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 -.-
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Friday, January 31, 2020
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 -.-
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 -.-
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
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 -.-
Friday, August 31, 2018
"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 -.-
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 -.-
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
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 -.-
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 -.-
Sunday, December 17, 2017
TheMovieDoctorful's I Can't Believe It's Not Nostalgia Critic!: Hulk review by The Blockbuster Buster response
Introduction
Now it's time we talk about a YouTuber who goes by the user name, TheMovieDoctorful. Most of his content involves reviews on movies he finds underrated, but for today we'll be looking at his commentary on The Blockbuster Buster's review of Ang Lee's Hulk. Full disclosure, this is one of Erod's early reviews so it goes without saying that it's not as up to quality as his newer content. In fact, I left a comment on Cinematic Venom's response to Erod's Batman Forever review (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrwqAM_zNg) explaining that Erod's gotten better and The Blockbuster Buster character doesn't reflect his actual opinion. Of course he respectfully disagreed, but I stand by what I said in that comment. As always, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but in this video, TheMovieDoctorful goes out of his way to make Erod look like a fool with his dated review of one of the most polarizing superhero films of all time. Since this introduction is already over a paragraph long, let's just jump right into it.
The Insults Begin Early
0:06 Literally 6 seconds in and he's already insulting Erod. "Oh wah, wah, wah! Mean old MovieDoctorful is being mean to Erod!" That's not my problem with the insult. The problem is that it's unwarranted as Erod is just doing his prologue before the theme song. It also doesn't help that in context, this isn't criticism, this is just rude.
Acting Standards
0:18 He criticizes Erod's acting not once but more than 3x in the video. While the quality of one's performance is dependent on the audience members, it should be noted that not acting is not something you're good at right off the bat. Yes, Erod's acting then wasn't good, but in my opinion now he's gotten better. I say this because when Nerdlinger shows up later in the video, TheMovieDoctorful fast forwards and says "you can't act." Clearly he can as tries putting on a different voice for Nerdlinger. Like I said, it wasn't good then but at least he was trying.
The Megan Fox "Controversy"
0:33 He brings up that Erod blocks and insults his fans for not sharing his opinion that Megan Fox sucks. I do not believe this to be the case as Erod has said that it's fine if others disagree with his opinion. And before you say it, yes Cinematic Venom notified me that Erod made a vlog criticizing Megan Fox and her fans without using his persona but A. I have not seen that video and B. The fact that he took it down shows he regrets what he said.
Daredevil and Kingpin Fact Check
1:07 During Erod's opening statement, TheMovieDoctorful interjects that Daredevil and Kingpin started out as "joke characters." *Cue Dr. Cox from Scrubs* I'm not a comic book historian, but a quick Google search will inform you that from the get-go that Daredevil was meant to be a vigilante and Kingpin was meant to be a crime boss. Yes, Daredevil started out as a "playful trickster", but the fact that he took down criminals with his acrobatic agility hasn't changed (in fact it was upgraded when Frank Miller took over). And yes, they became popular comic book characters from then on.
The Incredible Hulk Box Office Misconception
1:25 He claims the reason why there hasn't been another Hulk movie is because The Incredible Hulk from 2008 underperformed at the box office. *Cue Dr. Cox from Scrubs...again* In reality, The Incredible Hulk did fine at the box off, making $263.4 million on a $150 million budget. Sure when you ad marketing, that's not saying too much, but it was still considered good enough to not be labeled a failure. Entertainment analyst David Davis said it best to The Hollywood Reporter: "The first Hulk had such high expectations after the NBC Universal merger and was supposed to be critical favorite Ang Lee's breakout commercial blockbuster [Hulk (2003) made $245.4 million against a $137 million budget]. Then with the new Hulk film, Marvel was able to underlay the importance of the success after the great success of Iron Man this summer [Iron Man (2008) made $585.2 million on a $140 million budget]. So the new one overdelivered, relative to its underpromise." You can read the full article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080712210347/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i28e0d4f7991010727c5ef800dea6ce69. Also the reason why Hulk wasn't in Captain America: Civil War is because he wasn't necessary for to the plot AND he's been MIA since Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Erod's Not Exactly a Hypocrite
1:42 He brings up how Erod praises The Incredible Hulk (1978) tv show for being "low on the action but heavy on the drama" and then criticize Hulk (2003) for almost the exact same reason. I say almost because the fundamental difference between the show and the movie can be summed up in one word: investment. From my understanding, the reason why he praises the show is because he must've been invested or interested in Bill Bixby's portrayal as Bruce Banner; whereas with Eric Bana's portrayal (and the rest of the cast in the movie), he's most likely disinterested because he feels the actors looked and sounded bored when making the movie. Granted, Erod could've worded his opinion better, but I think I understand what he meant.
