Response To NowhereToLandPresents This Doesn't Solve The Superman Problem

 Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we dissect and refute bad takes. Today's victim is a relatively new YouTube channel called NowhereToLand, a video essayist who makes videos discussing film and television shows. I gave a couple videos of theirs a watch and was honestly underwhelmed by the presentation with sloppy editing, confusing text placements and a dorky looking puppet that shows up for no reason. The video on Superman (2025) particularly fails to analyze the film and instead misinterprets and even lies to make it seem worse than it is. Without further ado, let's get into it.

Superman Is Easier To Write Than You Think

The answer to the question, "How do you write a character that's nearly perfect?" is simple: you have them be the ideal the world around them should strive for. Some of the best Superman comic runs, movies, and cartoons are about how Superman's hope and optimism affect others. This movie accurately shows that despite the opposition from Lex and naysayers, Superman still inspires hope in people as scene when the people of Jarhanpur called for him during their darkest hour. There's even a term for this: it's called a flat-arch. It's when the main character's personality and sense of morality are challenged but aren't changed. Rather their sense of morality is what inspires change in others. Superman's not even the only character who's known for having a flat-arc. Marty McFly, Steve Rogers, Forrest Gump, and Wall-E are all great examples of the flat-arc. This video tries to make it seem like Superman is a hard character to write, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Superman is actually fairly simple to write, being a genuinely nice guy from Kansas who uses his superpowers to help others. The hardest part in telling a story like that is making it engaging, but that's the hardest part of every story because nobody knows what everybody wants.

This Is A Reboot, Not A Reaction

The video has this running gimmick of saying this movie isn't good on it's own because it's reacting to the criticisms of the DCEU. However, this misconstructs the definition of a film reboot, which is to start fresh without being connected to the previous installments. This film is less of a reaction to the DCEU and more of a tribute to the comics. I mean, sure, the criticisms of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are known, but the main focal point of the DCU going forward was always to honor the comics while also providing fresh takes on the characters. The lighter tone, Superman trying to prevent as much damage as possible, and the world having many pre-established superheroes are all baked into the comics and are the foundation for which this new cinematic universe is built on. What this video also fails to bring up is that Superman isn't technically the start of the DCU. It actually started with Creature Commandos in 2024, over a year after James Gunn and Peter Safran were brought on board to reboot the DCEU. One could actually make the argument that The Suicide Squad was a prelude to how the DCU would work tonally given that James Gunn directed that film as well. In both cases, it's clear James Gunn has mad respect for the tone and aesthetics of the comics and honors them in his films.

It's Less Crowded In Here

The video echoes some critics sentiments that the film is "overstuffed" and there's too many characters. The thing is, though, compared to James Gunn's previous superhero films, this is the least crowded. Including Superman himself, there's 3 main characters (Superman, Lois, and Lex), 12 major supporting characters (Krypto, Guy Gardner, Mr. Terrific, Hawkgirl, Jimmy Olsen, Eve Teshmacher, Ultraman, Angela, Ma and Pa Kent, Rex Mason, Vasil Ghurkos), and 32 named minor characters (Perry White, Steve Lombard, Cat Grant, Ron Troupe, Jor-El and Lara Lor-Von, Superman Robots #4, 12, 5, and 1, Mali, Otis, Sydney, Cleavis Thornwaite, General Mori, Rick Flag Sr., Joey Mason, Kara Zor-El, Flo Crawley, Peacemaker, Larry Chin, Dean and Desmond Farr, Ali Jessop, Amanda McCoy, Cheryl Kimble, Reggie, Albert Tyler, Loretto Bell, Jack Tapir, Heather, Fleurette, and Maxwell Lord). That brings the total number of named characters in the film to only 47. James Gunn said once that Oppenheimer had a lot more characters than Superman. Looking at the Imdb page, there's 59 named characters in that film in addition to the hundred other unnamed characters. What the video and a lot of critics fail to comprehend is movies, especially superhero movies, require a strong supporting cast to populate the world and have the protagonist's personality bounce off against different personalities. I can't think of a single character in this film that should've been cut because even the minor characters play a crucial role in making the world feel lived in.

The Characters Are Properly Introduced

The video questions if audiences would be familiar with The Justice Gang going in and if they would care to see more of them. I can personally testify that despite knowing very little about them, I would love to sed more of these characters. I wasn't that familiar with Guy Gardner, Mr. Terrific, the Kendra Saunders incarnation of Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, or his son Joey. This movie did a good job introducing these characters through organic dialogue, excellent costume design, and clearly defined personalities. It's no different than how other movies introduced supporting characters, like Guardians of the Galaxy, Spider-Man, Black Panther, or Iron Man. This is nothing but basic screenwriting that even a novice like me could figure out.

Superhero Movies Have Humor In Them; Get Over It -.-

This video regurgitates this infamous non-argument that this movie was "Marvelized" in it's humor. I'm getting really sick and tired of the bemoaning about humor in superhero movies. There's no need to make a big thing out of what ultimately boils down to a personal dissatisfaction with the jokes. Just say "I didn't think this was funny." It's also weird the video uses Krypto behaving like a dog as an example when that moment of brevity was greatly needed after it's revealed Superman has Krytonite poisoning and just escaped a black hole. And that infamous hashtag IS a serious deconstruction of Superman's character because it greatly bothers him and shows that despite his perceived God-like status, he's still human. Again, just say you didn't find it funny. Comedy is subjective, and framing your lack of interest in the film's humor as objective makes you come off as pretentious.

Superman IS Relatable

The video mentions comic book writer, Grant Morrison taking issue with Superman getting beaten up alot in the film. To him, that's the film's attempt to make him more relatable. This video and Grant Morrison seem to conflate a character getting beaten up with being relatable. No, Superman is already relatable because like many of us, he's just a guy that's trying to do the right thing and is currently having a rough week. Through it all, though, he doesn't stay down when he's been beaten. He never gives up and he never stops being a hero. And he does try to fight back, but the issue is his opponents are much more skilled and stronger fighters. As strong as Superman is, he's not unbeatable or as skilled in hand to hand combat as someone like Batman.

Lying To Your Audience Ain't Cute -.-

At 7:38, the video brings up another issue Grant Morrison had with the film and it's in regard to the message Superman's biological parents sent him. Grant Morrison says that the reveal was "wish fulfillment BS" and the video says that the message was just "the chosen one" narrative and that he's doing good because he's destined to do so. Now this isn't even a misinterpretation of the film, this is just a blatant lie. Superman isn't the chosen one and that's not at all why his biological parents sent him to Earth. His initial reasoning to help others was because he thought that's what his biological parents sent him to Earth for. He only heard the first part of their message while the second part was incomprehensible due to the ship he came in being damaged. When Lex had it deciphered and the rest of the message played out, it shattered his preconceived interpretation of his biological parents. They sent him to Earth to make it the new Krypton, take as many wives as possible, and subjugate the human race. That's not at all "The chosen one" narrative. It's also not wish fulfillment because no sane human want to believe their parents want them to commit crimes against humanity. The message that this video and Grant Morrison fail to see is Superman wanting to help people isn't something he was destined to do, but something he chose to do.

Lex Is The Real Villain Of The Film

The video makes a point on how Lex isn't the villain Superman is fighting in the film, but rather his altered clone. If you hadn't seen the film before watching this video, this video would have you believe Lex is playing second fiddle to Ultraman the entire time. This is not the case at all as Ultraman isn't the villain of the film, Lex is. Ultraman is just the muscle Lex uses to fight Superman. The reveal of him being a clone solidifies Lex's jealousy of Superman. Lex goes through so much trouble in the film, selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to Boravia, inciting the Boravia and Jarhanpur conflict, breaking into the Fortress of Solitude, taking Krypto, creating a pocket universe, and even going as far as to create an imperfect Superman clone all so he can kill Superman. Lex's ego forbids him to accept being seen as inferior to the Man of Steel. It's not lazy, it's actually really clever storytelling.

All-Star Superman's Story Is Good For Another Film

The video brings up how the primary inspiration for the film, All-Star Superman, solves the Superman problem that the film doesn't. The storyline is Superman grappling with his mortality as he absorbed too much radiation from a star and how he works to make one last good impression on Earth before he inevitably dies. Don't get me wrong, the storyline in All Star Superman is a good one and I really liked the animated film based on it. That said, Superman dying in what's supposed to be his latest film reboot isn't a good idea. This film is supposed to be a new beginning not just for the DCU but for Superman as a character and starting it off with him slowly dying isn't a good idea to entice audiences to see this film. Maybe that could work for another Superman film down the line, after we've spent ample time with the current iteration of Superman. If that wasn't the point the video was trying to make, than it shows a great lack of articulation.

The Break Between DC And Superman Movies Was Long Enough

The video draws it's final thoughts by saying WBs and DC Studios should've taken a break before rebooting so that the film could properly stand on it's own. Don't worry, I was confused by this as well. What do you mean they should've taken a break? There was a 12 year gap between Man of Steel and Superman and by the time the DCEU ended with Aquaman 2, there was only a year and a 1/2 gap. Obviously they weren't gonna stop making DC movies for too long and they certainly weren't gonna stop making Superman movies. They had plenty of time to develop this film and it most definitely stands on its own. This is a gross misunderstanding of how film production works. A gap between movies shouldn't be longer than 3-5 years depending on the production. It's not just executives, directors, and producers that need to make a living, its also the actors, the writers, the caterers, the sound and VFX teams, the interns, the assistants, the editors, everyone involved. There are hundreds (maybe a thousand) names in the credits of the movie and each one is someone who's trying to put bread on the table. They can't be waiting for production on a film to start for too long, otherwise their unemployment benefits run out and they risk having to live on the streets. So, no, a longer break wasn't necessary in this case.

Conclusion

Wow, this video was a mess. The arguments brought up either misinterpreted what the film was about or otherwise straight up lied to make the film look worse. This video also completely omits a crucial moment in the film that destroys the argument that this film "doesn't solve the Superman problem." And that's when the people of Jarhanpur are about stand against the Boravian military and call out for Superman. This powerful scene wouldn't have worked if Superman didn't inspire hope and he was a weakling who never gets back up after being knocked down. To the creator of this channel, outside your nonsensical points, this video is just sloppy. The texts being obscured by the characters is distracting, the slot machine sound effect @6:24 was forced and unnecessary, and there is no explanation for the puppet showing up twice in the video. It's just such a messy and poorly constructed video essay that at best is a misunderstanding of Superman and at worst is a lazy pretentious grifter video made by a guy who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

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 -.-