History DethroningMoment / Moviebob

** BrianK: I was getting sick of Bob already, but this video made me fed up with him completely. And I'm speaking as someone who thought the movie was terrible! (Not as bad as he made it out, but still plenty bad.) So my dislike of this video has nothing to do with me disagreeing with him, but more with the fact that it seems like it exists only as an excuse for him to rant about it yet again. I'm all for criticizing the film, but what's the point if you're not willing to actually discuss tangible problems with the film and offer no insight other than "it has no redeeming qualities" and other aspects you've ranted at length a million times before? It seems less like him wanting to make an argument and more like him working out his personal anger yet again. To be honest, it even gets me to question the authenticity for his love of film at all- if a film bothers you that much, wouldn't you want to forget about it completely, and not give it any attention, instead of ranting with no rhyme or reason, just for the sake of ranting?

** BrianK: I was getting sick of Bob already, but this video made me fed up with him completely. And I'm speaking as someone who thought the movie was terrible! (Not as bad as he made it out, but still really bad.) So my dislike of this video has nothing to do with me disagreeing with him, but more with the fact that it seems like it exists only as an excuse for him to rant about it yet again. I'm all for criticizing the film, but what's the point if you're not willing to actually discuss tangible problems with the film and offer no insight other than "it has no redeeming qualities" and other aspects you've ranted at length a million times before? It seems less like him wanting to make an argument and more like him working out his personal anger yet again. To be honest, it even gets me to question the authenticity for his love of film at all- if a film bothers you that much, wouldn't you want to forget about it completely, and not give it any attention, instead of ranting with no rhyme or reason, just for the sake of ranting?

** BrianK: I was getting sick of Bob already, but this video made me fed up with him completely. And I'm speaking as someone who thought the movie was terrible! (Not as bad as he made it out, but still really bad.) So my dislike of this video has nothing to do with me disagreeing with him, but more with the fact that it seems like it exists only as an excuse for him to rant about it yet again. To be honest, it even gets me to question the authenticity for his love of film at all- if a film bothers you that much, wouldn't you want to forget about it completely, instead of ranting with no rhyme or reason, just for the sake of ranting?

** BrianK: I was getting sick of Bob already, but this video made me fed up with him completely. And I'm speaking as someone who thought the movie was terrible! (Not as bad as made it out, but still really bad.) So my dislike of this video has nothing to do with me disagreeing with him, but more with the fact that it seems like it exists only as an excuse for him to rant about it yet again. To be honest, it even gets me to question the authenticity for his love of film at all- if a film bothers you that much, wouldn't you want to forget about it completely, instead of ranting with no rhyme or reason, just for the sake of ranting?

* hank412: Everything regarding his "Really that Bad: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice" video. First he makes a preview video, talking about how Batman V Superman as a film has no redeeming qualities. Really, Bob? None? Batman V Superman is no masterpiece, but it is leagues better than other movies out there. Batman V Superman, despite having its flaws, comes no where near earning the sheer amount of scathing hatred it gets and the idea that he thinks it deserves every bit of it is laughable! However, what cemented this as a dethroning moment is Bob's analysis on twitter and the fact that he clearly doesn't get the film and I don't mean that in some pretentious "It's too deep for you," type of way, but in a way where he fails to understand the basic plot points right in front of him. This isn't analysis or criticism, this is stubbing your toe against a table and then making a video essay on why that table sucks.

* hank412: Everything regarding his "Really that Bad: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice" video. First he makes a preview video, talking about how BvS as a film has no redeeming qualities. Really, Bob? None? BvS is no masterpiece, but it is leagues better than other movies out there. BvS, despite having its flaws, comes no where near earning the sheer amount of scathing hatred it gets and the idea that he thinks it deserves every bit of it is laughable! However, what cemented this as a dethroning moment is Bob's analysis on twitter and the fact that he clearly doesn't get the film and I don't mean that in some pretentious "It's too deep for you," type of way, but in a way where he fails to understand the basic plot points right in front of him. This isn't analysis or criticism, this is stubbing your toe against a table and then making a video essay on why that table sucks.

