"angry" gamers/critics

  • 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
Kyria the Great said:
It is sad because perhaps instead of doing the obvious thing and going to try to get a cheap laugh, perhaps he could have reworked his formula to perhaps talk about the reasons why a movie failed with the backstory as generally for especially bad films like Fant4stic have amazing production stories.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that once you have an actual knowledge of the movie Doug's talking about, his reviews practically fall apart.

I remember thinking his Blair Witch 2 review was hilarious until I saw GoodBadFlicks' video on the production of the movie and it put the whole movie into a new perspective for me (full disclosure, I haven't seen the movie). Doug just aims for the cheap shots and half the time his shots are inaccurate; there was one joke where he mocks the interviews at the beginning for being obvious actors, but no, the interviews were genuine. If Doug were more aware of the production behind that movie it would have elevated his criticism, but he didn't, and the review came off as inaccurate and even a little disingenuous.
 
Baldur's Gait said:
It is interesting that once you have an actual knowledge of the movie Doug's talking about, his reviews practically fall apart.

I remember thinking his Blair Witch 2 review was hilarious until I saw GoodBadFlicks' video on the production of the movie and it put the whole movie into a new perspective for me (full disclosure, I haven't seen the movie). Doug just aims for the cheap shots and half the time his shots are inaccurate; there was one joke where he mocks the interviews at the beginning for being obvious actors, but no, the interviews were genuine. If Doug were more aware of the production behind that movie it would have elevated his criticism, but he didn't, and the review came off as inaccurate and even a little disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Well even though Blair Witch 2 is not a good movie, the idea of a sequel being the reaction to the previous film is a very neat concept and you would have thought Doug would have mentioned that. That is why I stick with RLM, GoodBadFlicks, and Midnight's Edge and other better critics that aren't simply failed comedians that cannot grasp they are failed hacks.
 
Baldur's Gait said:
It is interesting that once you have an actual knowledge of the movie Doug's talking about, his reviews practically fall apart.

I remember thinking his Blair Witch 2 review was hilarious until I saw GoodBadFlicks' video on the production of the movie and it put the whole movie into a new perspective for me (full disclosure, I haven't seen the movie). Doug just aims for the cheap shots and half the time his shots are inaccurate; there was one joke where he mocks the interviews at the beginning for being obvious actors, but no, the interviews were genuine. If Doug were more aware of the production behind that movie it would have elevated his criticism, but he didn't, and the review came off as inaccurate and even a little disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I honestly thought Blair Witch 2 was okay picture. It had some good ideas. I've yet to watch the Reboot/Remake/Whatever.
 
Baldur's Gait said:
It is interesting that once you have an actual knowledge of the movie Doug's talking about, his reviews practically fall apart.

I remember thinking his Blair Witch 2 review was hilarious until I saw GoodBadFlicks' video on the production of the movie and it put the whole movie into a new perspective for me (full disclosure, I haven't seen the movie). Doug just aims for the cheap shots and half the time his shots are inaccurate; there was one joke where he mocks the interviews at the beginning for being obvious actors, but no, the interviews were genuine. If Doug were more aware of the production behind that movie it would have elevated his criticism, but he didn't, and the review came off as inaccurate and even a little disingenuous.
Click to expand...

The same thing happens all the time. You compare the same movie being reviewed by another person, and Doug's just falls flat, since he cuts out important details, plot elements, etc, just to get a quick laugh and reaction shot. His reviews are basically the cliff notes/wikipedia articles of the movies, and the numnut mocking it just for it's sake.
 
Buck's starting to realise some shit...

Lolbour.jpg


https://twitter.com/FB_BMB/status/948692701884665856
 
we're definitely on our way to seeing a new generation of critics on youtube. Guys like RalphThemovieMaker and NyxFears are doing what CA was doing but better in every conceivable way. They're funnier, they're more insightful, they're better produced, and even the ones that have storylines are genuinely well done. And those are just the big ones, there's probably half a dozen dudes who are just getting started that'll be in the couple 100K subs range by the end of the year.
 
