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 -.-

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 -.-

F*** Film Reviews by Justinfinity response

Introduction

Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we counter argument videos with inaccurate statements and biases. Today's subject is Justinfinity, recommend by Claytonium Studios. Judging by his comments and this video alone, it seems this Justinfinity character is one of those commentators: you know, the ones who have an unhealthy and counterproductive bias towards Disney and Lucasfilm because they weren't happy with the recent Star Wars movies. This post will address that, but more importantly it will address why this guy has poor taste in judgement, specifically towards film reviews.

Hollywood has ALWAYS been political

0:32 He gives his first reason why he doesn't do film reviews anymore: Hollywood is politically bias. In other news, the sky is blue. In all seriousness thoigh, Hollywood has been political since Day 1. It is inaccurate to say Hollywood is too political now when the first film to make serious bank at the box office was a 3 hour historical drama based on the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan. Hollywood producers know that in addition to providing spectacle, films should ignite a topical conversation so that incites more people to watch it. While not every film is made with that in mind, many films are and some of them have been critical and financial hits. Ben Hur, Hell's Angels, Godzilla, even Star Wars are prime examples of finacial and critical hits.


Social Justice Warriors are good

0:44 He brings up how social justice warriors are a plague in Hollywood. I addressed this on Tumblr so I'll keep it brief: using the term "social justice warrior" as an insult is as ridiculous as saying a 3 year old should act their age. I really wish we'd stop with this narrative that social justice warriors ruin everything when that is far from the truth.


Inaccurate judgment on quality 

1:32 He claims that good acting, cinematography and sound desgin are the "minor" parts of film making and story and characters come first. True story and characters are an essential part of storytelling, buf in filmmaking their are no "minor" parts. Filmmaking is seldom a one-man show. More often than not it's a collaborative effort in which everyone should bring their A game.


Kathleen Kennedy SAVED Star Wars

2:39 He rags on how the recent Star Wars films aren't good and how Kathleen Kennedy ruins Star Wars, going as far as misquoting her. I don't know where this "Women don't care about Star Wars" quote came from, but it wasn't from Kathleen. She has said many times that she wants Star Wars to be more inclusive. If Kathleen Kennedy didn't care about the franchise, she wouldn't have taken the job as producer. I could honestly go all day about how the recent Star Wars movies have been better than many fans give it credit for, but let's keep it brief: Rey's journey is one of self discovery, characters are supposed to change after 30 years, and not every small detal needs to be addressed.


Expanding the franchise

3:27 He asks what the point of the sequel trilogy and the anthology series. The answer is simple: expansion. The Star Wars franchise has largely focused on the Skywalker family, which is understandable, but rather limiting. This is supposed to a GALAXY from far far away and the films and tv shows have only touched on a small portion of that galaxy.  "What about the books?" you might be asking. I'm sure there are plenty of good stories told in the books. That said, Lucasfilm declared these books non-canon in 2014 so that the filmmakers and tv showrunners wouldn't be restricted to follow storylines from these written works.



Ever heard of Word of Mouth?

3:47 He claims that studios are bias because all they care about its getting reviews out. This is not only false, it's illegitimate criticism. Of course studios want people to talk about their films. That's how they get people interested in seeing their film. Also, the general public is alot smarter than guys like Justin give them credit for. The general audience are everyday people, not a flock of sheep. Not everyone goes to the movies based on the reviews alone. There's also the trailer, the rating, who's in the film, who's distributing the film and so on.

Disney =/= perfect


4:20 Justin now claims that most Disney's recent films (as of the video's upload in 2018) have gotten undeserved crititcal acclaim. This is false in both senses. Step 1: With a few exceptions, most of the Disney live action films released in the 2010s have recieved mixed reviews. Prince of Persia, Alice in Wonderland, Alexander's Bad Day (it's actual title is WAY too long and stupid) and the last 2 Pirates of the Caribbean movies are some notable examples. Step 2: The ones that did get critical acclaim rightfully earned their reputation because they reasonated with critcs and audiences in a way that didn't resonate with Justin.


