Channel Larry (EDIT: Channel Awesome renamed to just Nostalgia Critic)

[No-Personality]

New...5th year anniversary special?

http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/the-uncanny-valley-6611096

In the style of V/H/S (an anthology, I mean, not a horror thing... shame).

[Avaitor]

After Earth is a meditation on nepotism.

[talonmalon333]

So the Critic recently made this video. The top 11 stupidest moments in the Lord of the Rings trilogy: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/39894-nostalgia-critic-top-11-dumbest-lord-of-the-rings-moments

I have to be honest, this was one of those videos where I just didn't get what he was saying at all. Doug just seems to try to see things that aren't actually there. He did manage to make a lot of his "issues" funny, but for the most part, the majority of his issues don't make sense. In this spoiler tag, I'll go through all of his problems and give my responses to them.

Also, he didn't include the Hobbit on this list.

Spoiler

11. Letting Gandalf fall down an abyss in the first film.
- Uh, yeah, sure. Good luck pulling Gandalf off that ledge when a giant demon is hanging on the other side of him.

10. The numerous false endings in Return of the King.
- I never found this to be that big a deal, but I'll let this complaint go. When I first saw the movie in theaters, I did get tricked, but it was less than he thought. And even so, I never thought it was a problem. It was just more like "Oh, the movie's not done yet. I'll just go right back into be incredibly engrossed in the events".

9. Gimli's reduction to comic relief.
- Gimli retains a level of awesomeness all throughout the trilogy. It's not like his silly parts were the only things the movies did with him. They were used just enough to always be funny (I always laugh in Two Towers when those monster's corpses start piling up on him). Also, he claims Gimli just got sillier and sillier as the movies went on, but honestly, some of his "stupidest" moments were in Fellowship of the Ring. I find it strange that Doug gives an entire section to Gimli, and yet he lets the incredibly tiring comedy with nearly every character in The Hobbit slide. You could make a top 20 list on that movie alone.

8. Legolas' lack of weakness.
- I know what he's referring to. But really, I just found these parts of the movies to be really fun. When Legolas goes shield surfing, and when he takes out that giant elephant with all the orcs on it, I just think it's beyond badass. It's not like Legolas ever struck me as more capable than Aragorn anyway.

7. Pointless wide-angle close-up shots.
- Were these really enough to make the movies worse? Not to mention, the examples Doug gives are bad. He complains about the wide-angle close-up shots of Bilbo when he's giving his speech, but really, that's a big moment. That's when Bilbo is giving his final farewell and is putting the ring on. Is it really not a big deal? Or when Gandalf is saying goodbye and worrying about the ring. I don't think these wide-angle close-up shots are necessary, but they don't detract from the scenes. I honestly never took the time to note them until Doug nitpicked them.

6. John Noble's over-the-top performance of Denethor.
- I'll let this one go. Even though I never thought Denethor was supposed to be very sympathetic, I can see why Doug wouldn't like him. I had no issue with him though.

5. Constant death fake outs.
- These characters are facing a massive world war. People are going to come close to death. A lot. It makes sense, and it's not overdone like he makes it out to be.

4. The ring's connection to Arwen's fate.
- This one I kind of agree with, but not necessarily for Doug's reasons. I found Arwen's conclusion to be unnecessary. To me, it almost just seems like a bullet dodge so that she wouldn't have to make the choice between choosing a mortal or going with her people. This event was cut from the theatrical version, and it's clear why to me.

3. Sam and Frodo's possibly homosexual relationship.
- Really, Doug? Really? Figures that he would take an ongoing internet joke and try to make it into a serious complaint (when I don't think it was ever even intended as that). You know, there was a time in history when two males could show affection and not have everyone scream about how gay they are. Frodo and Sam are depicted as extremely good friends who have a brotherly bond. On this site I recently called Sam the best friend in any movie, and I stand by that. And him climbing down the stairs and seeing the bread isn't supposed to mean that he realizes he didn't eat it. It's the point where he realizes that it was thrown off the ledge by Gollum. He was essentially broken until that moment, which is why he couldn't bring himself to go back initially. I don't see an issue.