* BrainlessOyster: His political rant series "American Bob" had one installment where he got angry at people saying that they hate politicians that "flip-flop". His argument was that people have a right to change their minds once new evidence comes to light. Okay, fair enough (although this troper thinks the anger comes more from politicians saying anything they can to get elected, but whatevs). But in the next breath he asks why, if we hate flip-floppers, we also like politicians that are married, since being married is (to him) all about lying your ass off to make your spouse happy. This rubbed me the wrong way because while, yes, occasionally spouses apologize when they don't mean it just to avoid a fight, no successful marriage is based solely on lies and appeasement. Good marriages are built on trust and honesty, not on a Machiavellian battle of wits between a henpecked husband and a battle-axe wife

BrainlessOyster: His political rant series "American Bob" had one installment where he got angry at people saying that they hate politicians that "flip-flop". His argument was that people have a right to change their minds once new evidence comes to light. Okay, fair enough (although this troper thinks the anger comes more from politicians saying anything they can to get elected, but whatevs). But in the next breath he asks why, if we hate flip-floppers, we also like politicians that are married, since being married is (to him) all about lying your ass off to make your spouse happy. This rubbed me the wrong way because while, yes, occasionally spouses apologize when they don't mean it just to avoid a fight, no successful marriage is based solely on lies and appeasement. Good marriages are built on trust and honesty, not on a Machiavellian battle of wits between a henpecked husband and a battle-axe wife

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a very vocal feminist (especially when it comes to video games) and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.

* Vexer: I still like Moviebob in spite of me strongly disagreeing with a number of his reviews(I.E. ''Batman Vs Superman'', ''Film/ManOfSteel'', Amazing Spider Man 1 and 2, ''Film/{{Pixels}}'', ''Film/TheExpendables'', ''Film/{{Transformers}}'' 1-3, ''Film/GreenLantern'', etc) and opinions(I.E. his statements regarding the retake ME3 movement). But by far his worst moment is his Big Picture video on 90s comics where he pretty does nothing but whine and bitch about Creator/RobLiefeld the entire time. Look I know the guy's a controversial figure and has his flaws, but that video crossed the line from distaste for his material into outright personal hatred to a rather disturbing degree. He also insults people that actually *gasp* like Liefeld and the other Image guys, which just makes him sound like a condescending jerk, hopefully he's learned since then.

* {{Kingbacon}}: I used to be one of the few people who had no qualms with Moviebob. I like his snarky and in depth analysis of pop culture and nerd behavior. However, I will never forgive him for saying what he did in his episode ''JUNK DRAWER: GAME ON'', where he suggested that the only difference between console, handheld, and PC video games and the interactive bile that is App gaming are buttons. As if to say Apps could ever, should ever, or would ever replace actual video games!

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a very vocal feminist (especially when it comes to video games) and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.
* Vexer: I agree with a number of the examples above(particularly Bob's ignorance on why people were justified in being upset over ME3's ending) but the one that really stood out to me as being just plain awful in every single aspect was the very first "Big Picture" episode "Combat Evolved". It just reeked big time of CriticalResearchFailure, with Bob seemingly inventing UnfortunateImplications out of thin air(I.E. claiming the game is somehow "racist" because it has Master Chief killing different alien races) and it was essentially five minutes of tiresome bitching and moaning about a franchise he seems to dislike for no real discernible reason. Thankfully the following episodes were big improvements in quality.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a very vocal feminist (especially when it comes to video games) and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.

** ImpudentInfidel: It also revealed an almost complete ignorance of how video games, and RPGs in particular, are written. His argument was based on a film-specific variant of [[UsefulNotes/TheAuteurTheory auteur theory]] and completely ignored the main complaint: that the ending was clearly written without the input of the main writing team, introduced massive changes to the mythology in the final minutes, and revealed a complete failure to grasp both the themes of the story and the mechanics of the setting.