Rotten Tomatoes =/= Objectable Quality 

4:48-6:23 He then pulls the Rotten Tomatoes card in an attempt to prove his point. 👏This👏is👏hogwash! Rotten Tomatoes is not a calculator or a measuring stick for the quality of any given feature film. It's an aggregator site that collects blurbs and links to critics and their magazine's website. The percentage merely shows the amount of reviews gathered by the site that were fairly positive. Yes, 91% out of 462 reviews were positive for The Last Jedi, but that doesn't mean the 9% that didn't care for it were invalid. As for the Death Wish remake, this is not the first time a movie was judged for it's timing (and it won't be the last).


Siskel and Ebert Wouldn't Be Surprised

8:26 Justin then claims that if acclaimed critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were still alive, they'd be baffled by the discourse in today's society. You mean the same guys who lived though the AIDS epidemic in the 80s and the LA riots in 1992? While it's hard to say what these men whould thought about today's society, I doubt they'd be surprised given what they had to live through while doing their jobs and reviewing movies.

The difference between movies now and then

12:30 Just asks what the difference is between movies make now and movies made back in the 20th century. Simple: diversity. The film industry now has more diversity than ever before. The great movies of old still hold up, but now so will films like Inside Out, Logan, The Dark Knight, Zootopia, and yes, Black Panther.


Conclusion

Justin wraps up the video saying that he knows how storytelling works because he went to school. Wow, what a big ego: does he have a name? Joking aside, this video was at best tedious and at worst just some guy spewing nonsense. His arguments are flimsy, his delivery is stale and he claims he respect others opinions, yet undermines critics who have The Last Jedi glowing reviews and were critical of Death Wish. Can we say hypocrite? To Justin, if you're reading this, you need another lesson in filmmaking and online discussion. Not everyone shares your bias and narrow minded mentality about filmmaking and nobody in the film industry has to cater to snobs like you. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

The Death of Cinema | The Addams Family (2019) by Browntable response

Introduction

Welcome back to Your Opinion is NOT Law, where we counter argue videos from people with little to no common sense. Today's subject is Browntable (or Mauricio), a YouTuber I was actually subscribed to at one point. I honestly don't know why I was subscribed to him in the first place, as we later find out in this post, he is NOT a good critic. First thing's first, I'm not saying he had to give it a positive review. Opinions are opinions after all. Secondly, I will be referencing reviews from AniMat and CellSpex, who do a much better job explaining their problems with the film and I highly recommend you watch them both (AniMat's video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cPE2bSobI58 CellSpex's video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b6dYkS1YIp8). With that out of the way, let's dive into Browntable's review of The Addams Family.


Blatant Clickbait

0:00 Yep, right before the video even starts there's a problem. The video is blatantly titled "The Death of Cinema" and what's worse? In the video he acknowledges that that is clickbait. This. Is. Pathetic! It's bad enough that the thumbnail already has "Trash" written next to Gomez's face (which is also petty), but using such an exaggerated hyperbole and acknowledging it's just to get clicks is disingenuous and shallow.


Enough With This Stupid Joke

0:24 Before the actual review starts, Mauricio makes this overused and overdone joke about talking about a movie he actually likes before an unheard voice tells him that's not the movie he's going to spend the next 11 minutes talking about. I really need to get this off my chest: can reviewers stop doing this joke please? It was funny the first few times, but at this point it has been beaten into the grown and it's just not funny anymore. If you want to talk about a movie you actually like, talk about it. Who cares if it doesn't get as many views as your more critical videos? It's much better for your mental health anyway.


Who The Fridge Do You Think You Are?