2. Saruman's absence in Return of the King.
- I definitely agree with this issue. This should have been #1 on the list. Saruman is the secondary villain after Sauron, and yet Return of the King doesn't even show him, instead just saying  that he's powerless and will be imprisoned for the rest of eternity, or something like that. It's barely satisfying, especially considering they had already filmed his death, which can be found in the extended version, and it's awesome. The movie is already 3+ hours long. Would 5 extra minutes really kill it, especially considering said 5 minutes were in the beginning of the film (as Doug stated in an incredibly entertaining fashion). I do find it strange that Doug had to go exclusively into the theatrical version for this Saruman complaint, while he had to dig into the extended version for the problem of Arwen's fate. Seems like he's stretching a little to finish the list. But that aside, I definitely agree with his problem here.

1. The eagles neglected chance to save the world.
- I have to say, I should have been prepared for the possibility that Doug would top his list with the most least deserving entry of the list, but somehow I still didn't expect this. Okay, first of all Doug, the use and lack thereof of the eagles at various points is given a valid reason. He mentions people trying to justify it that "The eagles are godlike creatures"? Damn right they are. The Lord of the Rings has a set of rules that it follows, and it clearly takes a lot of influence from religion. The comparisons with Christianity couldn't be more obvious. No matter what, this journey is a task that the people need to do. God was able to open up the sea for Moses to lead his people through. He didn't swoop them up and carry them across the ocean. Jesus needed to carry the burden of the cross, much like Frodo needed to carry the burden of the ring. More than everything else here, this choice should not even come close to being on this list.

[close]

That was fun to write.

So tl;dr, of his 11 stupid moments, I can only understand 4/11 of them, and I can only really agree with 2. Sometimes I just don't get Doug, and this list is a prime example.

[Spark Of Spirit]

#2 basically proves that he didn't watch the extended cut version... which is basically the only way to watch them. Because Saruman IS in Return Of The King. But then we would complain about the length again, right?

#11 that it proves that the characters aren't idiots.

The false ending thing doesn't make sense because it's a trilogy of plots that has dozens of characters and subplots, throwing the ring in and rolling the credits solves nothing and only requires a bit of patience to sit through. I know we live in the ADD generation, but come on.

That said I disagree with all of his list. Sam and Frodo were basically brothers, I know we like to read too deep into everything these days but they were really just friends. I'm not sure why that has to be so hard for people to understand especially when that was obviously Tolkien's intent.

[talonmalon333]

#2 basically proves that he didn't watch the extended cut version... which is basically the only way to watch them. Because Saruman IS in Return Of The King. But then we would complain about the length again, right?

#11 that it proves that the characters aren't idiots.

The false ending thing doesn't make sense because it's a trilogy of plots that has dozens of characters and subplots, throwing the ring in and rolling the credits solves nothing and only requires a bit of patience to sit through. I know we live in the ADD generation, but come on.

That said I disagree with all of his list. Sam and Frodo were basically brothers, I know we like to read too deep into everything these days but they were really just friends. I'm not sure why that has to be so hard for people to understand especially when that was obviously Tolkien's intent.

#2 is valid cause people shouldn't have to watch the extended edition to get closure on Saruman's character. It's a complete mystery as to why the theatrical version left that out. I might be inclined to argue the point that the extended version is the only way to watch them.

[Spark Of Spirit]

#2 basically proves that he didn't watch the extended cut version... which is basically the only way to watch them. Because Saruman IS in Return Of The King. But then we would complain about the length again, right?

#11 that it proves that the characters aren't idiots.

The false ending thing doesn't make sense because it's a trilogy of plots that has dozens of characters and subplots, throwing the ring in and rolling the credits solves nothing and only requires a bit of patience to sit through. I know we live in the ADD generation, but come on.

That said I disagree with all of his list. Sam and Frodo were basically brothers, I know we like to read too deep into everything these days but they were really just friends. I'm not sure why that has to be so hard for people to understand especially when that was obviously Tolkien's intent.

#2 is valid cause people shouldn't have to watch the extended edition to get closure on Saruman's character. It's a complete mystery as to why the theatrical version left that out. I might be inclined to argue the point that the extended version is the only way to watch them.

It would be if you knew that the extended version is the intended version that was cut down because of the studio. If they didn't make Jackson cut footage to appease theaters for extra showings then the extended cut would be the only version. So yes, it's the proper version and if you don't want to watch it that's your deal. But it doesn't change the fact that you're going out of your way to not see a version that addresses your concerns to complain about an issue that couldn't otherwise be addressed.

Unless you want to argue the theatrical version of movies like Blade Runner are the only ones that count.