The Incredible Hulk Mini-Review
1:49 TheMovieDoctorful then takes this moment to criticize The Incredible Hulk for having "non-existent character development, a soulless story and the Abomination turned into a mindless brute with no motivation." *Cue Dr. Cox...again.* Now, I'm not saying The Incredible Hulk is objectively good (I thought it was great, but I know for a fact not everyone's a fan of it), but I am saying these arguments are objectively wrong. "Non-existent character development?" Uhh, it's very much existing, in fact the entire movie is Bruce trying to get rid of the Hulk but by the end he learns to accept it. "A soulless story?" Bruce Banner's on the run from the government, he's trying to find a cure, and whenever he loses his temper, he Hulks out. That in and of itself is more than enough to make an interesting story. And of course, the infamous "Marvel has weak villains argument" rears its ugly head. I said it before and I'll say it again: this argument is bulls***. Case in point, Emil Blonsky is an aging soldier who lusts for the Hulk's power, so he injects himself with the super soldier serum, but when that's not enough, he has Samuel Stern inject him with Banner's DNA and become what stern calls "an Abomination." I have not read the comics, but even if I did, I would still find this version of Abomination fitting for the story they were trying to tell. Also, major props to Tim Roth for his portrayal. I get why people don't care much for this movie, but the arguments presented by TheMovieDoctorful cannot be more inaccurate.
And The Unnecessary Insults Keep Coming
1:57 When Erod says "tame fanboys" TheMovieDoctorful says "explosion obsessed man children." "Oh wah, wah-" Let just stop you right there and ask this simple question: if Erod was this so called "explosion obsessed man child," would he go on and on bashing the Transformers franchise in which every film up till this point was directed by the master of explosive action himself, Michael Bay? No, he'd shut up, turn his brain off and praise Michael Bay's Transformers and ignore all faults with the movies. Seriously, these insults are beyond uncalled for.
Erod Should Do a Re-Review of Hulk
2:36 Again, Erod should've worded his arguments better, but I believe what he means is the movie doesn't provide him with anything to care about as he clearly doesn't by the actor's performance and is not invested in the story. That's fair criticism to want the movie to start out with Hulk smashing, or at the very least start off with the gamma explosion thus turning him into the Hulk. Seriously though, Erod should take the time to re-review Hulk now that he's improved his argument presentation skills.
That's Not Erod's Problem with Hulk
2:46 The main criticism with Ang Lee's Hulk (not just Erod, but most mainstream critics) wasn't because there was "too much talking;" the most common criticism (apart from not having enough action) is that the characters weren't that engaging. I personally don't agree with that criticism, but I'm on the supporting side for this movie; Erod's on the opposing side and as such he doesn't feel engaged. It's not the fact that the characters are talking (as my Dad always say, when they talk, they tell a story) it's the lack of investment in the characters that make him not care what they're saying.
Batman Begins =/= Hulk
3:23 He brings up how Erod "loved" Batman Begins despite Bruce Wayne not donning the cape and cowl until an hour into the movie. *I like the Dr. Cox meme, but I'm getting really tired of repeating myself, so this'll be the last time I cue it* Step 1: Erod didn't "love" Batman Begins as he criticized it for its shaky action, the infamous Batman voice and Scarecrow's defeat was "bulls***." Step 2: Remember what I said about character investment? Erod praises the development of Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, showing that he cares about Bruce Wayne and his struggle.
A Simple "Correction" Would've Suffice
4:25 TheMovieDoctorful has a fair criticism that Erod overlooked the fact that Bruce's father, David, visited him, but instead of just explaining it, he ends his argument with another pointless insult to Erod about how "impatient" he is. I find it a bit hypocritical that he says Erod can't stay quiet for 5 minutes without Hulk smashing stuff, when for almost 4 1/2 minutes TheMovieDoctorful can't stay critical without throwing in an insult every other minute.
