase balls and chew stuff up. You do know Krypto's design and personality in this film was based off of James Gunn's own dog, Ozu, right? Ozu tore up the furniture, ate a laptop, and nips James' feet when he wanted attention. Those traits were put onto Krypto. It's not ridiculous at all when you know what undisciplined dogs are like.

8:54: Krypto was not overused and I have a feeling he'll play a pivotal role in Supergirl's movie, considering he's her dog.

10:23: Comic booky? Huh, imagine that, a comic book movie is structured and has a tone like a comic book. This could be applied to every superhero movie. "Even-" Yes, even that one. There's a comic issue or run that's the main source of inspiration for every superhero movie. In this film's case, it's All Star Superman

10:45: Not an avid comic book reader here, I still love this movie. And I know I'm not the only one as many people have pointed out already. You don't need to be a diehard comic book reader to enjoy superhero media. This movie works just fine as it's own singular entity.

11:17: Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Superheroes are fantastical by nature, and grounding them in reality doesn't always work because you run the risk of them not being fun for everyone. Don't get me wrong, I like The Dark Knight Trilogy, Watchman, Daredevil, and Punisher as much as the next guy. That said, not every superhero needs the grounded in reality treatment. In fact, most of them can only work when they're NOT grounded in reality. Case in point, Superman. In reality, if someone had his powers and hetried to save people, people would still fear him or otherwise worship him as a god, like in Man Of Steel. And since you said yourself you don't like Man Of Steel, this whole critique of the film not being grounded in reality is rendered null and void.

11:37: Dude, no there shouldn't. You just said some suspension of disbelief is required when going into a comic book movie. This movie isn't required to hold the audience's hand and explain all the intricacies of this universe. The most you get is an opening crawl that goes in 3s (3 millennia ago, 3 centuries ago, etc.) and that's it. The rest of the world building comes naturally through visuals and organic character dialogue.

11:48: ...no? Like, yeah, there are super geniuses who can create advanced technologies in this world, but we have those in our world too, albiet to a lesser extent. What even is this point?

12:34: You severely underestimate just what Lex Luthor is capable of. We're talking about a guy who has an IQ of 225. And did you miss the opening crawl? Superman's been on the scene for 3 years, of course Lex would find one of his hair strands during one of his battles and clone him. This is not surprising for him, but it is for the audience yet it makes sense given Lex's previously established obsession with Clark.

12:42: Yeah? How is this a criticism? Given Lex's advance level intellect, of course he'd figure out how to make a pocket dimension. Again, you underestimate what Lex Luthor is capable of.

12:44: He can't make people stop believing in Superman, as evident by the people of Jarhanpur calling for him to save them. He also can't humble himself because humility requires him to admit that he was wrong, and know Lex that'll never happen.

13:15: A switch that is only accessible in Lex Luthor's headquarters, something they are interrupted from doing by Lex's goons. Actually pay attention to the movie, you're embarrassing yourself.

13:29: Rex Mason, aka Metamorpho, is not an alien. He’s a metahuman. Again, did you read the opening crawl? Metahumans have been a thing for 300 years.

13:41: Correction: Lex captured Rex and also kidnapped his son, Joey, to bribe him into making Kryptonite. You make it sound like Lex found Rex off the street.

13:48: No, its not. It's proper world building. Metahumans exists and Lex captured the one metahuman on Earth that could make Kryptonite to weaken Superman. This is fleshing out the world and expanding on the opening crawl of the movie.

13:58: Uh, dude, you contradicted yourself with that statement. Earlier, you said suspension of disbelief is requried when going into comic book stories. Now you're saying when anything could happen in this comic book story it's not grounded in reality. Which is it?! You can't have it both ways. You either have suspension of disbelief for this movie or you dont.

14:05: That's not how it works. A villain isn't going to be defeated by something pulled out of then air. No, they will be defeated by the hero thinking of something clever that the villain never saw coming due to their hubris.

14:19: Are you sure you've never read a comic book? Because that's exactly what Lex did in All Star Superman.

14:45: Yes, Superman is strong enough to escape a black hole. This doesn't mean there are no stakes, it means their will always be challenges for Superman to overcome.