[talonmalon333]

#2 basically proves that he didn't watch the extended cut version... which is basically the only way to watch them. Because Saruman IS in Return Of The King. But then we would complain about the length again, right?

#11 that it proves that the characters aren't idiots.

The false ending thing doesn't make sense because it's a trilogy of plots that has dozens of characters and subplots, throwing the ring in and rolling the credits solves nothing and only requires a bit of patience to sit through. I know we live in the ADD generation, but come on.

That said I disagree with all of his list. Sam and Frodo were basically brothers, I know we like to read too deep into everything these days but they were really just friends. I'm not sure why that has to be so hard for people to understand especially when that was obviously Tolkien's intent.

#2 is valid cause people shouldn't have to watch the extended edition to get closure on Saruman's character. It's a complete mystery as to why the theatrical version left that out. I might be inclined to argue the point that the extended version is the only way to watch them.

It would be if you knew that the extended version is the intended version that was cut down because of the studio. If they didn't make Jackson cut footage to appease theaters for extra showings then the extended cut would be the only version. So yes, it's the proper version and if you don't want to watch it that's your deal. But it doesn't change the fact that you're going out of your way to not see a version that addresses your concerns to complain about an issue that couldn't otherwise be addressed.

Unless you want to argue the theatrical version of movies like Blade Runner are the only ones that count.

I don't like some of the scenes in the extended versions.

[Spark Of Spirit]

#2 basically proves that he didn't watch the extended cut version... which is basically the only way to watch them. Because Saruman IS in Return Of The King. But then we would complain about the length again, right?

#11 that it proves that the characters aren't idiots.

The false ending thing doesn't make sense because it's a trilogy of plots that has dozens of characters and subplots, throwing the ring in and rolling the credits solves nothing and only requires a bit of patience to sit through. I know we live in the ADD generation, but come on.

That said I disagree with all of his list. Sam and Frodo were basically brothers, I know we like to read too deep into everything these days but they were really just friends. I'm not sure why that has to be so hard for people to understand especially when that was obviously Tolkien's intent.

#2 is valid cause people shouldn't have to watch the extended edition to get closure on Saruman's character. It's a complete mystery as to why the theatrical version left that out. I might be inclined to argue the point that the extended version is the only way to watch them.

It would be if you knew that the extended version is the intended version that was cut down because of the studio. If they didn't make Jackson cut footage to appease theaters for extra showings then the extended cut would be the only version. So yes, it's the proper version and if you don't want to watch it that's your deal. But it doesn't change the fact that you're going out of your way to not see a version that addresses your concerns to complain about an issue that couldn't otherwise be addressed.

Unless you want to argue the theatrical version of movies like Blade Runner are the only ones that count.

I don't like some of the scenes in the extended versions. Mouth of Sauron for example was lame.

I don't really have any issues with them, but they do answer some questions that otherwise wouldn't have fit. The final battle with Saruman if left in the theatrical cut would have jarred the entire pacing of ROTK as it was and people would have complained even more about how slow it was.

The point is that his issue was addressed in a version that he chose not to see. That's not a valid complaint if he chose to not want his complaint addressed.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

This is one of those cases where I strangely agree completely with all of Talon's post. Oh my!

But, yeah, I REALLY think that most of this list was a stretch. I've always been annoyed how Doug seems to have some unnatural bias against certain popular movies and feel the need to critique them more extensively, even if a good number of those critiques are fucking stupid and due to Doug's own misinterpretation of the material. At least he still likes TLOTR trilogy, but what really annoys me is how insanely biased he is toward the Harry Potter series. I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of it anymore, but I still like the series enough where it ticks me off when Doug throws criticisms at it and its clear that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And if people point out that his information is flat-out wrong or that he's missing a clear explanation for something, he either completely ignores it or just brushes it off as crazy fan-boys. Sometimes Doug just needs to learn to accept when he's wrong about some of his criticisms and that he needs to make sure that he does his freaking research before really criticizing something. Its a lot of work, sure, but that's what being a critic is, otherwise just any person could be a critic and there'd be no prestige or dignity to the job at all.

[Spark Of Spirit]

This is one of those cases where I strangely agree completely with all of Talon's post. Oh my!