1:06 He says he's not going to refer to the actors and directors by name (except Oscar Issac as an example) because he feels they'd be embarrassed by him saying their names. Let's break this down: Step 1: The men and women behind this film spent over 2 years making this film after it was shelved by Illumination. They love the Addams Family and did their best to make this film the best that it can be. They have NOTHING to be embarrassed about. Step 2: Filmmakers care more about how the audience responds to the film rather than critics because the end goal is giving the general public some quality entertainment. Good or bad, in the eyes of Hollywood filmmakers a critic's feedback comes after the audience's reactions. Step 3: This guy's hubris is so big, it makes Tony Stark cringe. His channel doesn't even have 200k subscribers (as of the making of this post) and he acts like his opinion is going to "embarrass" talented and hardworking filmmakers. Again, pathetic!


How Setting Works

1:33-1:52 His first criticism is the fact that there are 5 different locations in the film. He lists a couple of them but he doesn't go into detail as to why having 5 locations in a film is a problem apart from the budget being small. Okay, this is a weak criticism because the budget is $24 million and the filmmakers found creative ways to work around the budget within the film. The town of Assimilation is a small town, the main characters are kept to 6 to have the plot more focused, and the stakes are kept minimal so that the climax is easier to render. It's also worth noting that 3 years prior, Sausage Party was made for less and hade more set locations than this film. It's not the amount of locations that should be a criticism, it's how they're utilized that should be your main attention.


Good writing =/= good humor

2:55 Browntable is now saying that the film wasn't funny because it wasn't well written. This is factually incorrect because good humor doesn't always stem from a well written script. In the case with The Addams Family, it's comedy often comes from the visual gags more so than the written ones. This is because The Addams Family brand is notorious for it's visual humor (it was originally conceived as a one page comic after all). Humor is of course subjective, but to say bad humor is the same as bad writing is just false. Foodfight is infamously bad, yet I found myself laughing quite a few times during that film.


Pay Attention!

3:11 He forgets the name of Morticia because he doesn't watch The Addams Family. This is a severe no-no when it comes to being a critic. Even if you aren't familiar with the IP, you should at least be paying attention to the film as it is. The characters say each other's names multiple times throughout the film. If you're going to criticize a character's actions, the least you can do is remember their name.


That's Not Even The Right Criticism

3:31 Browntable then says that all Morticia does is explain the joke whilst showing clips from the film. This isn't even what she's doing in the clips shown. The first clip was her making a reference to IT while the second was assumed a passerby wanted to have a drink out of a dog bowl full of water (while Pugsley is drinking it). In AniMat's video, he criticizes the humor for consisting of easy one-liners and the visual gags overstaying their welcome. AniMat actually explained his problem with the humor and he was fair, just and honest about it.


The Mazurka Subplot Explained

4:10 Browntable says characters flip on a dime due to Gomez accepting that Pugsley can do sword play. The problem here is this comes during the 3rd act and throughout the film we see Gomez worry about whether or not his son can do it. At the same time we also see Pugsley try his best to practice for the event. This arc comes to a close ehen Gomez realizes that he was wrong to force Pugsley to not be himself in order to uphold tradition. CellSpex perfectly explains why this subplot didn't work for her because Gomez and Pugsley didn't have a heart to heart about whether or not this was right for the young Addams beforehand. Mauricio fails once again to fully articulate his problem with the film.


This Was Made For Money...So What?

4:52 Mauricio uses the infamous term "cash grab" to describe the film while acknowledging that he knows how hard it is to make an animated movie. I made a post on my Tumblr page about this, but the tl;dr is the term "cash grab" is stupid and redundant, especially when it comes to movies. A movie being made to make money is no different than a cheeseburger made to be eaten. Yes, the filmmakers should still make it the best movie they can, but regardless of the final product, the studio still wants to make their money back.


