"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
* It seems weird that a student film would have to go to Kickstarter in order to be funded,
* It's hilarious that people forked over $16,000+ for a film that won't be distributed/posted online,

Fucking hell, forty dollars minimum just to get a copy of the $16,000 "student film"? Who were the 100+ people who didn't pledge enough and therefore I can only assume never even got to see it?

I can only guess it cost 16 grand because he isn't good with money and wanted talent from the SAG (again, for a student film) which obviously is gonna cost a pretty penny.
 
I think I have a pretty good idea of what movie you're talking about, but I respect your right to privacy. And if your friend really is the director of the movie I'm thinking of, that's really cool on your end.

I wonder what would happen if Kallgren actually decided to tackle Election Cycle. Would he actually engage in meaningful self-criticism, or would it be as jokey and toothless as when Doug reviewed the CA movies as the Nostalgia Critic?
I'd be interested to hear all the CA contributors look back at one of their videos from 5 years ago and review how they think they did, what they could have done differently at the time, and how they would approach it now that they've 'matured.' Then again, I imagine most of the results would be pretty self-congratulatory. "Yeah, that joke I made about Gangnam Style has really held up."
 
I'd be interested to hear all the CA contributors look back at one of their videos from 5 years ago and review how they think they did, what they could have done differently at the time, and how they would approach it now that they've 'matured.' Then again, I imagine most of the results would be pretty self-congratulatory. "Yeah, that joke I made about Gangnam Style has really held up."
I'm sure the worst of it would come from the Walkers and Lewis, who'd pour heaps of praise on them to no end. I can imagine several of them either disliking or outright hating the video (as has happened a few times IIRC).
 
Hey, does anybody have a copy of Kyle Kallgren's (Oancitizen's) short film he funded through Kickstarter?
[MEDIA=kickstarter]oancitizen/election-cycle-a-political-satire-with-time-travel[/MEDIA]
SYNOPSIS: Washington, D.C., 2024. Jack Simm has been playing a losing game as the campaign manager for a Senator’s bid for the White House. Fed up with his gaffe-prone candidate, he has managed to get ahold of the latest prototype for a cutting-edge technology – a working time machine. During a key presidential debate, the manager, armed with the ability to jump back several seconds at a time, corrals his frustrated campaign staff to erase and revise potential gaffes before they become talking points. But as in-fighting mounts and personal interests get in the way, their attempts to control the dialogue begins to collapse in this satirical political science fiction story.

To be made in partial requirement of a Degree in Master of Arts Film and Video for the American University School of Communication.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT

Election Cycle: A Political Satire... with Time Travel
About this project
b5f0e0ab6e2234a9de3ff0965c53b1cc_original.jpg


SYNOPSIS: Washington, D.C., 2024. Jack Simm has been playing a losing game as the campaign manager for a Senator’s bid for the White House. Fed up with his gaffe-prone candidate, he has managed to get ahold of the latest prototype for a cutting-edge technology – a working time machine. During a key presidential debate, the manager, armed with the ability to jump back several seconds at a time, corrals his frustrated campaign staff to erase and revise potential gaffes before they become talking points. But as in-fighting mounts and personal interests get in the way, their attempts to control the dialogue begins to collapse in this satirical political science fiction story.

To be made in partial requirement of a Degree in Master of Arts Film and Video for the American University School of Communication.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT

Election Cycle is a short film halfway between a screwball comedy and a dark Capitol Hill thriller - equal parts Shane Carruth and Armando Ianucci

This idea combines two of my great loves – political satire and classic sci-fi. I had the idea for a sci fi film first. Taking inspiration from the one act play “Sure Thing,” my initial concept was simply two people on a dinner date, both armed with small time machines that let them jump back a few seconds at a time, taking back every stupid, thoughtless thing said to each other.

I loved the idea, having said too many things that I wish I could take back myself. I also thought it worked as a sci-fi story. The best science fiction, to me, explores how our technology reveals character. After all, there’s an element of time travel in how we communicate now. If you’ve ever IM’d with someone, you’ve probably had a moment where you started writing a sentence, stopped, then rewrote it. I felt it worked as an expression of regret.

But then I realized that if I wanted to expand the concept I could take it into a realm where minor slips of the tongue had real and lasting consequences. So, I revised the concept to a political setting.

It should be no surprise that this was conceived during an election year, but it should stay relevant past this political season. Politics doesn’t stop, after all. We will always have ambitious leaders with tied tongues. Just as we’ve all had times when we want to communicate better. Times when we wish we could take back a poorly worded sentence and redo it like multiple takes of a scene. We’ve all had moments when we thought of the perfect thing to say a little too late. We’ve all had moments where we wished brilliant statements could come out perfectly formed, but no one has that kind of control. No one needs that kind of control. And it would be pretty ridiculous if we did have it. Dangerous, as well.