* {{Kingbacon}}: I used to be one of the few people who had no qualms with MovieBob. I like his snarky and in depth analysis of pop culture and nerd behavior. However, I will never forgive him for saying what he did in his episode ''JUNK DRAWER: GAME ON'', where he suggested that the only difference between console, handheld, and PC video games and the interactive bile that is App gaming are buttons. As if to say Apps could ever, should ever, or would ever replace actual video games!

** StormKensho: Bob's "Heavens to Metroid" video, which was the video he made defending the notorious ''VideoGame/MetroidOtherM'' from its critics, had great potential to be a polarizing but fair video, going over the game's merits while also acknowledging known criticisms of the work while giving his own take on them. What did it turn out to be? Well, to paraphrase Bob's arguments: "If you don't like Metroid Other M, it's because you're a xenophobic feminazi who can't stomach Samus taking orders from a MAN!" That summation could qualify as a DMOS by itself, but the absolute and most disgusting nadir of the video, the moment where I could no longer count myself as a MovieBob fan, was when he attacked the superb MetroidPrime series[[note]]the most critically ''and'' commercially acclaimed games in the Metroid series[[/note]] because they were First-Person Shooters, which are "everything that's wrong with the gaming industry." While he's not entirely wrong in that regard, the MetroidPrime series is an example of FPS done well[[note]]with excellent and minimalistic writing and gameplay that pushed the series forward while retaining the feel of exploration and discovery that made the 2D Metroids so popular[[/note]]. And to lump those superb games in with the likes of VideoGame/CallOfDuty, VideoGame/{{Battlefield}}, and other FPS games simply because they share a genre is not only ridiculous and disingenuous, it's also downright prejudicial and moronic. Bob, I get it: You're being intentionally provocative with your content as a means of drawing attention to yourself and making money while also expressing your opinion; But when you're actively slandering a series of games that are widely considered to be among the best games ever made in the Sixth Generation if not overall[[note]]Games that are among the many reasons why the Nintendo Gamecube was able to hold its own and are fondly remembered by even the most caustic of internet critics such as ''[[WebAnimation/ZeroPunctuation Yahtzee]]'', one of your own colleagues at Website/TheEscapist who was relentless in his takedown of Other M[[/note]] because the game you like doesn't stack up, you're just going to make yourself look like a complete and utter fool.

** Hermes3: I agree. What was a fairly professional show has since devolved into how many ways can he turn a vulgar phrase. My problem with MovieBob is that he tends to hurl insults at the movie and/or fandom and/or political group without backing up his statements. For example, in his review ''Film/FantasticFour2015'', he just waved off fan criticism of the new film's casting of a black actor for a canonically white role as being racist. Nevermind that the film ignored several decades of canon. He also has a tendency to be whiney. He spent time in a YouTube series about movies to complain about how the space program was canceled and how he would rather have cities on Mars rather than world peace because humanity did nothing for him. That, coupled with his general condescending tone and his self-pitying autobiography, he has made it difficult for those who would like him and learn from his insight to do so.

* Kasumiwumi: When he spent seven minutes [[{{Wangst}} wangsting]] about ''Film/TheAmazingSpiderMan2'', calling it the movie that "broke" him. This would be fine by itself- just a guy bitching about what he thought was a bad ''Spider-Man'' film, if he didn't spend the following Friday saying that everyone is wrong about ''Spider-Man 3''. Not only that, but he's gone on record as essentially having a fan-boner for Sam Raimi in general, so it's annoying to see him basically shrugging off anything ''[=TASM2=]'' did that was good, and doing the same thing for anything Sam Raimi's films did that was bad. It's a huge, glaringly-obvious bias.

** Larkmarn: I still like Bob, but the "You Are Wrong About ''Spider-Man 3''" was condescending to a just comical degree. It's the name alone says it all: our opinion is wrong and Raimi did everything perfect. It could have been a decent video if it were simply considered "A Defense Of ''Spider-Man 3''" but instead it's "you're all wrong, you just don't get it, you philistines."