I'm sorry, what?
6:30 TheMovieDoctorful then criticizes Erod's taste in movies because Erod plays a clip from Mystery Men and calls him a hypocrite for claiming DC fans for being in denial. Uhhh...what? Step 1: Erod used this clip for the purpose of the joke; his opinion on Mystery Men has nothing to do with using this clip. Step 2: Even if he did like Mystery Men, so what? That's his opinion. And Step 3: Erod doesn't think all DC fans are in denial; he's a fan himself and he's made it openly clear that he hates the DC Extended Universe and many other agree with him. I don't but I respect his opinion (unlike some people).
That's Not How Erod Sees It
8:48 He then claims that the scene where Bruce and his father talk is one of the best acted scenes in comic book movie history and Erod passing it off as boring because "he wanted a stupid action scene right away." While I agree that scene is the best in the movie, it's not that high on my list of best acted scenes in a comic book movie (or anyone's for that matter). It's already been established that Erod doesn't care about the characters, so it would make sense that he wouldn't find this scene interesting. TheMovieDoctorful also calls Erod a "13 year old in a grown man's body." Again, pointless insult was pointless.
Conclusion
TheMovieDoctorful concludes by saying Erod was wrong to criticize the movie because Ang Lee is not known for making big budget blockbusters and that he tries and fails to be Angry Joe, Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd. Step 1: By that logic, he was wrong to criticize Erod because he didn't make video responses before this one. Step 2: Erod wasn't trying to be like his idols to a tee, he was trying to use their influence and stand out among the crowd. And considering he's grown in subscribers, has improved upon his style and has been a part of Channel Awesome since 2011, I'd say he's succeeded. Overall, I'm not gonna mince words: this video sucks. The insults to Erod as a person were unwarranted, the nitpicks were so pointless I didn't even bother going through them and even when he does provide a genuine argument, it's almost immediately followed by an insult, turning a valid point into a blatant attack. I know Erod's Hulk review isn't his best, but I'm more forgiving because this just shows how far he's come as a critic and how he's improved as a content creator (at least, in my opinion). To TheMovieDoctorful, if you made it this far, I'm not saying you should give Erod another chance (that ship has sailed and is never coming back). But I am saying you shouldn't be so hostile to a man who has a different opinion then yours on a movie you admire. Just because you disagree, that doesn't mean Erod is an incompetent man child. Like I always say: your opinion is not law -.-
Now it's time we talk about a YouTuber who goes by the user name, TheMovieDoctorful. Most of his content involves reviews on movies he finds underrated, but for today we'll be looking at his commentary on The Blockbuster Buster's review of Ang Lee's Hulk. Full disclosure, this is one of Erod's early reviews so it goes without saying that it's not as up to quality as his newer content. In fact, I left a comment on Cinematic Venom's response to Erod's Batman Forever review (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrwqAM_zNg) explaining that Erod's gotten better and The Blockbuster Buster character doesn't reflect his actual opinion. Of course he respectfully disagreed, but I stand by what I said in that comment. As always, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but in this video, TheMovieDoctorful goes out of his way to make Erod look like a fool with his dated review of one of the most polarizing superhero films of all time. Since this introduction is already over a paragraph long, let's just jump right into it.
The Insults Begin Early
0:06 Literally 6 seconds in and he's already insulting Erod. "Oh wah, wah, wah! Mean old MovieDoctorful is being mean to Erod!" That's not my problem with the insult. The problem is that it's unwarranted as Erod is just doing his prologue before the theme song. It also doesn't help that in context, this isn't criticism, this is just rude.
Acting Standards
0:18 He criticizes Erod's acting not once but more than 3x in the video. While the quality of one's performance is dependent on the audience members, it should be noted that not acting is not something you're good at right off the bat. Yes, Erod's acting then wasn't good, but in my opinion now he's gotten better. I say this because when Nerdlinger shows up later in the video, TheMovieDoctorful fast forwards and says "you can't act." Clearly he can as tries putting on a different voice for Nerdlinger. Like I said, it wasn't good then but at least he was trying.
The Megan Fox "Controversy"
0:33 He brings up that Erod blocks and insults his fans for not sharing his opinion that Megan Fox sucks. I do not believe this to be the case as Erod has said that it's fine if others disagree with his opinion. And before you say it, yes Cinematic Venom notified me that Erod made a vlog criticizing Megan Fox and her fans without using his persona but A. I have not seen that video and B. The fact that he took it down shows he regrets what he said.
Daredevil and Kingpin Fact Check
1:07 During Erod's opening statement, TheMovieDoctorful interjects that Daredevil and Kingpin started out as "joke characters." *Cue Dr. Cox from Scrubs* I'm not a comic book historian, but a quick Google search will inform you that from the get-go that Daredevil was meant to be a vigilante and Kingpin was meant to be a crime boss. Yes, Daredevil started out as a "playful trickster", but the fact that he took down criminals with his acrobatic agility hasn't changed (in fact it was upgraded when Frank Miller took over). And yes, they became popular comic book characters from then on.
The Incredible Hulk Box Office Misconception
1:25 He claims the reason why there hasn't been another Hulk movie is because The Incredible Hulk from 2008 underperformed at the box office. *Cue Dr. Cox from Scrubs...again* In reality, The Incredible Hulk did fine at the box off, making $263.4 million on a $150 million budget. Sure when you ad marketing, that's not saying too much, but it was still considered good enough to not be labeled a failure. Entertainment analyst David Davis said it best to The Hollywood Reporter: "The first Hulk had such high expectations after the NBC Universal merger and was supposed to be critical favorite Ang Lee's breakout commercial blockbuster [Hulk (2003) made $245.4 million against a $137 million budget]. Then with the new Hulk film, Marvel was able to underlay the importance of the success after the great success of Iron Man this summer [Iron Man (2008) made $585.2 million on a $140 million budget]. So the new one overdelivered, relative to its underpromise." You can read the full article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080712210347/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i28e0d4f7991010727c5ef800dea6ce69. Also the reason why Hulk wasn't in Captain America: Civil War is because he wasn't necessary for to the plot AND he's been MIA since Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Erod's Not Exactly a Hypocrite
1:42 He brings up how Erod praises The Incredible Hulk (1978) tv show for being "low on the action but heavy on the drama" and then criticize Hulk (2003) for almost the exact same reason. I say almost because the fundamental difference between the show and the movie can be summed up in one word: investment. From my understanding, the reason why he praises the show is because he must've been invested or interested in Bill Bixby's portrayal as Bruce Banner; whereas with Eric Bana's portrayal (and the rest of the cast in the movie), he's most likely disinterested because he feels the actors looked and sounded bored when making the movie. Granted, Erod could've worded his opinion better, but I think I understand what he meant.
The Incredible Hulk Mini-Review
1:49 TheMovieDoctorful then takes this moment to criticize The Incredible Hulk for having "non-existent character development, a soulless story and the Abomination turned into a mindless brute with no motivation." *Cue Dr. Cox...again.* Now, I'm not saying The Incredible Hulk is objectively good (I thought it was great, but I know for a fact not everyone's a fan of it), but I am saying these arguments are objectively wrong. "Non-existent character development?" Uhh, it's very much existing, in fact the entire movie is Bruce trying to get rid of the Hulk but by the end he learns to accept it. "A soulless story?" Bruce Banner's on the run from the government, he's trying to find a cure, and whenever he loses his temper, he Hulks out. That in and of itself is more than enough to make an interesting story. And of course, the infamous "Marvel has weak villains argument" rears its ugly head. I said it before and I'll say it again: this argument is bulls***. Case in point, Emil Blonsky is an aging soldier who lusts for the Hulk's power, so he injects himself with the super soldier serum, but when that's not enough, he has Samuel Stern inject him with Banner's DNA and become what stern calls "an Abomination." I have not read the comics, but even if I did, I would still find this version of Abomination fitting for the story they were trying to tell. Also, major props to Tim Roth for his portrayal. I get why people don't care much for this movie, but the arguments presented by TheMovieDoctorful cannot be more inaccurate.