15:28: The opening crawl established that there are metahumans and monsters living amongst the people of Earth. Why is it so hard for you to pay attention?

15:59: You say that like we don't have fires, earthquakes, floods, and terrorist attacks happen all the time in our world. Why would anyone live in Los Angeles? There's always earthquakes. Why would anyone live in Hawaii? There's always eruptions. Why would anyone live in New York City? There's always someone getting shot. There's always going to be natural disasters and crime in major urban settlements. And as such, there's always going to be heroes to save innocent lives. People live in Metropolis because superheroes are always save the day and as such they feel safe. 

16:13: Oh really? It is? Because everytime this film actually puts in the effort to build its world organically, you whine about it like a wounded dog. Clearly world building is own important to you when it caters to your skewed definition of world building.

17:17: And that's a good thing he's not so hung up about losing his first fight. There's so much more important things he has to worry about, such as innocent lives being in jeopardy.

17:23: Nope, we did not need to build up to this particular story. Next, you'll say we needed to build up to the events of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It's far more important to organically build your world during the narrative, and not have a narrative be entirely dedicated to world building.

God this review was so all over the place. You don't understand proper world building and you severely underestimated what Lex is capable of. Every else that praises the movie gets with the program. This film reintroduced these characters that have been around for over 80 years and bypassed the origin story to tell the far more important story of being kind and showing empathy for your fellow human. You also contradicted yourself on suspending disbelief and wanting things grounded in reality. I don't blame your former fans for no longer taking you seriously as a critic because this blatant hypocrisy makes you come off like a grifter who says contradictory and often times false statements just to get people to buy their brand or give them more clicks so that they can mooch off of ad revenue without putting in actual work. This is such a disservice to the movie and a disservice to your credibility. Like I always say: Your Opinion is NOT Law -.-

Response to Beyond The Trailer's Kung Fu Panda 4 Review

Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we debunk and critique bad faith critics. Today's subject is Grace Randolph, host of Beyond The Trailer. Yes, I know I defended her; and I was a FREAKING MORON for doing so! Her review of Kung Fu Panda 4 was what finally made me realize just how disrespectful and rude she actually is. So strap in, we're taking down this cow a peg.

0:56 To answer you question, yes they do! The filmmakers were inspired by anime when making this movie. And the bunnies in this film act nothing like the Ongees in Raya because the Ongees were just theives, the bunnies were actually vicious. What a very narrow-minded thing to say.

1:04, it's not exactly a road movie as most of the film is set in Juniper City, and even then, so what? Characters need to get from Point A to Point B. That's how story structure works.

1:35 ...No he's not? Like, his charm only in the film for a few scenes and they were really expository.

1:53 How? How exactly are they in anyway like Pleakly and Jumba? Unless your reasoning goes beyond the "fat and skinny duo", you have no ground to stand on. Also, they're not presented as a gay couple. They're relationship is just friends who happen to share a son. Many kids have 2 Moms or 2 Dads that are like Po's Dads with one being biological and the other being the step-parent. My older sister is like that actually, as she has a biological father but was raised by her step-father (my biological father) since she was 3. And both her Dads get along just fine. So no, Grace, it's not queerbaiting. It's just a mutual friendship between 2 Dads.

2:53 Says no spoilers, spoils them animated corpses. Wow, just wow 🙄

3:44 Or, maybe, this is a movie where one scene leads directly into the next. You know? Like a movie?!

3:57 I can't begin to fathom how anyone can say there's little creativity in a movie. It's beyond disrespectful to the hardworking men and women who spent years of their lives crafting the picture. And there's plenty of creativity in this film. Po explaining where the Furious 5 are and it being shown via Chinese puppetry, The Chameleon's shape-shifting powers, the Happy Bunny tavern being built on a cliff, Juniper City being a busseling metropolis, Han the pangolin rolling into a ball and having a lisp, those vicious bunnies, and so much more. And that's just scratching the surface. Don't you DARE say there was little creativity in a movie -.-

5:11 👏It's 👏a 👏COMEDY! It's supposed to supply jokes and gags, otherwise it's boring the audience to tears.