Give The Character Designer More Credit

5:20-5:55 He then criticizes the character design for having fat and skinny characters and called the art style "disturbing." He then says the characters arms are so thin that the joints would eat away at the arm. Yep, he's applying real world logic to a film about a gothic family with a Frankenstein's monster butler, a disembodied hand, a girl whose head is shaped like a seed and a woman who put the ashes of her dead parents on her face as make-up. While character designs and different art styles are not immune to criticism, it's not constructive to say the style itself is a problem. AniMat himself gave credit to the film for staying true to the original character designs created by Charles Addams almost 60 years ago, yet critized the townsfolk for having an awkward design and for Parker having big lips a la Big Mouth. The characters were intentionally designed to be unsettling, yet Mauricio fails to give credit where credit is due.


Actually Recommend Something

6:32 He tries recommending people go watch Parasite or anything else besides The Addams Family. The problem is he doesn't do a very good job recommend anything. What's Parasite? I don't immediately think of the South Korean film that was nominated for 6 Academy Awards just by hearing that name. I think of tape worms. In addition to that, what specifically is worth watching more than The Addams Family. AniMat recommends the previous adaptations of The Addams (such as the Barry Sonefield films and the television series) while CellSpex points out that MGM uploaded the original 1960s series on their YouTube channel (https://m.youtube.com/user/MGM/videos). He then makes a joke about Martin Scorsese's crique on Marvel movies, yet earlier he joked on how Ant-Man and the Wasp was "The Death of Cinema." I honestly cannot take his recommendation seriously. I'd say this is a good place to wrap up, but we still got about 5 minutes left. Ugh!


Extra Effort WAS Put In This Film

7:27 He goes on to say that there was no extra effort put into this film, which is factually incorrect. In addition to recreating the iconic theme song, the filmmakers brought in Snoop Dog to voice Cousin It, they showcased Gomez and Morticia's wedding, made the mansion a living character and had opening credits, which has become a rarity in today's film landscape. Even if you didn't care for the film, they still tried their best with this film and then some.


Eye Roll Intensifies 😒

8:04 Mauricio then criticizes the running gag of Uncle Fester getting shot with an arrow multiple times in the film and how he was shocked that they put such a violent gag in a "kids film." Uuuuuuuugh! Step 1: The movie is rated PG, which means while it's technically suitable for kids, there are scenes that parents should be aware about before letting them watch it. Uncle Fester getting shot with an arrow (and no blood is drawn) is one of those scenes. And step 2: To paraphrase Don Bluth, kids can handle anything you throw at them as long as you give them a happy ending. CellSpex even pointed out how relatively tame this film is compared to older Disney films. 


Margeaux's Comeuppance

9:28 He criticizes the fact that the antagonist of the film, Margeaux, ends up with Fester and the townsfolk get off scott free. Here's what actually happens. After the townsfolk realize the error of their ways, Margeaux is revealed to be spying on everyone and the network pulls her show off the air. This means that she has a bunch of houses for sale and Fester offers to help her out because he has such a large family. And apparently she and Fester have some chemistry with one another. This was such an minor thing to criticize because it happens at the tale end of the movie and makes for a cute little joke.


Conclusion

He goes on to say that this film is offensive to animators and writers and that this is as bad as his old art. To summarize, this was a terrible review and it makes me question why I bothered subscribing tk this guy in the first place. His arguments are weak, his delivery is bland, he's not focused and his ego is atrocious. What's worst is that he made the film out tk be worse than it is. While I personally enjoyed The Addams Family, CellSpex and AniMat did a much better job criticizing it because they were fair, just, honest and straightforward with their arguments. Browntable meanwhile goes all over the place and blatantly uses clickbait to get more people to watch his video. To Mauricio, if you made it this fair, you are exactly what you claim Ant-Man and the Wasp is: a disappointment. You are terrible at articulating yourself, you don't stay focused on the topic at hand and your use of clickbait isn't funny: it's pathetic. And one last thing: Stop rathering to the audience when stating your problems with the film. Just because you didn't like it that doesn't mean everyone watching shares the same thoughts and attitudes. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

Why Are CalArts Girls so Evil? by JUST A ROBOT response

Introduction

Hello and welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where we dissect inherently flawed and poorly constructed arguments. Today's specimen, Just a Robot: a commentary channel who uses a robotic voice and avatar (hence the name). Now, before watching this video, I didn't have any strong feelings towards this person. But since he went out of his way to make a 12 and a half minute video undermining the works of professional artists in the animation industry, I feel as though I should call him out on it. So without further adieu, let's get started.