* MainManJ: "Leave Micheal Bay Alone". The prospect of him taking back his hostility towards Bay is an admirable one (one he already did in his True Grit review) and it explains the uncharacteristically positive and civil Age of Extinction review. The problem is he attacks everyone else instead just as bad. He attacks other film critics for giving their opinions for a living when that's what he himself does. He accuses critics and movie fans alike of a double standard by pointing out all the great genre directors who each do one thing Bay does as if that was an equal comparison (or the movies of Jackson, Raimi and even Hitchcock weren't so much better films). He pretty much lost me when he implied Jackson's ''[[Film/TheLordOfTheRings LotR]]'' films and Hobbit films were full of "juvenile humor" beyond what the genre would warrant. And once again he blames the audience, which is a blatant double standard. Hey, Bob, we're human beings too! And we didn't even make the films! Why's it ok to personally attack us instead of Bay? Yeah, sorry ''Scott Pilgrim'' bombed, and ''Pacific Rim'' underperformed, but not everyone loves the ''Transformers'' films. Plus all the Marvel stuff makes gobs of money so shouldn't those by that logic be trash too? The video oozes that same "holier than thou" attitude that's a recurring vibe in Bob's videos and nearly every other entry on this page.
* CoCage: The review of ''Film/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles2014''. Bob does the same thing he did in his reviews of ''Film/TheAmazingSpiderMan 1 & 2'', [[BlatantLies saying that he never held any]] [[BiasSteamroller bias]] towards the new movie. This is his bullshit at its finest, because of all his disdain for the movie is in Bob’s previous blog posts; long before the film came out. The whole ninja turtles are aliens’ rumors being the start. He then goes on to say it’s worse than ''Turtles III'' and the ''The Next Mutation'' (big YMMV). There is some huge contradiction, because once again, in a previous blog post/Big Picture episode he said that the third movie should never be mentioned considering how lazy and bad it turned out. The worst part is him adding or making up flaws that weren’t in the movie. He goes on to say April got too much focus and was horribly played by Megan Fox. The former is not true, as she and the turtles get nearly an equal amount of screen time, and the latter is once again, YMMV. The movie does start a little slow and I would have preferred someone else, but Fox does a decent job. The other is an exaggerated flaw of Michelangelo always being “horny for April”. It is true Mikey is always the jokester, but the only time he usually puts the moves on April is when it’s not a serious scene. Even then the other turtles tell him to knock it off, just like in most other continuities. When things get serious he gets his act together. This is hypocritical considering Donatello is guilty of doing the same thing in ''WesternAnimation/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtles2012''. Always trying to impress April and hugely crushing on her. Something a lot of fans got tired of by end of the first and second season. For the record, I don't care much for the new Spider-Man Films and I am neutral about Michael Bay at best (''Film/TransformersRevengeOfTheFallen'' being the exception), but Bob, if you are not going to bother giving a movie you don't like from the start a chance, don’t lie and make shit up. Seriously, his review comes up as a Bay hating checklist (even though he didn't direct the movie, Jonathan Liebesman did) and ends with him saying that he’s done with being nice to the director. Not to mention acting like a whiny little prick for the film not being like the previous movies. Seeing this video, he is no longer a serious movie reviewer or a video game commentator in my eyes (even back then I had my doubts). This video is just a testament to everything wrong with him.