5:18 All these movies have kids as their primary audience. All of them were marketed and have sold lots of merchandise specifically for kids. You're surprised this movie's aiming for kids, the target demographic? Grow up -.-

5:49 Is this relevant to the film you're talking about in this video? Was there someone in the audience actually doing this while you were watching this film? No? Than shut up! -.-

6:36 Because chameleons are actually 7-10 inches long and the characters have their proportions based on their real life counterparts! Why do you think Mantis is so small? Or why Mr. Ping is halve the size of Po?

8:16 You never once talked about how her performance was in THIS particular movie! How was her comedic timing? How did she handle her chemistry with Po? How did she sound during the dramatic parts? I'm not watching this video to hear you talk about her other works, Im here to watch you talk about how she does in THIS film!

8:51 Yes it is, as it continues Po's journey and gives him unique obstacles to overcome as well as allow Jack Black to further dive into Po's character.

9:27 You just said this film feels like it was made for younger kids as opposed to adults! Putting Tenacious D's cover of Baby One More Time during the climax would've taken away from the seriousness of the situation and made it more juvenile! Pick a lane and stick to it! -.-

10:00 The main message of the film is the more things stay the same the less special they become. Po has to learn to accept change not as a negative, but as something to be welcomed.

This review made made me realize just how rude and disrespectful you are. I don't know why I or anyone else subscribed to you take you seriously as a person, never mind a critic. You have no respect for filmmakers, your points don't hold any water, and you don't even pay attention to the film because you're too distracted by what people in the audience are doing. If I was your boss, I'd fire you. I'd even go one step further and have you blacklisted from ever working for mainstream publishers ever again. Nobody likes you Grace, and it's not because you're a woman, or your a feminist, or even a critic: it's because you're mean. John Campea was right, you ARE a disgrace. Like I always say: Your Opinion is NOT Law -.-

Response To MovieBob's Morbius Review

 I'd normally start with an introduction before tearing apart the subjects review one point at a time, but I can't do that with this one. Not because I'm lazy (unlike some people 😒) but because this particular review is so lazy! I know I don't like using that word to describe a movie or TV show because even I know better than to assume the creators were just lounging in hammocks while barking orders. MovieBob, meanwhile, might as well have been in a hammock because at least he could provide some humor while giving his general thoughts on Morbius. But he didn't even do THAT right!

All the review is is Bob just standing in front of the camera awkwardly for almost 6 minutes while occasionally saying "The movie sucks" and "don't watch it." When I saw this review back in April, I was legitimately angry with this so called critic I used to look up to. He took the time to set up the camera and lighting, yet when it was time to review the movie, he did NOT do his job properly! He hand waved the basic plot synopsis, he didn't criticize anything specific, he didn't even bother praising of the notable merits of the film such as the score by Jon Ekstrand , the cinematography by Oliver Wood, or how they used motion capture to turn Jared Leto into a vampire. No, instead he just went on assuming Sony knew it was garbage but hoped people would see it anyway because Adrian Tombs was in the trailers and post-credit scenes. He then proceeds to drag on the video just so he could get some ads in.

First of all, nobody should assume they know what's going on in the executives heads. This mentality never leads to a healthy and stable image for you. Why? Because it makes you look like a snobby narcissist who thinks he's better than everyone. Secondly, one of the most important lessons of being a YouTuber (and one Bob should know by heart) is DON'T start a YouTube channel for the money. Treat it like a hobby you do in your spare time and if your videos become popular, than you can start turning it into a business. Bob did his business a disservice by just standing in front of the camera barely saying anything of value just to get ads played on hus video. And lastly, this was such a waste of what could've been a really informative and well thought out review. Bob could've talked about Morbius' comic book history since he's so knowledgeable about that stuff. He could've brought up the works of director Daniel Espinosa, who directed a movie called Safe House with Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington. He could still talk about why the movie didn't work for him, but he also could've made a point to say, "Look, while I don't think this is very good, you owe it to yourselves to decide whether or not this is worth your time." You know? Like an actual critic should do!

I will never for the life of me understand why Bob thought this was a good idea for a "review" for a superhero movie about a dude who turns himself into a vampire. This was review reminds me of your typical Armond White review: it's cheap, it's unfair, it's drawn out, and worst of all, it's LAZY! To MovieBob, if you made it this far, you are a disgrace to professional critics. You failed to do your basic duties of talking about a movie and how you felt about it. You failed to engage with your audience and treat them like their not mindless sheep who will take what you say at face value. Worst of all, you failed to stand above the scummy movie "fans" who put no effort into gathering their thoughts on a movie or show they didn't like. These are the people YOU yourself called moronic and shallow. And yet here you are becoming the very person you said you above. If I was your boss, I'd not only fire you, but have you blacklisted so that the only place you'd be able to post your lazy, shallow and unfair reviews is on your own personal blog. For now though, I never want to see you on my recommendation page again. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

Did Pixar Rip Off Their Own Movie? by WoollyOne Response

 Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we call out people who don't know what their talking about and are generally pretentious prudents about it. Today's specimen is WoollyOne, a YouTuber who very clearly has no respect for the art of animation or the people involved in animation. This is very much evident by his Why are Animated Movies Terrible Now? video from 2019 and the video we'll be covering today. Strap in because we're going to dive in to this jerk's cynical analysis of Luca.

Stupid Question

0:00 The very first problem with the video is the title. That is such a stupid question that did not need to be asked. Pixar did NOT in fact rip off their own movie, but rather Luca just so happens to bear some similarities with films that came before it. This is not an inherently bad thing as every movie shares similar traits to previous movies, be them intentional or purely coincidentally. This is also very insulting to the film's director, Enrico Casarosa, who was very passionate about making this film as an ode to his home country of Italy (more on this later). Had he known this fact, he wouldn't have needed to ask such a stupid question.

Stop Holding Pixar To An Impossiblly High Standard

0:30 Woolly is also one of those people that hold Pixar to such a high standard that every film they've made since 2010 has been either decent at best or mediocre at worst. There's this wonderful article that perfectly explains why this is stupid and unnecessary that I highly recommend giving a read (here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/kylelovesanimationnmore.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/pixar-or-just-four-guys/amp/). Tl;dr, not every Pixar film is going to be as great as the ones you grew up with and that's okay. Pixar is full of a wide variety of talented filmmakers who all have unique voices they want to share with the would. They shouldn't have to strive to be like Pete Doctor, Brad Bird, Andrew Stanton or Lee Unkrich. To expect them to do so is stupid and unprofessional.

Not Seeing The Reason Why Luca Is Set In Italy

2:43 Woolly goes on to question why Luca is set in Italy when it could've been set anywhere in the world and contrasts this with Ratatouille which was specifically set in France due to it's luscious cuisine and stuck upness. This honestly infuriates me because he didn't even do any research into Luca before making this video, nevermind actually look at the subtle and deliberate details of the setting in Luca. Not only is this film set in the Italian Rivera, but they eat pasta that's not just spaghetti, there's Italian music that's often playing, and the characters sometimes speak in Italian in between speaking in English. The biggest reason why Luca is set in Italy, and the reason Woolly failed to mention, is that the director is Italian! Enrico Casarosa grew up in Italy and when he was given the chance to make his own movie for Pixar, he chose to make a film somewhat based on his summers in the Italian Rivera. The characters of Luca and Alberto were based on him and a childhood friend and he chose to make them sea monster because that's part of Italian folklore. If you're going to do an analysis of Luca, the bare minimum you could do is enough research to know what you're  talking about.

Throwing The Filmmakers Under The Bus

4:21 After reciting the synopsis of Ratatouille and Luca, Woolly calls the latter "an empty, risk-adverse film with unconvincing stakes." I have no qualms with people who found Luca too boring for their tastes (opinions are opinions after all), but I take issue with people like Woolly calling the film empty and not taking risks. This implies that the filmmakers were either too scared or forbidden from making the film Woolly wanted to see. It's a good thing than that Andrea Warren was the producer of this film and NOT Woolly because he'd probably demand Enrico Casarosa make a film he wouldn't want to make. Also, wanna take stakes? If Luca and Alberto are discovered as sea monsters, they'll get skewered with harpoons. It's not just about getting a vespa; it's also about Luca and Alberto trying to hide their identities from a world that hates them.