But, yeah, I REALLY think that most of this list was a stretch. I've always been annoyed how Doug seems to have some unnatural bias against certain popular movies and feel the need to critique them more extensively, even if a good number of those critiques are fucking stupid and due to Doug's own misinterpretation of the material. At least he still likes TLOTR trilogy, but what really annoys me is how insanely biased he is toward the Harry Potter series. I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of it anymore, but I still like the series enough where it ticks me off when Doug throws criticisms at it and its clear that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And if people point out that his information is flat-out wrong or that he's missing a clear explanation for something, he either completely ignores it or just brushes it off as crazy fan-boys. Sometimes Doug just needs to learn to accept when he's wrong about some of his criticisms and that he needs to make sure that he does his freaking research before really criticizing something. Its a lot of work, sure, but that's what being a critic is, otherwise just any person could be a critic and there'd be no prestige or dignity to the job at all.

It's strange because I still like Harry Potter and actually manage to like it even more since the hype train around it has moved on. It's just a good adventure series with a lot of good characters that's fun to read/watch. I still find most of the hate around it to be fantastically overblown. It's nowhere near the level of Twilight or the 50 Shades Of Grey nonsense.

But I also notice that a lot of the LOTR complaints are usually leveled at people that put the Star Wars trilogy on a pedestal. LOTR is no threat to Star Wars, it was around long before it for crying out loud.

[talonmalon333]

I don't really have any issues with them, but they do answer some questions that otherwise wouldn't have fit. The final battle with Saruman if left in the theatrical cut would have jarred the entire pacing of ROTK as it was and people would have complained even more about how slow it was.

The point is that his issue was addressed in a version that he chose not to see. That's not a valid complaint if he chose to not want his complaint addressed.

The scene in Return of the King with Saruman was only 5 minutes. It wouldn't hurt the pacing at all. And as the critic says in his video, it takes place in the very beginning of the movie. I doubt anyone would've found themselves bored with it. He's seen the extended version, and thinks it was a dumb idea to exclude it from the theatrical version for no reason. Likewise, I'd say the theatrical version of Blade Runner is lame for its narration. The point where I find it invalid is that he criticizes the theatrical version for no Saruman, but then criticizes the extended version for the Arwen subplot. Now he's really cherry picking.

This is one of those cases where I strangely agree completely with all of Talon's post. Oh my!

Good job. You're finally moving up in the world.

But, yeah, I REALLY think that most of this list was a stretch. I've always been annoyed how Doug seems to have some unnatural bias against certain popular movies and feel the need to critique them more extensively, even if a good number of those critiques are fucking stupid and due to Doug's own misinterpretation of the material. At least he still likes TLOTR trilogy, but what really annoys me is how insanely biased he is toward the Harry Potter series. I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of it anymore, but I still like the series enough where it ticks me off when Doug throws criticisms at it and its clear that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And if people point out that his information is flat-out wrong or that he's missing a clear explanation for something, he either completely ignores it or just brushes it off as crazy fan-boys. Sometimes Doug just needs to learn to accept when he's wrong about some of his criticisms and that he needs to make sure that he does his freaking research before really criticizing something. Its a lot of work, sure, but that's what being a critic is, otherwise just any person could be a critic and there'd be no prestige or dignity to the job at all.

I agree with everything here. Though I didn't know he hates the Harry Potter series.

Also, since we were talking about Spider-Man the other day, I remember seeing his review of The Amazing Spider-Man and just thinking about how condenscending he was acting toward Sam Raimi Spider-Man fans. He does that a lot.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I don't really have any issues with them, but they do answer some questions that otherwise wouldn't have fit. The final battle with Saruman if left in the theatrical cut would have jarred the entire pacing of ROTK as it was and people would have complained even more about how slow it was.

The point is that his issue was addressed in a version that he chose not to see. That's not a valid complaint if he chose to not want his complaint addressed.

The scene in Return of the King with Saruman was only 5 minutes. It wouldn't hurt the pacing at all. And as the critic says in his video, it takes place in the very beginning of the movie. I doubt anyone would've found themselves bored with it. He's seen the extended version, and thinks it was a dumb idea to exclude it from the theatrical version for no reason. Likewise, I'd say the theatrical version of Blade Runner is lame for its narration. The point where I find it invalid is that he criticizes the theatrical version for no Saruman, but then criticizes the extended version for the Arwen subplot. Now he's just cherry picking.

It would have jarred because how it stops the entire story to deal with a single plot point. It was taken out because there was little else they could have taken out that wouldn't have made the rest of the movie confusing since ROTK is so tight despite its length. Also:

He's seen the extended version, and thinks it was a dumb idea to exclude it from the theatrical version for no reason

So it's a made-up critique? Because that's admitting he's cherry-picking for complaints. What else would they have cut from ROTK to appease the studio and theaters? The point is that it was something he had little choice in cutting and it is not an issue because he rectified it in the Extended Cut which is the point of the Extended Cut to rectify the studio making him cut up the films for theatrical distribution.