And The Unnecessary Insults Keep Coming
1:57 When Erod says "tame fanboys" TheMovieDoctorful says "explosion obsessed man children." "Oh wah, wah-" Let just stop you right there and ask this simple question: if Erod was this so called "explosion obsessed man child," would he go on and on bashing the Transformers franchise in which every film up till this point was directed by the master of explosive action himself, Michael Bay? No, he'd shut up, turn his brain off and praise Michael Bay's Transformers and ignore all faults with the movies. Seriously, these insults are beyond uncalled for.
Erod Should Do a Re-Review of Hulk
2:36 Again, Erod should've worded his arguments better, but I believe what he means is the movie doesn't provide him with anything to care about as he clearly doesn't by the actor's performance and is not invested in the story. That's fair criticism to want the movie to start out with Hulk smashing, or at the very least start off with the gamma explosion thus turning him into the Hulk. Seriously though, Erod should take the time to re-review Hulk now that he's improved his argument presentation skills.
That's Not Erod's Problem with Hulk
2:46 The main criticism with Ang Lee's Hulk (not just Erod, but most mainstream critics) wasn't because there was "too much talking;" the most common criticism (apart from not having enough action) is that the characters weren't that engaging. I personally don't agree with that criticism, but I'm on the supporting side for this movie; Erod's on the opposing side and as such he doesn't feel engaged. It's not the fact that the characters are talking (as my Dad always say, when they talk, they tell a story) it's the lack of investment in the characters that make him not care what they're saying.
Batman Begins =/= Hulk
3:23 He brings up how Erod "loved" Batman Begins despite Bruce Wayne not donning the cape and cowl until an hour into the movie. *I like the Dr. Cox meme, but I'm getting really tired of repeating myself, so this'll be the last time I cue it* Step 1: Erod didn't "love" Batman Begins as he criticized it for its shaky action, the infamous Batman voice and Scarecrow's defeat was "bulls***." Step 2: Remember what I said about character investment? Erod praises the development of Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, showing that he cares about Bruce Wayne and his struggle.
A Simple "Correction" Would've Suffice
4:25 TheMovieDoctorful has a fair criticism that Erod overlooked the fact that Bruce's father, David, visited him, but instead of just explaining it, he ends his argument with another pointless insult to Erod about how "impatient" he is. I find it a bit hypocritical that he says Erod can't stay quiet for 5 minutes without Hulk smashing stuff, when for almost 4 1/2 minutes TheMovieDoctorful can't stay critical without throwing in an insult every other minute.
I'm sorry, what?
6:30 TheMovieDoctorful then criticizes Erod's taste in movies because Erod plays a clip from Mystery Men and calls him a hypocrite for claiming DC fans for being in denial. Uhhh...what? Step 1: Erod used this clip for the purpose of the joke; his opinion on Mystery Men has nothing to do with using this clip. Step 2: Even if he did like Mystery Men, so what? That's his opinion. And Step 3: Erod doesn't think all DC fans are in denial; he's a fan himself and he's made it openly clear that he hates the DC Extended Universe and many other agree with him. I don't but I respect his opinion (unlike some people).
That's Not How Erod Sees It
8:48 He then claims that the scene where Bruce and his father talk is one of the best acted scenes in comic book movie history and Erod passing it off as boring because "he wanted a stupid action scene right away." While I agree that scene is the best in the movie, it's not that high on my list of best acted scenes in a comic book movie (or anyone's for that matter). It's already been established that Erod doesn't care about the characters, so it would make sense that he wouldn't find this scene interesting. TheMovieDoctorful also calls Erod a "13 year old in a grown man's body." Again, pointless insult was pointless.