Luca's Ending Explained

7:00 Woolly oversimplifies the ending and questions how quickly the townsfolk welcomed Luca and Alberto as sea monsters because they won the race. What actually happened was Giulia's Dad, Massimo, defended them because they didn't harm his daughter. The town accepts Luca and Alberto because they see first hand that they're not actually dangerous. Also at 7:21 he says Grandma's line about how Luca can separate the good people from the bad is a cop-out, which is stupid because you see during the credits Luca making friends with kids at his new school and showing them that he's a sea monster much to their amazement. It's like he deliberately ignored that part of the film to try and make his point.

Conclusion

Woolly wraps the video by saying Pixar is going down the same path as Star Wars where they're becoming mediocre for as long as they were once great. He also imples that Luca could've been great if it had met his standards of greatness. This video was basically 8 frustrating minutes of a pretentious punk complaining about how Pixar made a movie he didn't like that just so happens to share similarities with a movie he did like. It's poorly researched, he gives a very pretentious delivery and his criticisms just fall flat because he throws the filmmakers under the bus. To WoollyOne, if you're reading this, you need to shut your pretentious pie hole when it comes to anything related to animation. You have clearly shown that you have no respect for the medium nor for the people involved in said medium. You think you know better than the many men and women who went to school to learn about animation, but the reality is you're just a selfish snob who sees his own bias above that of the filmmakers decisions. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

Responsding to CBR.com's Article on Klaue in Marvel's What If

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr.com/what-if-wrongs-klaue-again/amp/

Ordinarily I wouldn't respond to these clickbait articles, but this one particularly rubbed me the wrong way. This 7 paragraph long article felt like the writer was whining over how the episode was written and provides little constructive feedback. Since there's no comment section on this article, might as well explain my problem with this piece here.

The main criticism this article lobbies at the episode as well as the film Black Panther is how Ulysses Klaue is underused in both instances. While it's an understandable criticism, it's worth noting that both the film and the episode had to dedicate their runtimes to telling a compelling story and killing Klaue was integral to both stories. While the writer of this article acknowledges that fact, his attempts at trying to get around it come across as flimsy and superfluous.

"Had Klaue been kept as an outside agent-maybe for a sequel-that might've made sense..."

Not really. Klaue and Killmonger were supposed to be working together up until the latter's betrayal. Killmonger needed to bring Klaue to the Wakandan boarder as a corpse in a body bag to earn their trust. If he didn't do that, there'd be no rest of the movie.

The author also suggests having Klaue killing either Rhodes or T'Challa so that his death would be more palatable. Why? That wouldn't even change how the events play out. If anything, that would just take away more than it would gain because Klaue killing either Rhodes or T'Challa would've robbed the episode of important dialog between them and Killmonger.

The author also claims that Klaue has no villainous agency and he didn't even get to intimidating anyone. I guess Pepper's shock of Tony getting vibranium from him was unwarranted then. Jokes aside, this is just a meaningless gripe because in this reality Klaue is still an infamous arms dealer who steals vibranium and sells it on the black market. 

The author closes by saying killing Klaue again is "repetitive, lazy and ruins what [he] could've been as an ally in the shadows." Reusing familiar tropes and motifs in a different context is NOT lazy. It's a common an often affective form of storytelling, especially in a long running popular franchise like the MCU. Klaue dying in What If is like what happened in Black Panther, but here his death predates the events of Black Panther and he doesn't find out Killmonger was a Wakandan before he has a bullet in his head. The author failed to properly articulate his disappointment with the use of Klaue in this episode and instead resorts to whining about the creative decisions that were necessary for this story like a spoiled child. Just because you disagree with a writer's storytelling choices, that doesn't make them lazy. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

Stop Saying That Pixar Films Aren't For Kids (Glass of Water) by Lily Orchid response

 Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we call out people for false claims and nasty attitudes. Today's subject is Lily Orchid, who hasn't changed a bit since she uploaded that infamous video about Steven Universe. Her latest video about people thinking Pixar movies like Soul are more for grown ups than kids is yet another example of her nasty attitude towards people who disagree with her (as painfully evident by he disablingthe like/dislike button). Without further delay, let's dive into why Lily Orchid is STILL a terrible critic and an overall nasty person.

