"angry" gamers/critics

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I remember he made some snide remarks about Mako when he reviewed the one TMNT animated movie as well.

Most people who do review franchises such as Digimon at least do research on it. Such as it was part of the whole Tamagotchi fad and so fourth. He's kind of harsh on any movies made by Don Bluth as well.
I think the difference here is that Doug grew up on Don's films (like Secret of NIMH and Dragon's Lair). And to see the pinnacle of disgustingly lazy writing and animation in a theatrical film, especially from a master such as Bluth, get him upset.

Granted, while I agree that Troll in Central Park and Pebble and the Penguin are pretty terrible films in their own right. Doug's attitude towards them comes off as his attitude towards the anime (and really, any of the other films in general) he's reviewed.
 
Another thing that irked me was his complaints about the design for "the devil" in the Spawn movie.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=id=kAPSjt6TqCo;m=7;s=26
Yes, the CGI looks horrible but that's not the devil, that's Malebolgia, a renegade of Hell who rebelled against the devil and created his own Hell after being cast out from the original and yes, that is how he's supposed to look:

latest

While in the comics, Malebolgia is different from the devil, the movie, for whatever reason, makes it seem like they're one and the same.

It really makes me believe Doug and co. (or at least the ones that are mediocre/terrible, like Lewis) do little to no research on their videos.

I've actually pointed things out to Lewis ahead of his reviews, but he doesn't seem to always listen to me.

He does seem to use the Comic Vine website for research, thankfully, but apparently not other comics info sites.


Doesn't he openly admit that Ninja Turtles isn't that good? That's great. "TMNT is ridiculous but I like it so it's OK! But I was too old for Pokemon when it came out so it's stupid!" This is something a elementary schooler does when they don't like something.

I frankly find it insulting that he not only argued that the first TMNT cartoon was just made to sell toys (it was really only that in the beginning), but also that the original TMNT comic was just a parody.

Given that TMNT was owned by the cartoonists who created it (and they in turn gave back to the creative community), I don't see Turtlemania as being as a big a commercial sellout as Doug seems to.

That, and claims the Turtles didn't have different personalities on the original comic. Brrrrrrr.

And that was the one that brought Mara Wilson in, she's now associated with Lindsay.

And both Mara and Lindsey are friends/white-knights of Sarah/Nicholas Nyberg. Double brrrrrrr.
 
Okay, sorry to doublepost, but here's the latest update on #WTFU. Seems that writing to the Copyright Office actually has gotten their attention:

 
Okay, sorry to doublepost, but here's the latest update on #WTFU. Seems that writing to the Copyright Office actually has gotten their attention:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oYWNtkls2Jw
I like how there's progress in this thing, but I can't see this going anywhere but south in the short term.

Also, he needs to wear that hat more because hot damn, is that man balding.
 
Late, but since I was lurking through this thread tonight:
Ever notice how when Doug makes reviews he only really talks about mainstream blockbusters? I never see him talking about indie or artsy films that much.
I remember he's said Brazil is his favorite movie because it was "surreal". My memories of that film are very vague, but I do remember getting an "artsy" vibe out of it. And in general Doug strikes me as the sort of hipster who, as others have observed, mocks anything that's popular. Maybe that's why he targets the blockbusters these days; he wants to appear smarter than the proles by bashing anything "mainstream".
 
And in general Doug strikes me as the sort of hipster who, as others have observed, mocks anything that's popular. Maybe that's why he targets the blockbusters these days; he wants to appear smarter than the proles by bashing anything "mainstream".

With this and their rapidly disappearing hair, I'm now convinced Doug and Coleslaw were separated at birth.
 
With this and their rapidly disappearing hair, I'm now convinced Doug and Coleslaw were separated at birth.
Chris, Doug and Cole related?

Eh, I can see it.

Interesting. I'd like to draw attention to the responses to Clay's Tumblr post.
I love how two of those guys have FNAF backgrounds and bouncing animatrons in their blogs.

That said, I don't know if Clay's got much room to go on here. His videos are pretty much taking the piss out of a very legitimate issue that a lot of people (not just internet reviewers) are having. The problem is that by his logic, Doug could easily take down his (Clay's) video for copyright. As bad as Doug is these days, forbidding him his free speech is technically against the law. That and most of the video is just him saying "If you like him, then you're just as bad as he is" or along those lines. Honestly, Clay should really just go back to taking the piss out of AnimatedJames and 03bgood (and their ilk) because he's really out of his element here. (also going through his comments, he's claiming he's not a commentator when he kind of is)

However, Doug's video also seems to be indicative of something else as well. As much as Clay's video missed the point a fair bit, I still can't shake the feeling that this won't end well for Doug in any way, shape or form.