Conclusion
TheMovieDoctorful concludes by saying Erod was wrong to criticize the movie because Ang Lee is not known for making big budget blockbusters and that he tries and fails to be Angry Joe, Nostalgia Critic and Angry Video Game Nerd. Step 1: By that logic, he was wrong to criticize Erod because he didn't make video responses before this one. Step 2: Erod wasn't trying to be like his idols to a tee, he was trying to use their influence and stand out among the crowd. And considering he's grown in subscribers, has improved upon his style and has been a part of Channel Awesome since 2011, I'd say he's succeeded. Overall, I'm not gonna mince words: this video sucks. The insults to Erod as a person were unwarranted, the nitpicks were so pointless I didn't even bother going through them and even when he does provide a genuine argument, it's almost immediately followed by an insult, turning a valid point into a blatant attack. I know Erod's Hulk review isn't his best, but I'm more forgiving because this just shows how far he's come as a critic and how he's improved as a content creator (at least, in my opinion). To TheMovieDoctorful, if you made it this far, I'm not saying you should give Erod another chance (that ship has sailed and is never coming back). But I am saying you shouldn't be so hostile to a man who has a different opinion then yours on a movie you admire. Just because you disagree, that doesn't mean Erod is an incompetent man child. Like I always say: your opinion is not law -.-
Thursday, December 7, 2017
MegaDoopTV's We Need to Talk Video Response analysis
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a die hard Mr. Enter fanboy deflecting criticism towards him. I'm just a casual viewer with an opinion and a right to express that opinion.
Introduction
Let's talk about MegaDoopTV, or as he's previously known, The Ultimate Ranter. This young man has been known to attack channels and fanbases he personally hates. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course; the problem is he doesn't respect opinions contrasting to his. I'm not exaggerating, as we've met before in the comment section of Mr. Enter's 12 oz Mouse review. The conversation basically went "why are you still watching Mr. Enter" "I'm pointing out how s***** his content is. Btw, nice use of the "don't like, don't watch argument."" "I didn't say don't watch, i was simply asking why?" "You are a moronic fanboy who doesn't understand how s***** that argument is. I'm done." The comments have since been deleted, but I still remember him throwing my simple and honest question in my face without giving me a good answer. We'll get into why "I'm only here to criticize" isn't a good excuse later, for now lets talk about the video in question.
Addressing these so called "fans"
0:19 He's referring to this small minority of subscribers to Mr. Enter who dubbed MarsReviews, RebelTaxi and Turkey Tom cyber bullies for criticizing Enter. The reality is the majority of Mr. Enter's subscribers (at least from what I've seen) respect their opinions and don't result to childish name calling. The minority of people that dont are just that: the minority. They don't represent the fan base as a whole.
Mr. Enter improvements
0:42 He says Mr. Enter has "improved slightly with his editing" but that's not all he's improved on. He's become less temperamental towards cartoons, his humor is much better (in my opinion) and he arguments are more thought out and explained better. It's all subjective of course, but to say he's only slightly improved in editing is pretty in accurate.
That doesn't make it right
1:18 Just because harsh criticism exist, that doesn't mean it's okay. It's never okay to insult or belittle someone when giving feedback. Criticism should be at most firm, but fair in order for the creator to improve. If Mr. Enter took what MegaDoopTV and others as valid criticism (insults an all), he'd have stopped making videos a long time ago. "Oh, let me guess: he has Asperger's right?" Don't you just love being interrupted? Step 1: Not even close to what i was going to say and Step 2: Contrary to what many people think, Mr. Enter DOES listen to criticism. If he didn't, he wouldn't have shown even the slightest of improvements since 2013. So, no; Mr. Enter isn't wrong for saying you shouldn't hate someone and everything they do.
Constructive =/= nice
1:50 This is the part of the video i wanted to address, the most. Constructive criticism isn't about being nice, it's about being fair and respectful. It is, in fact, possible to respect someone without necessarily being nice to them. For example, I don't care for a certain family member of mine, but I don't give him the stink eye every time I see him. Instead, I just acknowledge he's there and mind my own business. You don't have to be a Saint when providing criticism, but you should be fair so people can see where you're coming from in your arguments.
You can still help
2:01 Flaws are not always immediately known to the creator, even after proof reading and review the content themselves. This is why criticism exists in the first place: to point out flaws the creator overlooked and how they can do better next time.