Insulting Her Audience

0:35 The title card features a blurb that calls the audience "thick" and "desperate to avoid the fact that [they're] getting older" and threatens to beat them with a stick. If this was her attempt at humor, she failed to read the room because that kind of edgy humor doesn't work on what's supposed to be a video essay explaining why Pixar movies are perfectly acceptable for kids. This kind of humor died out in the late 2010s when people started taking jokes like that personally and critics has to be more mindful of what they say. It also doesn't help that she insinuates that the people watching her video are stupid because they think Soul might be too mature for kids. She fails to recognize that the people watching her video are normal everyday people who think differently than she does. This video should not be a slam against their intelligence; it should be an eye opening think piece that offers a unique perspective.

Threatening Her Audience

2:11 She claims that every time "millennials" say a Pixar movie is too deep for kids, she unapologetically says she wants to strangle those people. Because in her sick twisted worldview, threatening to kill someone who disagrees with you is considered perfectly acceptable, or at the very least funny. News flash! Not everyone thinks Pixar movies are deep upon first viewing. I didn't even realize The Incredibles was about a man having a midlife crisis until after multiple viewings as I got older. No one should be chastised (let alone strangled) for not getting the theme of a movie. Even if this was meant to be a joke (and a very poor one at that), my point still stands.

Spreading Misinformation

9:51 She claims that Pixar's Ratatouille slandered the profession of critics and we're still feeling the ramifications to this day. Both of these statements are false and she's making Ratatouille out to be anti-critics when it really wasn't. To quote the actual movie, "Not everyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere." It wasn't saying don't be critical, it was reminding people not to hold such a gold standard for people. And to this day people still hold Pixar films to a ridiculously high standard, as evident by Onward being seen as "good, but not one of Pixar's best."

Insulting Pixar Character Designers

10:01 She then claims that the people designing the female characters in their films should be fired because they're "perverts" or at the very least be beaten with a stick by female coworkers. First of all, one of the images she uses is from Inner Workings which was made at Walt Disney Animation Stuidos, not Pixar. Secondly, a female character looking attractive isn't bad unless that's all they're good for in the grand scheme of things. Pixar goes above and beyond not just giving their female characters strong personalities, but also varying body types that suit their character. Helen Parr being a housewife and an athletic superheroine, Collette being a fierce chef in a restaurant, Laural Lightfoot being the mother of 2 grown boys and so on. There's no need for someone to loose their job or be beaten with a stick because Pixar's female characters are very diverse in terms of design and personality.

Conclusion

She wraps the video by telling the people who think Pixar movies (particularly Soul) as not really for kids to "shut the [fork] up." Yep, one last slap to the face for people who should've left the video with a newfound appreciation for Pixar movies. This video is the living embodiment of wasted potential. There were some genuinely good points about how deep 22's character arc is and who her mentors were the problem, not her. And yet all those good points are rendered null and void because of Lily Orchid's nasty condescending attitude to people who don't agree with her. To Lily Orchid, if you made it this far, allow me to be blunt. You are just as bad of a critic as Armond White. Even if you have a good point, it's buried under your horrendous attitude and bitterness towards anyone who disagrees with you. I have no patience to sit through your 2 and 1/2 hour long video of you insulting and belittling the people who make or are fans of Steven Universe, but as evident from this video, it's clear you haven't changed. I hope you NEVER get the change to make your own cartoon, because then you'll end up exactly like John Kricfalusi: a stubborn, condescending bully who doesn't play well with others and refuses to accept when she's wrong. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

Responding to Tor.com's Representation Without Transformation

So, this article (https://www.tor.com/2020/07/14/representation-without-transformation-can-hollywood-stop-changing-cartoon-characters-of-color/) decided to start up a conversation one the lack of African-American representation in mainstream animated films. More specifically, how 2 films with black protagonists (with a 3rd yet to be released) have said protagonists change from their human form into another creature because it's integral to the plot. The article itself comes off less inspiring and more ungrateful, like that bratty kid who rode the ferris wheel once and pouted because it was time to go. Like I get where the writer wants to see more black people predominantly featured in animated films, but he seems to fail to understand the most important aspect of a film (animated or otherwise): the story comes first.