Off topic a bit, but I have to wonder what Clay thinks about us when we made fun of Derek and his stupidity.
 
That hairline is receding like it was the french army.
Honestly, the hair thing is nothing new. Dudes hair has kinda been stuck like that for a year.
Also it's hilarious that SJ pandering Doug would, even for a second, acknowledge SJW hater extraordinaire alphaomegasin. Guess their views don't matter as long as they back your "totally going to go some place" cause. Or, even more likely, he didn't really care about the people he just slapped on the end.
 
@Jewelsmakerguy @Hellsperger , admittedly when I say great points, I meant the Tumblr post in particular -- I mainly was posting the YT vids so any readers have some context for the post.

This is what stood out when I read CC's tumblr:

Clay Claymore said:
Full disclosure: I am not a copyright expert. Then again neither are you or Doug or IHateEverything or YourMovieSucks or MrEnter or Team FourStar. Contrary to what my detractors say, I have never claimed to know all there is to copyright or Fair Use. However I do possess a working fucking brain and I looked it up and saw that there are some things about it that not many people are aware nor are they making themselves aware of. But will get to that later.

. . .

Now that [Walker's] back on YouTube and the copyright system is interfering with his way of earning money, now suddenly copyright is an issue! As I said in the video, he didn’t seem to care about any copyright issues when he was on Blip!

“Oh, but Doug didn’t know about what was going on YouTube!!”

Oh, he knew alright. He knew about it because that’s why he left YouTube and went to Blip in the first place! Once he was on there and he was able to share his videos without much worry, he couldn’t care less about the little guys on YouTube dealing with the copyright issues (except for maybe the other TGWTG guys).

Clay Claymore also said:
. . .

Now ask anybody what Fair Use is and they’re tell you that it’s a thing where you can take someone’s copyrighted work and use it for cases of reviews, parodies, commentaries, criticisms, or education. . . . Sometimes you want to use a portion or most of someone else’s work to review it or parody it or use it for educational purposes. . . . WELL…here’s something about Fair Use almost NOBODY knows about, and that’s this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

The first factor of whether or not somethings falls under Fair Use is basically what are you using the copyright material for. Is it for commercial nature or is it for nonprofit educational use? Almost every movie “reviewer” I’ve seen bitching about #WTFU are violating both parts. With them making money off the “reviews” they’re making (be it through ad revenue or having a Patreon page), it definitely fits under commercial nature and the “nonprofit” part flies out the window. If you’re making money using somebody else’s work, then they have a case. Note, it doesn’t mean they’re going to automatically win, but they have a good shot at it. Fair Use won’t totally save you here.

Then there’s the fourth factor which is the effect that using said copyrighted material can have on the value and performance of the original copyrighted work. Basically, you making a “review” that encompasses spoiling the entire movie or an abridged series can have an impact on how the original work does. If somebody saw your spoiler-filled movie “review” or somebody watched your hardly-edited abridged series of…oh I don’t know…let’s say “Dragon Ball Z,” then that could damage the performance of the original work and thus companies can take said videos down. And Fair Use wouldn’t totally be able to help you should they take you to court for it.

. . .

As for people who get their videos taken down even though they contain no copyrighted material (such as Cinema Snob’s videos), sorry. The system really is fucked and it sucks that your video was a part of that. You can file a counter-claim and see if that solves anything, but if it doesn’t…then damn.

It seems Clay's primary point is that since most content creator's reviews are actually more like summarizing the entire movie for its viewers -- AND most of them monetize said videos via midroll ads or Patreon pages -- they're making a profit on copyrighted footage they most likely did not have the permission to utilize to begin with. Also, Fair Use is a defense, not a right.

But back on topic, lmao @ NC's rousing speech in that Claymore video. "We're not going away, content creators like us have only gotten bigger, and all [Hollywood's] attempts to keep us down have only made us stronger. No matter what [Hollywood does], we'll find a way to comment, to praise, to criticize, to satirize, and to educate . . ." :story:

And yes, as much as I dislike most of these angry critics, they're certainly entitled to whatever they views on whatever they produce videos about, but man they need to take it easy on the salt.
 
@Jewelsmakerguy @Hellsperger , admittedly when I say great points, I meant the Tumblr post in particular -- I mainly was posting the YT vids so any readers have some context for the post.