Conclusion
He concludes with one of the top rules of the Internet (and creativity as well): if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen (I know that's not exactly what he said but that's exactly what he means). It's a wise motto to follow, but he uses it to say Mr. Enter can't take harsh criticism, even though we've already established that harsh criticism does more harm than good. Overall, I find this video to be very opinionated and nonsensical. The arguments brought to the table weren't respectful as he grouped all 250k+ subscribers of Mr. Enter with the minority, he makes Mr. Enter the bad guy for addressing criticism and he mistakes constructive criticism as being nice. I must again stress that I'm not deflecting criticism towards Mr. Enter, but instead shooting down MegaDoopTV's flawed and incorrect arguments. To MegaDoopTV, if you made it this far, just know that I'm not saying you have to like Mr. Enter. I'm just saying if you're going to criticize him, I suggest you do your homework on what constructive and harsh mean. Also, just because you think a YouTuber is terrible, that doesn't mean the people subscribed to them are all morons. Like I always say: your opinion is not law -.-
Introduction
Let's talk about MegaDoopTV, or as he's previously known, The Ultimate Ranter. This young man has been known to attack channels and fanbases he personally hates. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course; the problem is he doesn't respect opinions contrasting to his. I'm not exaggerating, as we've met before in the comment section of Mr. Enter's 12 oz Mouse review. The conversation basically went "why are you still watching Mr. Enter" "I'm pointing out how s***** his content is. Btw, nice use of the "don't like, don't watch argument."" "I didn't say don't watch, i was simply asking why?" "You are a moronic fanboy who doesn't understand how s***** that argument is. I'm done." The comments have since been deleted, but I still remember him throwing my simple and honest question in my face without giving me a good answer. We'll get into why "I'm only here to criticize" isn't a good excuse later, for now lets talk about the video in question.
Addressing these so called "fans"
0:19 He's referring to this small minority of subscribers to Mr. Enter who dubbed MarsReviews, RebelTaxi and Turkey Tom cyber bullies for criticizing Enter. The reality is the majority of Mr. Enter's subscribers (at least from what I've seen) respect their opinions and don't result to childish name calling. The minority of people that dont are just that: the minority. They don't represent the fan base as a whole.
Mr. Enter improvements
0:42 He says Mr. Enter has "improved slightly with his editing" but that's not all he's improved on. He's become less temperamental towards cartoons, his humor is much better (in my opinion) and he arguments are more thought out and explained better. It's all subjective of course, but to say he's only slightly improved in editing is pretty in accurate.
That doesn't make it right
1:18 Just because harsh criticism exist, that doesn't mean it's okay. It's never okay to insult or belittle someone when giving feedback. Criticism should be at most firm, but fair in order for the creator to improve. If Mr. Enter took what MegaDoopTV and others as valid criticism (insults an all), he'd have stopped making videos a long time ago. "Oh, let me guess: he has Asperger's right?" Don't you just love being interrupted? Step 1: Not even close to what i was going to say and Step 2: Contrary to what many people think, Mr. Enter DOES listen to criticism. If he didn't, he wouldn't have shown even the slightest of improvements since 2013. So, no; Mr. Enter isn't wrong for saying you shouldn't hate someone and everything they do.
Constructive =/= nice
1:50 This is the part of the video i wanted to address, the most. Constructive criticism isn't about being nice, it's about being fair and respectful. It is, in fact, possible to respect someone without necessarily being nice to them. For example, I don't care for a certain family member of mine, but I don't give him the stink eye every time I see him. Instead, I just acknowledge he's there and mind my own business. You don't have to be a Saint when providing criticism, but you should be fair so people can see where you're coming from in your arguments.
You can still help
2:01 Flaws are not always immediately known to the creator, even after proof reading and review the content themselves. This is why criticism exists in the first place: to point out flaws the creator overlooked and how they can do better next time.
Conclusion
He concludes with one of the top rules of the Internet (and creativity as well): if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen (I know that's not exactly what he said but that's exactly what he means). It's a wise motto to follow, but he uses it to say Mr. Enter can't take harsh criticism, even though we've already established that harsh criticism does more harm than good. Overall, I find this video to be very opinionated and nonsensical. The arguments brought to the table weren't respectful as he grouped all 250k+ subscribers of Mr. Enter with the minority, he makes Mr. Enter the bad guy for addressing criticism and he mistakes constructive criticism as being nice. I must again stress that I'm not deflecting criticism towards Mr. Enter, but instead shooting down MegaDoopTV's flawed and incorrect arguments. To MegaDoopTV, if you made it this far, just know that I'm not saying you have to like Mr. Enter. I'm just saying if you're going to criticize him, I suggest you do your homework on what constructive and harsh mean. Also, just because you think a YouTuber is terrible, that doesn't mean the people subscribed to them are all morons. Like I always say: your opinion is not law -.-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)