Did Pixar Rip Off Their Own Movie? by WoollyOne Response

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

Stupid Question

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

Stop Holding Pixar To An Impossiblly High Standard

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

Not Seeing The Reason Why Luca Is Set In Italy

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

Throwing The Filmmakers Under The Bus

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

Luca's Ending Explained

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insulting Her Audience

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

Threatening Her Audience

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

Spreading Misinformation

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

Insulting Pixar Character Designers

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

Conclusion

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

Responding to Tor.com's Representation Without Transformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F*** Film Reviews by Justinfinity response

Introduction

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

Hollywood has ALWAYS been political

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


Social Justice Warriors are good

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


Inaccurate judgment on quality 

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


Kathleen Kennedy SAVED Star Wars

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


Expanding the franchise

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



Ever heard of Word of Mouth?

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

Disney =/= perfect


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


Rotten Tomatoes =/= Objectable Quality 

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


Siskel and Ebert Wouldn't Be Surprised

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

The difference between movies now and then

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


Conclusion

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

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

Introduction

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


Blatant Clickbait

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


Enough With This Stupid Joke

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


Who The Fridge Do You Think You Are?

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


How Setting Works

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


Good writing =/= good humor

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


Pay Attention!

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


That's Not Even The Right Criticism

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


The Mazurka Subplot Explained

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


This Was Made For Money...So What?

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


Give The Character Designer More Credit

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


Actually Recommend Something

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


Extra Effort WAS Put In This Film

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


Eye Roll Intensifies 😒

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


Margeaux's Comeuppance

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


Conclusion

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

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

Introduction

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

Refuting the "CalArts Style"

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

Defending Amethyst with Context

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

EZ PZ is NOT a reliable source

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

Bubblegum isn't pure evil

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

For the people who've seen Gravity Falls

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

Conclustion

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