This is what stood out when I read CC's tumblr:


It seems Clay's primary point is that since most content creator's reviews are actually more like summarizing the entire movie for its viewers -- AND most of them monetize said videos via midroll ads or Patreon pages -- they're making a profit on copyrighted footage they most likely did not have the permission to utilize to begin with. Also, Fair Use is a defense, not a right.

But back on topic, lmao @ NC's rousing speech in that Claymore video. "We're not going away, content creators like us have only gotten bigger, and all [Hollywood's] attempts to keep us down have only made us stronger. No matter what [Hollywood does], we'll find a way to comment, to praise, to criticize, to satirize, and to educate . . ." :story:

And yes, as much as I dislike most of these angry critics, they're certainly entitled to whatever they views on whatever they produce videos about, but man they need to take it easy on the salt.
True, but at the same time Clay's being just as salty/over the top as Doug and crew are. And his "If you don't agree with me, then you're no better then them" behavior he's showing off in both, the video and the comments, isn't really doing much to swing opinion over to his favor. Heck, I saw some people bashing him for just mocking people like Doug, Enter and Blake (but that's a whole other can of beans I'd rather not talk about here).

Point is, Fair use, defense or not, is not something to take lightly. Clay doesn't seem to realize that it's always been fucked up (I know a guy who got falsely claimed for a video that other party who submitted said claim had no ownership of, for example). Yeah, you could argue that Doug's only in it for the money, which he clearly is, no doubt about it. The fact that he's mostly claiming those who use the #WTFU hashtags are bad guys is clearly showing that he's got some bias towards them, when most of them do have valid reasons to counter-claim.

Even more laughable is that he's painting Daddy Derek out to be a good guy in all this. When he himself is just as terrible (if not worse) at copyright law practices as the critics he's calling out.
 
It seems Clay's primary point is that since most content creator's reviews are actually more like summarizing the entire movie for its viewers -- AND most of them monetize said videos via midroll ads or Patreon pages -- they're making a profit on copyrighted footage they most likely did not have the permission to utilize to begin with. Also, Fair Use is a defense, not a right.


It's procedurally a defense, but because it represents the First Amendment right of free speech in tension with the right of intellectual property owners to control the use of their products, it sort of is a right.
 
True, but at the same time Clay's being just as salty/over the top as Doug and crew are. And his "If you don't agree with me, then you're no better then them" behavior he's showing off in both, the video and the comments, isn't really doing much to swing opinion over to his favor. Heck, I saw some people bashing him for just mocking people like Doug, Enter and Blake (but that's a whole other can of beans I'd rather not talk about here).

Oh yeah, CC is being pretty abrasive about this stuff, but then again since he focuses on cartoon and vidya spergs, I guess that's to be expected. (Not that excuses it, though.)

Point is, Fair use, defense or not, is not something to take lightly. Clay doesn't seem to realize that it's always been fucked up (I know a guy who got falsely claimed for a video that other party who submitted said claim had no ownership of, for example). Yeah, you could argue that Doug's only in it for the money, which he clearly is, no doubt about it. The fact that he's mostly claiming those who use the #WTFU hashtags are bad guys is clearly showing that he's got some bias towards them, when most of them do have valid reasons to counter-claim.

Even more laughable is that he's painting Daddy Derek out to be a good guy in all this. When he himself is just as terrible (if not worse) at copyright law practices as the critics he's calling out.

On the unfair claims front, he did mention Cinema Snob's stuff being taken down when there were apparently no clips (which I have to take his word for it, I don't follow CS).

@ Daddy Derek, wait whut? In the post CC called him an oversensitive asswipe. That must be new.


It's procedurally a defense, but because it represents the First Amendment right of free speech in tension with the right of intellectual property owners to control the use of their products, it sort of is a right.

Point taken.
 
lmao @ NC's rousing speech in that Claymore video. "We're not going away, content creators like us have only gotten bigger, and all [Hollywood's] attempts to keep us down have only made us stronger. No matter what [Hollywood does], we'll find a way to comment, to praise, to criticize, to satirize, and to educate . . ."
holy shit, is Doug really delusional enough to think reviewer audiences have grown (rather than drying up like a well in the desert since at least 2013)? or is he just putting up a front in order to strengthen his cause? if he's serious, i kinda feel for the guy, even if he is still pretentious and incompetent

also lol at "we're not going away" as if half the content makers from his site's heyday haven't jumped ship and/or adapted styles in order to dissociate from the 'angry critics' niche
 
Back
Top Bottom