CURRENT LIST OF CAST AND CREW:

Writer/Director: Kyle Kallgren
Faculty Advisor: Prof. Maggie Stogner
Director of Photography: Scott Bastedo
Script Supervisor: Jessica Kitrick
Key Grip: James Jackson
Concept Artist: Ven Hosky
Props: Devin Harrigan

I've been working with video for two years now, but this will easily be the biggest project I've undertaken. I'll need actors, crew, equipment, all that, but thankfully I've accumulated an array of old contacts in my university and in the DC theater scene to tackle this project with me. We have the setup, now all we need to do is execute.

We aim to make this a SAG production - this is an actor based piece and we aim to get the best cast possible!

Principal photography will be done from March 10th through March 17th. A rough cut should be done by mid April and a workable final cut done by May.

Risks and challenges
Casting will certainly be a key part of this film. It's a tight, single setting character piece and if those characters fall flat, so falls the film. I'll need a SAG contract to entice talented actors to bring the script to life, and that needs all the extra investment that comes with being a SAG production. Locations will also come into play. Shooting in DC we can find plenty of setting-appropriate locales but that may cost as well. Effects work will also be quite important. Like all sci-fi films, proper, professional post-production will make or break the short. Some of my colleagues have extensive effects experience, and so I have several options for proper post work.
I have a variety of feelings towards this.
* It seems weird that a student film would have to go to Kickstarter in order to be funded,
* It's hilarious that people forked over $16,000+ for a film that won't be distributed/posted online,
* It's ironic that one of his "influences" for the film was Shane Carruth, who made his feature-length debut Primer for less than half as much, didn't use crowd-funding and was feature-length.
* And even if this was released today, it would be dated due to:trump:.

I guess a sucker is born every minute. :(

Fucking hell, forty dollars minimum just to get a copy of the $16,000 "student film"? Who were the 100+ people who didn't pledge enough and therefore I can only assume never even got to see it?

I can only guess it cost 16 grand because he isn't good with money and wanted talent from the SAG (again, for a student film) which obviously is gonna cost a pretty penny.

For $40 you could buy a collector's edition Blu of a movie that's actually good and will appreciate in value.
 
I'm sure the worst of it would come from the Walkers and Lewis, who'd pour heaps of praise on them to no end. I can imagine several of them either disliking or outright hating the video (as has happened a few times IIRC).
Then again, Doug is the type of person who thinks that playing dress-up and fucking around with his friends makes him somebody on par with Spielberg, same with Lewis.
 
I finally got around to watching Jurassic World a few weeks ago. I'm not a huge fan of the original or anything but it's fine. It's a good popcorn flick. So I watched Jurassic World and I was surprised by how good it was. You can debate that it's better than the original but it's pretty obviously better than the other sequels by a huge margin.

I watched Doug's Jurassic World review and it opens with him whining about the CGI. As soon as he said that, I downvoted that shit and said out loud "You are a faggot, sir."

When Red Letter Media covered the movie on Half in the Bag, Mike and Jay gave great reasons why they liked and disliked the movie. And I could understand where Jay is coming from. But Doug can't even muster a half decent argument for his point.
 
I finally got around to watching Jurassic World a few weeks ago. I'm not a huge fan of the original or anything but it's fine. It's a good popcorn flick. So I watched Jurassic World and I was surprised by how good it was. You can debate that it's better than the original but it's pretty obviously better than the other sequels by a huge margin.

I watched Doug's Jurassic World review and it opens with him whining about the CGI. As soon as he said that, I downvoted that shit and said out loud "You are a faggot, sir."

When Red Letter Media covered the movie on Half in the Bag, Mike and Jay gave great reasons why they liked and disliked the movie. And I could understand where Jay is coming from. But Doug can't even muster a half decent argument for his point.
Honestly, even in his past reviews (as in pre-cancelation, even during his high point of 2009-2011) He's had this problem of not having a valid argument towards the media in question. Even when he's correct, he manages to botch up the reason as to why.

Then again, he spends more time trying to get his actors to play dress up (or in those days, crossing over with the other CA reviewers) to actually come up with compelling arguments.
 
I finally got around to watching Jurassic World a few weeks ago. I'm not a huge fan of the original or anything but it's fine. It's a good popcorn flick. So I watched Jurassic World and I was surprised by how good it was. You can debate that it's better than the original but it's pretty obviously better than the other sequels by a huge margin.

I watched Doug's Jurassic World review and it opens with him whining about the CGI. As soon as he said that, I downvoted that shit and said out loud "You are a faggot, sir."

When Red Letter Media covered the movie on Half in the Bag, Mike and Jay gave great reasons why they liked and disliked the movie. And I could understand where Jay is coming from. But Doug can't even muster a half decent argument for his point.

Well, then. So I'm not the only one who thought Jurassic World is legitimately good, despite some issues. Warms my cold heart quite aplenty... Also, yeah - as much as I love seeing good use of practical effects - not all CGI is bad if you how to use it and not make it look dated. Complaining about CGI is NOT a valid argument nor criticism, anymore - unless it actually is badly done, of course (which it wasn't in Jurassic World, for a valid enough contrast.).