See filmmaking is a collaborative effort, but at the end of the day the story (or in some cases intended purpose) is what matters most. If the plot isn't engaging, funny, or even interesting, it doesn't matter what's on screen; the audience will get bored and likely fall asleep. Filmmakers know that audiences go to the movies to be entertained, and nothing's more entertaining than a well told story.

Back to the subject of the aforementioned article, the two films the writer mentioned were The Princess and the Frog and Spies In Disguse, with Soul also being brought up despite having not been released yet. In the article he claims to have been disappointed in both films for having the black leads turned into animals at the start of the second act and thus robbed them of their blackness. This bias is what we call a "double standard," and he makes these films look bad.

First of all, the article never addresses how Tiana and Lance Sterling are as characters and just says both films left him disappointed because neither character stayed black throughout the film's runtime. This seems to imply that this guy ignorantly thinks being black is itself a personality. You'd never know Tiana was a hard working, no nonsense, brave and determined young woman from this article. Nor would you know that Lance Sterling is a swav, charsmatic, cynical and short tempered spy who needs to learn the importance of saving lives by not taking them. This article implies that being black is more important than being human.

Secondly, the writer of this article seems to want a completely different movie than what the filmmakers want. He states that after the main characters turned into animals, they no longer have to deal with the issues they normally face as black. Here's the thing though, while a black person dealing with predominantly black people problems sounds like a great idea for an animated movie, that wasn't the intention behind any of the films mentioned in the article. The Princess and the Frog is a loose adaptation of The Frog Prince by the Brothers Grimm and The Frog Princess by E.D. Baker. Directors John Musker and Ron Clements came up with the idea to have the film be set in New Orleans and Oprah Winfrey (who voiced Tiana's Mom, Eudora) was brought on as a technical consultant after early concepts for the film drew criticisms for being in poor taste. Spies in Disguise meanwhile was based on a short called Pigeon:Impossible by Lucas Martell. The film appears to be an homage to spy thrillers and its message on pacifism is a topical subject even today.

The story of turning characters of into animals is nothing new. They go all the way back to ancient times. The fact that films like The Emperor's New Groove and Brother Bear have the main characters turned into animals is no different than that time Lampwick turned into a Donkey in Pinocchio. Besides that, Kuzco and Kenai being turned into animals is integral to their stories because it puts them on their journey to become better people. Kuzco, an arrogant prince, was turned into a llama by accident and as he treks with the humble villager, Pacha, he learns to be humble himself. Kenai, an arrogant teenager, kills a bear out of vengeance and is turned into one as punishment by the spirits. He treks with Koda and learns what it really means to be a brother. Neither of these stories would work as well (if at all) if the characters stayed human.

He gives credit for films like Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse for keeping Miles Morales human and having a seen where he has a gun pointed at him even though he's innocent. Yes that's a good seen in a great movie, but this article wants scenes like this to be common in animated movies. Here's the problem with that though: not every black person experiences police brutality. I know it's always recorded and put online for the whole world to see, but this is not common. I've had a few run ins with the local police and they were all concerned for my well being. Also, movies are usually an escape from our reality or otherwise an exaggerated reflection. It's unrealistic to expect every animated movie with a black main character to have just one scene where they deal with racism. More often than not, black people are just regular people and black characters often reflect that.

Lastly, he ends the article by asking writers to leave physical transformations out of stories with a person of color as the main character. I'm a writer and I think this is a load of bird dukey. If I want to write a story of a jerk being turned into a donkey to teach him a lesson, I'm gonna write that story regardless of the color of his skin. Why? Because the story comes first, no exceptions. The filmmakers are not required to have a diverse cast, they're required to make an entertaining film. To say that The Princess and the Frog and Spies in Disguise are doing a disservice to black people is bias and stupid. Like I always say: your opinion is NOT law -.-