* {{klom99}}: Has anyone noticed the new overly-aggressive demeanor Bob's taken to his reviews since his leaving The Escapist? While he was succinct, candid, yet professional about movies before; he now has this cantankerous, grumpy attitude to the movies he hates. Whether it's new metaphors for "shit" or consistent TakeThatAudience jabs coming up at the start and end of his reviews, he feels much more antagonistic than before. His Pixels review made me literally uncomfortable with how foul-mouthed and seething it was. I don't blame him for hating the movie in the slightest, but did he have to come up with copious amounts of ways he'd like to destroy the movie? And did he really have to pull the TakeThatAudience at the end?(I get him getting caught up in the moment, but he did this for FantasticFour2015 too; so it didn't seem like some random fluke, it came off planned.)
** Hermes3: I agree. What was a fairly professional show has since devolved into how many ways can he turn a vulgar phrase. My problem with MovieBob is that he tends to hurl insults at the movie and/or fandom and/or political group without backing up his statements. For example, in his review FantasticFour2015, he just waved off fan criticism of the new film's casting of a black actor for a canonically white role as being racist. Nevermind that the film ignored several decades of canon. He also has a tendency to be whiney. He spent time in a YouTube series about movies to complain about how the space program was canceled and how he would rather have cities on Mars rather than world peace because humanity did nothing for him. That, coupled with his general condescending tone and his self-pitying autobiography, he has made it difficult for those who would like him and learn from his insight to do so.

* whunt: His Really That Good series is a great idea. Sometimes movies are so hyped new audiences have the fresh experience lost on them. However, Bob blew it right off the bat with his ''Spider-Man'' video on the topic. Not only do I disagree with what he said about the casting choices and the love story, but he also fails to provide many counterarguments and just gush over his clear bias, ignoring the movie's flaws and only nitpicking superficially what was wrong with both installments. There is no address of valid criticisms like SeinfeldIsUnfunny or how many other films were able to one-up the Spider-Man aesthetic and feel even more like comic books. I haven't even watched the rest. I think there could be a decent case as to why Spider-Man and other films were really not that good, but Bob doesn't even consider that possibility.
* deusexadamjensen121: The end of his review of ''Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'', even ignoring the obvious BiasSteamroller against DC film adaptations that has become standard for Bob by now. He blatantly lies about the ending of the film just to misrepresent the movie.
* jai137: Recently that n his X-Men apocalypse review, he states that all previous X-Men movies were bad(except First class). While he is entitled to his opinion, it completely contradicts his earlier review of X-Men:Days Of Future Past, where he said it's a good movie. Just another place where he keeps contradicting his own reviews. It's like he hated the previous ones, but couldn't bring it out to say it until a crap sequel comes out, then he lets out his hate. Be prepared for a Star Wars review where the movie is bad, but he'll just say "it's JJ Abrams, it was always bad."
* Vexer: I still like Moviebob in spite of me strongly disagreeing with a number of his reviews(I.E. Batman Vs Superman, Man of Steel, Amazing Spider Man 1 and 2, Pixels, Expendables, Transformers 1-3, Green Lantern, etc) and opinions(I.E. his statements regarding the retake ME3 movement). But by far his worst moment is his Big Picture video on 90s comics where he pretty does nothing but whine and bitch about RobLiefeld the entire time. Look I know the guy's a controversial figure and has his flaws, but that video crossed the line from distaste for his material into outright personal hatred to a rather disturbing degree. He also insults people that actually *gasp* like Liefeld and the other Image guys, which just makes him sound like a condescending jerk, hopefully he's learned since then.

* SuperLuigu: This goes back a ways, but Bob having his followers join the ScrewAttack forum to vote in the "My Vids Don't Suck" contest in 2008 or so, ensuring that ''The Game Overthinker'' was the winner, regardless of what the actual ScrewAttack g1 audience would have voted for (this was years before ''WebAnimation/DeathBattle'', when SA content was confined to the site and ''Game Trailers'').

** ImpudentInfidel: It also revealed an almost complete ignorance of how video games, and RPGs in particular, are written. His argument was based on a film-specific variant of auteur theory and completely ignored the main complaint: that the ending was clearly written without the input of the main writing team, introduced massive changes to the mythology in the final minutes, and revealed a complete failure to grasp both the themes of the story and the mechanics of the setting.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. There's more hypocrisy when you take into account that he's a very vocal feminist and frequently criticizes the depiction of women in video games, and yet gave a pass to this game- a game that portrays its female protagonist in a way that many consider to be sexist. Considering he made no secret that he liked the game, it comes off like he's purposely going easy on it because he likes it. All of this indicates that Bob can be very ignorant and intellectually dishonest when it comes to defending stuff that he likes.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic. Bob then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. This is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. While the narrative and game mechanics not gelling well is a valid point, he acts like this alone is what's causing all the problems and writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads. Once again he fails to address the actual issue of how Samus was written as a character, choosing instead to blame it entirely on the authorization mechanic and then accuse anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of ''Other M's'' detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time, as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will typically: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core arguments of the other side. 3. Ignore any inconvenient facts that weaken his arguments. 4. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that ''[[VideoGame/MetroidOtherM Other M's]]'' detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that Samus was written as weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. In other words, it's not so much that her characterization differed from Fanon like Bob claims, it's that said characterization was bad. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before ''Other M'' [[CriticalResearchFailure ignores]] the huge elephant in the room that is ''[[VideoGame/MetroidFusion Metroid Fusion]]'' and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. [[note]]While it's possible that Bob hadn't played Fusion at the time, there's no excuse for not at least researching it before making a claim like that.[[/note]] Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school narrative mechanic with the weapon authorization that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in unintended narrative oddities that are being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many people have issues with, but once again he fails to address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone criticizing Sakamoto for being sexist (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated what fans assumed she was like this whole time as Samus didn't have any characterization until now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Not only that, his claim that Samus didn't have any characterization before Other M ignores the huge elephant in the room that is Metroid Fusion and how it gave her inner monologues that provided some insight into her character. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) without any hard evidence of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) without any hard evidence of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly generalizing all of Other M's detractors as bad people- which is exactly what he's claims said detractors are doing to the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) without any hard evidence of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical because he's unfairly painting his opponents with the same broad strokes he's claims his opponents are unfairly using on the Japanese. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) without any hard evidence of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical for two reasons: 1. He's unfairly painting his opponents with the same broad strokes he's claims his opponents are unfairly using on the Japanese. 2. He's essentially saying that you can't criticize artists for troubling things in their work unless there's hard evidence that they hold those views themselves, a standard he himself has never applied to any creator he has ever criticized before or since. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.

* Bartzv: While ''Heavens To Metroid'' isn't what made me turn away from him as a fan, it perfectly illustrates how deficient he is at arguing for a dissenting viewpoint. In order to justify his dissenting views he will: 1. Resort to using straw man arguments that slander the other side. 2. Provide counterarguments that don't actually address the core of the other side's arguments. 3. Display some blatant hypocrisy in the process. In ''Heavens to Metroid'' he argues that Other M's detractors are just pissed off because Samus is taking orders from a man and because what the game revealed about Samus' personality negated with what fans assumed she was like this whole time. The problem with these arguments is that they don't address the actual issue many people have with the game's portrayal of Samus as a character, namely that the way Samus was written makes her look weak and submissive with very little agency in the events of the story. Then in his revisited video he argues that the game tried to use an old school game narrative mechanic in the weapon authorization and that didn't mesh well with the modern storytelling techniques the game also used and that resulted in stuff that's being interpreted as UnfortunateImplications. Not only does this argument sound like someone using mental gymnastics to justify liking something many see as awful, but once again it doesn't address the actual criticisms of how Samus was written as a character. He just blames it entirely on the authorization mechanic, writes off the UnfortunateImplications as just being in people's heads, and then accuses anyone accusing Sakamoto of sexism (a reasonable conclusion considering Sakamoto was completely in charge of the story) of being racist towards Japanese society as a whole. That last one in particular is hypocritical for two reasons: 1. He's unfairly painting his opponents with the same broad strokes he's claims his opponents are unfairly using on the Japanese. 2. He's essentially saying that you can't criticize artists for troubling things in their work unless there's hard evidence that they hold those views themselves, a standard he himself has never applied to any creator he has ever criticized before or since. This kind of behavior is baffling coming from someone with a reputation for being very analytical.