CA is a product of its time- the mid to late 2000s where having a snappy punchline meant more than a good point for their audience of college-age or high school students, likely looking for something dumb to have on as background noise while studying. But now it seems like their audience has grown up- they don't want shrieking exclamations of a film raping their childhood, they want analysis and breakdowns that cover why films work as a medium.

Basically, CA's audience grew up and wanted more from their reviews. And for the most part, CA has stayed the same.
 
ChevroletBlackboard said:
CA is a product of its time- the mid to late 2000s where having a snappy punchline meant more than a good point for their audience of college-age or high school students, likely looking for something dumb to have on as background noise while studying. But now it seems like their audience has grown up- they don't want shrieking exclamations of a film raping their childhood, they want analysis and breakdowns that cover why films work as a medium.

Basically, CA's audience grew up and wanted more from their reviews. And for the most part, CA has stayed the same.
Click to expand...

and the ones that haven't...well...
 
In fact this new guy Mauler is what I believe and up and comer going to have a more pessimistic view in his reviews, but is great at telling why the scene doesn't work.
 
ChevroletBlackboard said:
CA is a product of its time- the mid to late 2000s where having a snappy punchline meant more than a good point for their audience of college-age or high school students, likely looking for something dumb to have on as background noise while studying. But now it seems like their audience has grown up- they don't want shrieking exclamations of a film raping their childhood, they want analysis and breakdowns that cover why films work as a medium.

Basically, CA's audience grew up and wanted more from their reviews. And for the most part, CA has stayed the same.
Click to expand...

To be fair, some of them have tried to be analytical in some of their reviews. Lewis tried to be analytical in his One More Day videos, and Doug, despite all the crap he pulls, has tried to instill some more thought-provoking analysis of the films lately, whereas before he'd just scream and make dumb reaction shots.

The problem is, it doesn't work, since they still have to mix up that analysis with terrible jokes and those awful sketches.
 
friedshrimp said:
So, to change the subject, for people who were originally into Doug Walker's stuff, what was the video that broke the illusion for you, and saw him for the hack that he is?

For me it was Scooby Doo where I began noticing problems, but the Man of Steel and King and I were also strong contenders. The Old vs New Spiderman vid is what officially killed him for me. (But even before that, his Thief and the Cobbler review was the first video where I didn't end up either liking or agreeing with him).
Click to expand...
I started to go from regular to infrequent viewer around 2014-15. I'm guessing it was because there was not much he was covering that I was intrested in.
For my CA obsessed friend, it ended with the Jurassic World review. I remember him raging on Facebook, not only about it being a recent movie with a clipless review but Doug's opinions offending his inner Jurassic Park Sperg.
 
CWCissey said:
Buck's starting to realise some shit...

View attachment 348487

https://twitter.com/FB_BMB/status/948692701884665856
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's already too late for you, Matt - You bald(ing...) fucking wanker!

Still, glad that he accepts/realizes he pretty much sucks at what he does - it takes a real person with cahones to accept/realize THAT - it takes more to make an effort to improve... Or do the right thing and bow out in place of someone better than you.

And honestly, as of 2018 - there are plenty of fucking people, some not even doing what this bald(ing...) fucking wanker is doing, that I'll proudly give an ear to opinions on on things over him anyday, thank you very much.
 
Dull, couldn't even finish it. He repeats the same jokes/commentary, those are possibly one of his worst type of reviews. I know we all hate the 40-minute long sketch fest, but when he makes videos only making one joke and repeating it ad-nauseum (Signs), it's where it clearly shows his lack of talent.
 
Eh, it's been a while. FUCK YOU STRIDER!


6. Teen Titans-Things Change (Teen Titans Go! sperging included as standard)
5. The Adventures Of Sonic The Hedgehog-Sonically Ever After (Massive focus on Tails' tits there Strider!)
4. Johnny Bravo-Back On Shaq
3. Sonic The Hedgehog-The Doomsday Project (Autism confirmed)
2. Dragonball Z-Goku's Next Journey
Honourable Mentions: Young Justice-Endgame, Reboot-Crouching Binome, Hidden Virus, The Adventures Of Flapjack-Fish Out Of Water, Danny Phantom-Phantom Planet (there goes my guess for worst one!)
1. Mr Pickles-The Lair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom