Unpopular Opinions You Hold About Web Series/Reviewers

[Dr. Insomniac]

Yeah, the "blip critic" trend gets into people's head at times. Like Jesuotaku, whose inflated ego on twitter combined with only releasing one review every season or so just kind of kills my respect for her.

[Peanutbutter]

I don't really like NChick's stuff. None of her stuff has been very funny. And worse, she's been coming across to me in some of her videos as very condescending and pretentious. Her Lorax video for example had this unpleasant underlying tone to me as if to say, "If you genuinely liked this, you're an idiot!" and I just can't stand that kind of attitude. And to me, that's the demeanor she gives off.


I like Nella though, she's funny. And her other friend is the hottest girl on the entire site.

[Avaitor]

Really? I think Nella and what's-her-face are easily the worst part of Lindsay's reviews.

I will say that Todd>everyone else, though.

[talonmalon333]

I like Nella though, she's funny.

And her other friend is the hottest girl on the entire site.

That's actually true. But other then that, I Still find her annoying. I don't dislike her as much as Nella though.

[Peanutbutter]

Really? I think Nella and what's-her-face are easily the worst part of Lindsay's reviews.

I will say that Todd>everyone else, though.

Yes, really I find them funny.

[Silverstar]

FTR, the other girl in NChick's videos is Elisa Hansen. She also does her own Vampire Reviews as Maven of the Eventide.

-This past Halloween, Obscurus Lupa did a crossover video with another online show called The Isle of Rangoon. I had never heard of IoR before then, but their riff on the short The Haunted Mouth had me in stitches, so I checked out IoR's Blip page. It turns out they also did a crossover riff with Linkara. I've been watching The Isle of Rangoon semi-regularly since. For the uninformed, The Isle of Rangoon is these 2 puppet characters, Sunny Jim and Starchibald, who riff on short films, movie trailers and educational videos MST3K style. It's the kind of online show I'd like to do someday: nothing long, complicated, pretentious or epic, no extended sagas or serials involving battles with villains, just short, funny riffs and comedy reviews.

[talonmalon333]

Out of curiosity, how is Elisa when she does her own videos? Is she more bearable?

[The Shadow Gentleman]

Really? I think Nella and what's-her-face are easily the worst part of Lindsay's reviews.

I will say that Todd>everyone else, though.

I don't really like NChick's stuff. None of her stuff has been very funny. And worse, she's been coming across to me in some of her videos as very condescending and pretentious. Her Lorax video for example had this unpleasant underlying tone to me as if to say, "If you genuinely liked this, you're an idiot!" and I just can't stand that kind of attitude. And to me, that's the demeanor she gives off.

Quoted for truth.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

And worse, she's been coming across to me in some of her videos as very condescending and pretentious.

This, specifically. I really respect how much research and information she puts into each of her videos, but it's all for naught when she expresses her opinions in a manner that so obviously insults anyone who disagrees with them. She's actually part of the reason why I have started to resonate more with positive, yet still insightful reviewers like David Rose (who's videos aren't actually meant to be funny). And as far as "analytical" reviewers go, Mr. Plinkett is both much better and much funnier than Lindsay, IMO, and he makes his tone so obviously ridiculous that I never really feel offended by any of the cynical comments that he makes in his reviews.

[No-Personality]

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for opinion.

Her Lorax video for example had this unpleasant underlying tone to me as if to say, "If you genuinely liked this, you're an idiot!" and I just can't stand that kind of attitude.

There is little reason to arrive at this conclusion. Though, like anything else, it depends upon your background with a work and how much you've thought about it versus how much it probably should be thought about.

Examples abound: are you familiar with the original story? Did you see the 70's television special? Did you compare the arguments made in the book or the television special - which are rooted in concerns for the environment, so if the adaptation in question can't respect them the only true right it has to exist is for profit (and if that's how you feel, that profit is a valid reason to fuck over a compelling creative parable about a serious life/death issue we are all facing, please do not bother replying) - with that of the film? Did you compare the film's message with how the studio's sleazy and hypocritical corporate product tie-in campaign invalidated that message? Did you compare the overarching message of the film with how much respect it treated its own characters? Or, its audience for that matter?

Or you really going to sit there are tell me you truly believe Lindsay made the statement that people who like the film are idiots? When it could easily be argued (and was extremely effectively argued by Lindsay herself) that the film was already telling the audience they are idiots. AHEM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxORg5zbRJw (In addition to trivializing the issues of our planet being destroyed from the effects of global warming, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of people we hear of dying in one devastating natural disaster after another, how exactly do you think this clip makes me feel as a member of the LGBT community? You might not notice as frequently as I do, but this "joke" is anything but an isolated incident or a rarity in Hollywood filmmaking and pop culture. The fact that this movie has this many things wrong with it yet is receiving praise as a Good Kids' Movie rather than Good Because It's Offensive pretty much says it all.)

I really respect how much research and information she puts into each of her videos, but it's all for naught when she expresses her opinions in a manner that so obviously insults anyone who disagrees with them.

So obviously?

Strange: I've watched all her videos. Most of them at least 3 times a piece. Half of them at least 5 times a piece. Some of them at least 7 times, in full. Some still, in individual pieces, almost a dozen times. I've also watched hours worth of interviews with her, listened to her commentaries, read her blogs, and several Twitters, as well as interviews with people who've worked with her who aren't on TGWTG. Over the 3 years I've been watching, I've gotten to know her work and the intention behind it pretty darn well. And, yet, I Completely and Intensely Disagree that she "so" obviously insults anyone who disagrees with her.

What I believe she does do is put a lot of effort into presenting an informed, intelligent, sometimes (the emphasis is on being) socially progressive, thoughtful way to view a movie, show, etc. And by merely showing that she agrees with that position, she's taking the higher road. Is that pretentious? By definition, if you've actually taken the time to find out what the show she runs is about, she is trying to blend analyzation with comedy. So, if you disagree, you're meant to take what seems pretentious or condescending about the view she's presenting with a grain of salt. Especially since opinions On Entertainment Media aren't exactly set in stone. They can change. They are informed by perspectives like we have with serious life issues but unlike those issues with at times life-altering consequences, this is about how we choose to pass our free time. So perhaps this entire campaign to get people to speak out about how they've been wronged by her is, to be delicate, poorly focused. It is, after all, just about opinions on the internet. And especially since you don't see her own peers making such claims. She runs a TGWTG of her own called Chez Apocalypse where her co-producers freely disagree with her, not a single one of them feeling condescended to by her (hence why they don't feel the need to single her out- they simply make divergent points and let those speak for themselves).

She's actually part of the reason why I have started to resonate more with positive, yet still insightful reviewers like David Rose (who's videos aren't actually meant to be funny).

Even if I myself wasn't attracted to the frustrated perspective of the try-to-be-positive until the dark forces pull me back to reality of many of Lindsay's core arguments (which have a fuckton of validity within them depending on how closely you watch marketing trends in the popularization of world media), I could and can always count on the majority of consumers to make the sensibilities of my view on the world far blacker, and vastly more cynical, than Lindsay's could ever be. How exactly do you consider your view and the importance you place on your token superior reviewers realistic And Positive, rather than simply positive?

[Dr. Insomniac]

Well by being overly interrogative and a bit too meticulous (dozen times?), you seem confident in putting your opinion in front of everyone else's. Maybe you could explain on your own terms rather than questioning others.

Though while Lindsay can get a bit testy, she's still not at Spoony or JO levels. At least not yet. For all it's worth, she hasn't had a Twitter meltdown while blindly attacking some of her fans.

And I have to admit that EK's right about wanting more positive critics. The "angry guy who complains about something for ten minutes" schtick has run dry, with people like Mike Matei and Zac Bertschy co-opting the style so it's become an excuse for people to overreact at shows and their fans without giving calm reasons for why. After a while, hearing a guy talk about how something is sucks and is analogous to a type of fecal matter just gets tiring. We don't need more Yahtzees. The last thing we need on the internet is more Yahtzees. There are more mature ways of critical method that don't involve calling Bolin a retard or saying Uncle Grandpa is cancerous or the like. But being the loud guy with a blog is the easy way of getting your opinions out, while calmly trying to explain and validate why you think that way takes effort.

[No-Personality]

Well by being overly interrogative and a bit too meticulous (dozen times?), you seem confident in putting your opinion in front of everyone else's. Maybe you could explain on your own terms rather than questioning others.

I've already discussed The Nostalgia Chick on this forum at length, both my agreements and my disagreements- so, my opinion I'm so confident to put in front of everyone else's is already a comprehensively, multi-dimensional view on Lindsay's style, points, flaws, and merits. My getting involved in this discussion at all was purely to question others. If I think they're being grossly unfair and leaving a lot unconsidered, why wouldn't I?

Though while Lindsay can get a bit testy, she's still not at Spoony or JO levels. At least not yet. For all it's worth, she hasn't had a Twitter meltdown while blindly attacking some of her fans.

Yeeaaahh... why would she? Again, this is coming from someone who's not just seen the hours of interviews but actually remembers what she's said. She knows about "passionate" people online, both actual haters and self-professed fans, and deals with them in her own way. She actually does speak out about these things through constructive channels to raise awareness of how she deals with the problem. She addresses this quite often, so she'll never be taking it to Twitter. Part of her attitude is- who has the time? She's actually a shockingly good role model for how to handle being online and still live life as a real person. (None of this reflects the quality of given episodes, which I admit is always subject to waxing or waning.)

And I have to admit that EK's right about wanting more positive critics. The "angry guy who complains about something for ten minutes" schtick has run dry

I'm not challenging that point of view, in fact I fully agree. I'm saying it has no relevance to Lindsay or The Nostalgia Chick given that there isn't even an argument here that she created or popularized the Angry Reviewer shtick anyway. Her influence on internet reviewing has been extremely positive: were you aware that she is the Single Primary Influence for Kyle Kallgren's Brows Held High, one of the most popular series on Blip.tv with both audiences And the website's staff? She's also an influence for Rantasmo's Needs More Gay series - http://blip.tv/needsmoregay - which is entirely positive. Her best friend Elisa's 80% positive series Maven of the Eventide is a literal spin-off from Nostalgia Chick. Her company Chez Apocalypse is also host to the ultra sugary sweet series Stuff You Like (which I don't but, hey: Opinion) and the ultra-popular The Bunny Perspective. Which, while featuring many screaming angry rants, is still one of the most popular and legitimately acclaimed (by more than just fans) series on Blip. So... again, the connection of relevance is pretty faint with Lindsay and the Angry Complainer tainting the waters for all positive and fresh critical commentary.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Just like before, I have no interest in getting into a long-winded debate about this stuff with you, NP. You seem to be under the impression that I don't like Lindsay just because I don't agree with some of her opinions. I clearly stated, however, that I do fully respect the thoughtful insite that she puts into her reviews. Over the years, though, I've grown up a bit and found that, at least for me, there are other factors of presentation that count just as much as being intelligent. Of those, one of the most important is coming off as relatable. Personally, I can respect Lindsay as a reviewer, but have trouble relating to her world-view, regardless of whether I agree with her opinions or not. For instance, in her review of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I actually agreed with most of her criticism of the films as adaptations that weren't quite as great as their source material. That said, I couldn't help but feel off put by some of the way she expressed her opinions, such as how she essentially made it clear that she felt several of the changes made from book to film were to dumb things down for a general audience (and even went so far as to use the idea of an obese couple as a representation of these general audiences). Mind you, her criticisms were spot on, but I highly disagreed with the notion that general audiences would be too stupid to appreciate some of the nuances of the original book had they been properly adapted to film, because I just hate the ideas of generalizing any kind of people, as it is.

That's just a single example, but like I said I'm not getting into a whole debate, hear. I understand and respect your viewpoint on Lindsay's reviews, but what you have to understand is that her style simply doesn't appeal to me. I'm not claiming to be right, here, just simply stating my own viewpoint.

[Foggle]

And I have to admit that EK's right about wanting more positive critics. The "angry guy who complains about something for ten minutes" schtick has run dry, with people like Mike Matei and Zac Bertschy co-opting the style so it's become an excuse for people to overreact at shows and their fans without giving calm reasons for why. After a while, hearing a guy talk about how something is sucks and is analogous to a type of fecal matter just gets tiring. We don't need more Yahtzees. The last thing we need on the internet is more Yahtzees. There are more mature ways of critical method that don't involve calling Bolin a retard or saying Uncle Grandpa is cancerous or the like. But being the loud guy with a blog is the easy way of getting your opinions out, while calmly trying to explain and validate why you think that way takes effort.

This is why I wanted to blog Kill la Kill instead of Outbreak Company or whatever. I've tried to move past my angry internet reviewer phase. I can't stand that shit anymore. (Do note that I am not saying Nostalgia Chick is part of the so-called angry crowd. I've never seen any of her videos.)

[No-Personality]

Ha: you don't have to "debate" with me. I recognize I have a tendency to steamroll over others to begin with. So, I'm perfectly comfortable doing the talking for both of us. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. You won't respond and everyone will live happily ever after. But I will speak my peace. Or war. Feel free to not read it.

You have to know that I've chosen to intervene in the overall Lindsay-bashing session (and yes I believe that's an accurate thing to call it) because it's irritated me to see people mischaracterize her based on their own silly reactions thinking she's a snob when there is plenty of concrete evidence she has to base - as you pointed out - her "Cletus and Joanne" metaphor on (my mother's name is Joanne, which I always get a chuckle at). Among more than half the other things she's pointed out over time. Damn her one water-poisoning flaw of un-relatability, now no one can defend her lest they want to align themselves with "a snob" (even though Brad Jones honestly and unlovingly bashes things all the time with a real ax to grind and he gets zero of the bullshit she does).

But you do not have to see things the way she does to understand and appreciate many of the conclusions she arrives at. Even if you disagree, you have to admit she's not just done the research- but the research is very much in service to something. Just look at her best reviews and you'll see that- The Christmas Shoes, The Lorax, You've Got Mail, Reality Bites, She's All That, Cruel Intentions, DreamWorks' rivalry with Disney, Der Fuhrer's Face, Red Hot Riding Hood. Have you even seen these reviews? I could point out dozens upon dozens of extremely important and relevant points she has made about the way entertainment relates to the people it's sold to. That Christmas Shoes review alone should probably be shown in college classes.

I'm sorry to push this again but it's relevant: you already kind of shot yourself in the foot. First with your "I want reviews positive" thing (which, no, I won't get off of), now you're actually calling it "growing up." A dig so subtle, I'm going to assume for a tiny shred of civility that you didn't consciously mean it to be. If you've really grown up, you should be able to agree that not every topic warrants a positive attitude. And that many creators of the content she's reviewing could be charged for treating the audience like idiots. People like David Rose may very well be ignoring this entire aspect in their push for positivity. Yet, I think people do care about it. Clearly not the idiots who pay to see Adam Sandler shit. But others very much do. You want to cite your subjective unease with her like it really is her fault for turning you off. Well, I like negative (Phelous), positive (Rantasmo, and Obscurus Lupa is a far more refreshing antidote to Brad Jones' Cinema Snob), and everything in between (2 words: Diamanda Hagan). Because I'm "grown up" enough to know that it comes down to the subject of discussion and who writes it well.

Incidentally, I've never seen Lord of the Rings- so I entirely refuse to swear by her episodes. I watched them each twice and it's a chore to sit through something where you can't appreciate the meaning behind it. Just makes it look trivial. Shockingly enough, I've seen most of the stuff David Rose selects for review. I'd say that has made my expectations too high. Is "this guy" really relatable? Maybe. But in what way? The way he dresses? Talks? Thinks? There is a reason online review videos are connected to the TGWTG monopoly: entertainment value. This may unfortunately date the whole trend, making the ability to laugh at anything they do subjective until there is no discernible point to watching them if you've never heard of The Nostalgia Critic (who as I've said before is no stranger to really tasteless homophobic jokes), but of course we're talking about internet video critics to come sorta post-Doug Walker (even though most of them take their influence from him). So, fuck it: they all exist to get whatever laughs they can derive from their prickly observations, positive or not.

Is the future in positive reviews? I'm hoping instead the future's in GOOD reviews. / Oh, and... don't call me long-winded unless you want to hear me reply with: suck my long wind. That's bait to me and I will always respond thusly. You can count on it.

I've never heard of Mr. Plinkett. Red Letter Media has a big problem with categorizing their episodes unless you've followed them from the beginning. I only heard of them last year and flipping through their pages on Blip... I have absolutely no idea what I'm clicking on, so I barely bother. That and the fact that their structure is Way Too Loose. And they pad with skits like crazy. To the point where they don't seem to be talking about something at all. Is it my fault they couldn't find anything interesting about Troll 2 to discuss? Frankly, I could come up with at least a half hour long episode, easily. Were I a video review script co-writer. Oh, and there's not even the illusion of actual analysis on their "reviews" of all those new releases they were doing around the time of Warm Bodies, Hansel & Gretel, and that new Jack and the Beanstalk adaptation. So, I don't watch much of them. Like talonmalon's complaint on Doug's recent work, I don't have 36-45 minutes to wait for them to stop making jokes about alcohol to figure out what their point on the movie they were nonchalantly chatting up was.

Now... other people wanted to talk about Lindsay's skits and the like. Personally, I like almost all the skits now. I'm used to them. The only one that springs to mind that I have trouble with is Rantasmo in the Disney Needs More Gay crossover. I like him a lot. I've also seen all his videos and etc. But his actual friendship with her has Not Been Good for Him. And since she found out about him, it hasn't been good for her either. I balk at people saying Phelous and Lupa have soured each other's videos because they're both just as hit or miss as they ever were. Together, apart, then, now- it doesn't matter. She hit gold recently with Baywatch but her latest Witchcraft video stunk. His Garfield Halloween video ruled but his Jacob's Ladder vid was blech. But, her direct influence has really killed his funny (though the Coke joke in the Brett Easton Ellis vid was great) and his influence on her (which you can see in both Matilda and Cutthroat Island) feels ingenuine. (I'm glad she dropped the labeling of reference clips from movies the moment she picked it up.)