Honestly, even in his past reviews (as in pre-cancelation, even during his high point of 2009-2011) He's had this problem of not having a valid argument towards the media in question. Even when he's correct, he manages to botch up the reason as to why.

Then again, he spends more time trying to get his actors to play dress up (or in those days, crossing over with the other CA reviewers) to actually come up with compelling arguments.

It's like I've said before - the only person worth giving a damn about anymore on CA is Brad Jones (Cinema Snob), and maybe Sage (Anime Abandon), honestly. Everyone else is just meh / forgettable, doesn't know what they're doing with their lives, or too dumb / far gone to realize how wrong they are and/or how much they need to STFU.
 
Well, then. So I'm not the only one who thought Jurassic World is legitimately good, despite some issues. Warms my cold heart quite aplenty... Also, yeah - as much as I love seeing good use of practical effects - not all CGI is bad if you how to use it and not make it look dated. Complaining about CGI is NOT a valid argument nor criticism, anymore - unless it actually is badly done, of course (which it wasn't in Jurassic World, for a valid enough contrast.).
Yeah, that's what bugs me quite a bit with CGI criticism. The other problem is that the Jurassic series of films usually supplemented the CG with animatronic/puppet dinosaurs. So a move to full CG for the dinos is a little off putting. Not by much, as they are pretty damn good (they aught to, given the film's budget and the fact that ILM's still attached), but still.

Doug might have had a valid point if he actually explained why he didn't like the CG. But no, it's just "The CGI sucks! Oooh look at my actors do silly things!"
 
Yeah, that's what bugs me quite a bit with CGI criticism. The other problem is that the Jurassic series of films usually supplemented the CG with animatronic/puppet dinosaurs. So a move to full CG for the dinos is a little off putting. Not by much, as they are pretty damn good (they aught to, given the film's budget and the fact that ILM's still attached), but still.

Doug might have had a valid point if he actually explained why he didn't like the CG. But no, it's just "The CGI sucks! Oooh look at my actors do silly things!"

It's his worst rated episode on IMDB (aside from that "Let's Play") for a reason
 
It's his worst rated episode on IMDB (aside from that "Let's Play") for a reason
And yet he decided "Well, nobody liked it, but people watched it. Let's make more, because this won't backfire!" (a.k.a. The Michael Bay argument, ironic given how much Doug hates Michael Bay.) And that's how we got that Christmas With the Kranks episode where he goes back to his old style, deliberately sucks and says that people who don't like the new style are just whiny babies who hate change.
 
And yet he decided "Well, nobody liked it, but people watched it. Let's make more, because this won't backfire!" (a.k.a. The Michael Bay argument, ironic given how much Doug hates Michael Bay.) And that's how we got that Christmas With the Kranks episode where he goes back to his old style, deliberately sucks and says that people who don't like the new style are just whiny babies who hate change.
Doug gave positive reviews to the Bayformers movies.
 
Well, then. So I'm not the only one who thought Jurassic World is legitimately good, despite some issues. Warms my cold heart quite aplenty... Also, yeah - as much as I love seeing good use of practical effects - not all CGI is bad if you how to use it and not make it look dated. Complaining about CGI is NOT a valid argument nor criticism, anymore - unless it actually is badly done, of course (which it wasn't in Jurassic World, for a valid enough contrast.).

I'm pretty jaded but I thought the CGI was great in Jurassic World. But I can't take Doug seriously when he just whines that CGI isn't as good as practical effects and doesn't back up his argument. He also forgets that practical effects can fail and look poor. It works both ways.
 
I'm pretty jaded but I thought the CGI was great in Jurassic World. But I can't take Doug seriously when he just whines that CGI isn't as good as practical effects and doesn't back up his argument. He also forgets that practical effects can fail and look poor. It works both ways.
And he's brought up poor practical effects too, like in Garbage Pail Kids. Though Doug should speak, given the quality of his makeup and practical effects are as bad as his VFX work.
 
I finally got around to watching Jurassic World a few weeks ago. I'm not a huge fan of the original or anything but it's fine. It's a good popcorn flick. So I watched Jurassic World and I was surprised by how good it was. You can debate that it's better than the original but it's pretty obviously better than the other sequels by a huge margin.

I watched Doug's Jurassic World review and it opens with him whining about the CGI. As soon as he said that, I downvoted that shit and said out loud "You are a faggot, sir."

When Red Letter Media covered the movie on Half in the Bag, Mike and Jay gave great reasons why they liked and disliked the movie. And I could understand where Jay is coming from. But Doug can't even muster a half decent argument for his point.
That review was when I lost interest in him. His skits were already starting to get grating for me, but they were at least supplemented by just him talking to the camera and clips from the film to offset them. But I cannot bring myself to watch an episode consisting entirely of skits. Also, as you said, he did not present a particularly compelling argument as to why he did not like the film, which is often a problem that I've had with him before (and to be fair, he does a much better job when he's not donning the Nostalgia Critic persona). RLM manages to do that with their reviews while also providing a relatable feel to them, as they feel like me and my buddies bullshitting about films.
 
Back
Top Bottom