And it would be equally silly to make a complaint list about Blade Runner to complain about lame narration when there's a version that addresses my concerns.

[talonmalon333]

It would have jarred because how it stops the entire story to deal with a single plot point. It was taken out because there was little else they could have taken out that wouldn't have made the rest of the movie confusing since ROTK is so tight despite its length. Also:

He's seen the extended version, and thinks it was a dumb idea to exclude it from the theatrical version for no reason

So it's a made-up critique? Because that's admitting he's cherry-picking for complaints. What else would they have cut from ROTK to appease the studio and theaters? The point is that it was something he had little choice in cutting and it is not an issue because he rectified it in the Extended Cut which is the point of the Extended Cut to rectify the studio making him cut up the films for theatrical distribution.

And it would be equally silly to make a complaint list about Blade Runner to complain about lame narration when there's a version that addresses my concerns.

I just think movie viewers should be able to get a fully conclusive story from seeing it in theaters. But as things were, when it hit theaters a decade ago, many viewers including myself came out of the theater thinking "Where was Saruman?". Heck, Christopher Lee left thinking the same thing. That's not a good thing for a movie to do. People shouldn't have to seek out a DVD to see a scene this important, especially when it lasts no more than 5 minutes.

[Spark Of Spirit]

It would have jarred because how it stops the entire story to deal with a single plot point. It was taken out because there was little else they could have taken out that wouldn't have made the rest of the movie confusing since ROTK is so tight despite its length. Also:

He's seen the extended version, and thinks it was a dumb idea to exclude it from the theatrical version for no reason

So it's a made-up critique? Because that's admitting he's cherry-picking for complaints. What else would they have cut from ROTK to appease the studio and theaters? The point is that it was something he had little choice in cutting and it is not an issue because he rectified it in the Extended Cut which is the point of the Extended Cut to rectify the studio making him cut up the films for theatrical distribution.

And it would be equally silly to make a complaint list about Blade Runner to complain about lame narration when there's a version that addresses my concerns.

I just think movie viewers should be able to get a fully conclusive story from seeing it in theaters. But as things were, when it hit theaters a decade ago, many viewers including myself came out of the theater thinking "Where was Saruman?". Heck, Christopher Lee left thinking the same thing. That's not a good thing for a movie to do. People shouldn't have to seek out a DVD to see a scene this important, especially when it lasts no more than 5 minutes.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. What the studio says goes. It was why FOX wouldn't let any X-Men movies by longer than a certain length after X2 and all those movies suffered for it. The studios and theaters want movies a specific length so they can get more showings and more money, they don't care if someone doesn't get to see Saruman.

But luckily in the case of LOTR (and even movies like Lethal Weapon, Blade Runner, and Superman II) the director had been given a chance to put the cut he intended out. And because studios don't have to negotiate time for money, they don't particularly care if they get released so people who want the extra material can see them.

Anyway, the scene exists and is in the movie. Saying "it's not there" when it is available is being unbelievably pedantic. I'm not even sure what's so bad about watching the extended version of ROTK in the first place, it's excellent.

[talonmalon333]

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. What the studio says goes. It was why FOX wouldn't let any X-Men movies by longer than a certain length after X2 and all those movies suffered for it. The studios and theaters want movies a specific length so they can get more showings and more money, they don't care if someone doesn't get to see Saruman.

But luckily in the case of LOTR (and even movies like Lethal Weapon, Blade Runner, and Superman II) the director had been given a chance to put the cut he intended out. And because studios don't have to negotiate time for money, they don't particularly care if they get released so people who want the extra material can see them.

Anyway, the scene exists and is in the movie. Saying "it's not there" when it is available is being unbelievably pedantic. I'm not even sure what's so bad about watching the extended version of ROTK in the first place, it's excellent.

I never said there's anything bad about watching the extended version, or even anything to suggest that it's worse than the theatrical cut. That's not even relevant to what I'm saying here. I just think a viewer should get the conclusive story and not have to pay extra for it. I also imagine that, of all the 200 minutes in that movie (or however long the theatrical version is), there has to be something in it that could've been cut instead of the death and conclusion of one of the series main villains.