Refuting the "CalArts Style"

1:13 At this point in the video, JAR makes a point that female characters in the "CalArts Style" as horrible people. More on the female characters later, but let's make one thing perfectly clear: There's NO such thing as a "CalArts Style." Many professional writers, directors, animators and cinematographers among other professions in the art of filmmaking and television have attentded the California Institute of Arts and Science. That being said, each artist has their own unique style and approach to how they create their work. If this is referring to the shape of the character's heads, then this is also petty because the characters are drawn simpler for television to save money. Even on that front, the creators take great lengths to make their characters stand out. Steven Universe is more of a round kid, Gumball is an anthropomorphic cat, Star Butterfly is a tall preteen princess, Dipper and Mabel are fraternal twins, the list goes one. And to top it all off, not all of the creators of cartoons currently airing went to CalArts in the first place. Rebecca Sugar (Steven Universe) went to the School of Visual Arts in New York, Ben Bocquelet (The Amazing World of Gumball) went to school in Europe, Chris and Shane Houghton (Big City Greens) attended Florida State University and CCS respectively, and Dan Povenmire (Milo Murphy's Law) attended the University of Southern California.

Defending Amethyst with Context

2:51 He points out how Amethyst grabbing Greg's shirt is a red flag when he's trying to leave. In this scene, Amethyst is trying to have fun a good time with Greg, something they haven't been able to do in quite a long while. Ergo, it makes sense why she's persistent. 3:54 JAR then reference's Jaiden Animations video on manipulation (watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H9jTQKmR3Q) to point out how Amethyst is trying to manipulate Greg into staying. The problem with this point is it make's her actions come across as more vile than they actually are. Yes, Amethyst is being pushy, but she isn't throwing Steven under the bus entirely. In any other situation, I'm sure Steven would want to watch Little Butler after the fireworks. Although, his approach would be more innocent than how Amethyst portrays him. Also, if this was meant to be as bad as how Jaiden describes it, it wouldn't have escalated this quickly. Jaiden said in her video "The way manipulation works is that it builds up slowly over time and is almost entirely emotional." At worst, Amethyst is just acting like a spoiled brat trying to get her way. 5:27 JAR then makes a point on how Amethyst's aggression get's worse as the scene escalates, and calls this relationship abusive. I reiterate, Amethyst is acting like a spoiled brat. What she's doing is wrong, she knows it's wrong, and yet she does it anyway because in her mind, that's how she'll get what she wants. Yes, it's implied that this is not the first time this has happened, but I guarantee you if Steven hadn't intervened, Greg would've snapped like a twig and let Amethyst have it. 5:46 JAR then claims Steven is now scared for life and calls Amethyst terrible. Firstly, at this point in the series Steven was nearly consumed by cats, has nearly died several times and watched Pearl get poofed right in front of him; and that was just Season 1. This was at the very least awkward, but nothing to totally scar him for life. Second, I know Amethyst isn't everyone's favorite Crystal Gem (I personally prefer Pearl), but JAR really did the character a disservice by making sound more like a villain. Also by the end of the episode she learns her lesson and in later episodes is shown to be more respectful to Greg.

EZ PZ is NOT a reliable source

5:55 JAR refers to EZ PZ's video on why Princess Bubblegum sucks. I'm just going to make this perfectly clear: EZ PZ is NOT a reliable source for any valid critique or information. He's a distasteful man who hates animation and anybody involved in it. This is the equivalent of saying Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler should be taught in schools because it's a valid source of history.

Bubblegum isn't pure evil

7:23 JAR makes a point how everyone in Adventure Time is terrible after going on a long winded rant on how Princess Bubblegum created Goliad as this evil dictator and Stormo is a good guy. First of all, Goliad developed the dictator mentality on her own because she's strong. Bubblegum tried to reason with her, but to know avail. Second, I can't speak for the rest of the show since I stopped watching a long time ago, but I know for a fact that things aren't as black and white as JAR makes it out to be because the writers of the show take great care in developing morally grey and relatable characters.

For the people who've seen Gravity Falls

8:02 JAR then claims that Mabel from Gravity Falls is such a guilt trip of a character and how this person by the name of CC West made an hour long video talking about why she sucks. I have not seen Gravity Falls so I am in no real position to defend it. But I will say that this sounds like another case of JAR making a character sound worse than she actually is. If you've seen Gravity Falls, tell me how the show actually portrays Mabel's character and whether or not JAR's argument is accurate.

Conclustion

Ultimately, JAR does not give a definitive answer to why he thinks CalArts girls are evil, and instead just says it's probably coincidence. But he did say he was open to suggestions and theories, so here's mine: Just A Robot is an insensitive, distasteful jerk with weak arguments, flimsy sources and a severe lack of respect for the talented artists and writers behind these shows. Not only does he enforce the false narrative that cartoons made today are done in a "CalArts Style" but he down right makes these female characters out to be worse than they actually are. I get if he's not a fan of these shows, but to undermine the writers and artists behind them is just plain disgusting. To Just a Robot, if you made it this far, let me just say this: you disgust me. You dare portray yourself as someone who knows what you're talking about but the reality is you're just spewing out false narratives to make writers and artists feel bad for making shows you don't like. Like I always say: Your Opinion Is NOT Law -.-

"Don't Like It, Don't Criticize It": Quick Response To Nostalgia Critic (Old VS New Teen Titans) rebuttal

Introduction

Hello and welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where I vent on particular YouTubers I strongly disagree with at best and utterly despise at worse. Today's topic, MisAnthro Pony. Ah, yes, Doug Walker's number 1 hater made yet another video about the Nostalgia Critic (this is the 4th video on his channel. btw).  I left a comment on his first video about Doug's 10th anniversary video arguing his points and essentially saying he was being way to harsh and cynical. He then responded politely acknowledged where I was coming from and while he still didn't care for Doug's 10th anniversary, he recognized he was a little too agitated and apologized for it. Hah!! If only we lived in an ideal world where even the nastiest of trolls regretted their actions! Nah instead he stood by his poorly constructed arguments and claims he knows people who are fans of Nostalgia Critic that said he did a good job explaining himself (I guess they just ignored the part where he insults the fans' intelligence at 11:07). But enough about that video, let's talk about his response to NC's Old VS New Teen Titans. Now this video does reference the Channel Awesome controversy that happened early this year and for the longest time, I've only occassionally commented on this because the last time I chose a side of a controversy, I ended up being labeled the bad guy from the opposing side. Yes, I know that comes with the territory, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I'll go into more detail on my Tumblr page but for now, just know that I do not condone the actions listed in the Google doc, but I've forgiven them. With that out of the way, let's get this over with, I have to be to work early in the morning.


What Doug Meant

2:17 Essentially this video was made because MisAnthro Pony took what Doug said out of context. At 13:26-15:00, Doug wasn't telling people not to watch the Teen Titans Go if they hate it so much. He was theorizing why they're watching it and at the end acknowledges that this show has it's fans. Plus, he's not far off as the hate for Teen Titans Go at this point is ludicrous. The show may have a bad apple every now and then, but they make up 12% of the total 214+ episodes of the show.


The "Don't Like, Don't Watch" Argument Explained

3:25 He criticizes the people who use the infamous argument against him and how hypocritical it is because they "worship" a critic. Step 1: We're talking about a dude who watches bad movie for a living not a religious cult and Step 2: PieGuyRulz did a better job criticizing this infamous argument so I'll give my two cents briefly. While you're free to watch what ever you want for the sake of criticizing it, that doesn't make it a healthy habit. Put some optimism in your taste in entertainment and watch something hoping to get a good experience out of it. Works out well for Mr. Coat. If you're going to criticize something, then feel free to do so. Just don't do it constantly or you'll end up bitter and cynical...oh wait.


No He Wasn't


3:46 MisAnthro Pony theorizes that Doug is use the "don't like, don't watch" argument as a defense for his show because of the Channel Awesome controversy (side note, it happened 5 months ago, not "last April"). I have a different theory: maybe Doug's not using the "don't like, don't watch" argument at all. I mean, he reviews bad movies for a living, so maybe, just maybe: he's actually saying it's not a health habit to hate watch something. He even says in his video at 13:54 "The cruelest attention you can give any form of entertainment is no attention." But in all seriousness, though, I'm pretty sure Doug wants to put the controversy behind him as much as everyone else. Maybe one day it will come back to haunt him and maybe karma will nip him in the rear at some point, but as of right now it's all old news. All that was needed to be said has been said, everyone save for Brad Jones and Guru Larry has decided to move on and according to Rob Boor of Cinematic Venom, the #ChangeTheChannel movement is pointless now (https://twitter.com/CinematicVenom/status/1029305807844921344). It's not easy to move on, (trust me, I know) but it must be done in order to focus on your life right now.


Conclusion


The rest of the video is just him rambling on about why the "don't like, don't watch" argument is bad, references Donald Trump, and calls Nostalgia Critic a hypocrite. Sounds like a sweet guy, huh? Overall, this video was a slog to get through, but I've come to expect that from a guy who believe's in the stereotype that "comedy is not subjective." His points were baseless, the hyperbole was ludicrous, and the presentation was tired and stale. To MisAnthro Pony, if you made it this far, just know that I have no ill will towards you as a person. That said, at this point I am tired of this vehement hatred you have for Doug Walker (not Nostalgia Critic, but Doug Walker as a person). Even before the controversy started, it was evidently clear you've hated Doug since day 1. What was that you said in your response to the 10th anniversary again? Oh yeah, "this isn't even pathetic anymore, it's just sad." And that's the best way to describe this hate you have: sad. I know this won't change your mind on Doug, but it says a lot for a guy who criticizes a critic for not taking criticism and yet throws my criticism in my face when I commented on your video. Like I always say: Your Opinion is NOT Law -.-

Yoshi Player's The Problems with AniMat (ElectricDragon) response

Introduction


Welcome back to Your Opinion Is NOT Law, where I respond to people who use factually wrong arguments to back their subjective opinion. Today, we'll be looking at a YouTuber known as Yoshi Player, an avid cartoon reviewer and animator who gained some millage with his video critiquing AniMat (aka ElectricDragon505). Full disclosure: 1. I'm not saying AniMat is immune to criticism, 2. AniMat is making improvements to his approach as we speak and 3. I know this is a little late, but this videos still has problems that need to be addressed. So without further ado, lets get started.


 Assumptions =/= Demand

3:47 Bypassing the overview, Yoshi says AniMat constantly wants Sony Pictures Animation to shut down because they make bad movies. This point is not only false but also misleading as the reality is AniMat DOESN'T want Sony to shut down. To paraphrase in his May 2015 Update vlog, he doesn't hate Sony in general, but with each bad decision they make, he assumed that Smurfs: The Lost Village would be their last film. His prediction might have been wrong, but that doesn't mean he was wrong to assume Sony will be dead. He even says in that same vlog that he believes Sony is capable of making good films, yet time and time again they take 2 steps back. The video may be almost 3 years old, but AniMat's opinion hasn't changed. He still criticizes Sony's films, but he knows they're not going to shut down because of his opinion. Putting that zinger at the end of his review of The Emoji Movie aside, it's doubtful any of the Sony executives actually watched his video and took it at face value.



Let's Talk Business

4:27-5:07 He then explains that Sony shouldn't shut down despite poor business practices. True, but that doesn't excuse poor business practices from being poor business practices. The people who work at Sony might be able to put bread on the table, but they could be doing that at a job that has better working conditions. An it's not like their isn't a demand for animators in the industry. In addition to Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar and Warner Bros., animation studios like Paramount Animation, Industrial Light and Magic, and Reel FX are always looking for new animators. I'm not saying the people at Sony have to leave for a better opportunity, but the door is still open should they chose. 


Why AniMat Makes Comparisons

 6:45-7:58 Yoshi then says it's insulting of AniMat to compare Sony Animation to Donald Trump and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to Charles Manson. I'm not saying these aren't extreme examples, in fact I'm of the belief that comparative criticism should be used sparingly in a review. That said, the reason why he makes these comparisons is to A. Show how Sony makes little improvement and B. How disgraceful it was to show Cloudy with a Chance Meatballs in the animation montage at the Oscars. Again, that's not to say these examples aren't extreme, but they're more petty than insulting.


Out of Context Accusations

 9:13-9:17 Yoshi accuses AniMat of insulting and blocking people for disagreeing with him on Twitter. At first I thought this was very unlike AniMat...that is before I did my research and found that these Tweets don't tell the whole story. I took the liberty of taking screen shots of some of some of the people AniMat rightfully blocked: https://screenshots.firefox.com/oNS5982ZgEe7bOxd/twitter.com, https://screenshots.firefox.com/9RebTIg8dnjT3hId/twitter.com, https://screenshots.firefox.com/sP9FgwwvrK6sZ85L/twitter.com. As evident by these screen shots, these were not respectful or fair criticisms as they tell AniMat to "grow up" for criticizing Sony Animation's films, they call him inappropriate names, and one of them was flat out glad to be blocked, implying that they knew they were pushing his buttons. Yoshi says that they were friends of his; well with friends like this, who need enemies.


What He Actually Said

10:00-10:30 Yoshi says that AniMat believes that anyone who thought that The Emoji Movie was going to be good was a moron. Here's what he actually said in regards to the first teaser of The Emoji Movie disabling comments and making it US exclusive only: "This is almost going into the territory of of Donald Trump in terms of not taking criticism. This pretty much confirms that the people at Sony Pictures, they know for a fact that people hate The Emoji Movie. They hate its existence. They hate the fact that it's being made. And every single information that we've gotten so far is pretty much stupid. There is no way that anybody would be dumb enough to actually look at that and think, "Oh, this might actually turn out pretty good. You know, I actually trust Sony Pictures Animation enough that they could actually good movies, so I'm gonna go and be hopeful about The Emoji Movie."" To translate, AniMat believes that because Sony couldn't take criticism with The Emoji Movie, they know that the movie isn't good and they know people are going to hate it. Yes it could've been worded better, but his argument still stands that Sony knew that this movie wouldn't be welcomed with open arms.


Conclusion

The rest of the video is summarizing how AniMat is not a good person for blocking people who disagree with him and concludes by telling his audience not to dox him. Overall, I found this video to be degrading despite Yoshi's good intentions of giving constructive criticism. My main problem with the video is that Yoshi's arguments against AniMat is backed up by evidence that's taken out of context..The people who criticize him on Twitter were not respectful, the statements he made against Sony, while extreme in some cases his reasonings weren't invalid, and despite assuming Sony will shut down with all the bad decisions they make, he's not actively campaigning the studio shut its doors and the people involve lose their jobs. Granted, his wording could've been better and he could've used a chill pill in his more critical reviews of Sony movies, but his opinions are still his opinions. To Yoshi, if you made it this far, I want to to make this clear: you were not wrong for criticizing AniMat. That said, your arguments could've been better and you could've done more research to back them up. As it stands, I feel as though you went out of your way to make AniMat the biggest bully this side of the animation community when that's far from the truth in reality. Like I always say: your opinion is NOT law -.-