No ASSCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
Data Snake: When he said that Arkham City was just as sexist as Other M and the only reason people were more critical of Other M is because it was a Wii game made by a Japanese studio.
Storm Kensho: Bob's "Heavens to Metroid" video, which was the video he made defending the notorious Metroid: Other M 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 Metroid Prime seriesnote the most critically and commercially acclaimed games in the Metroid series 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 Metroid Prime series is an example of FPS done wellnote 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. And to lump those superb games in with the likes of Call of Duty, 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 overallnote 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 Yahtzee, one of your own colleagues at The Escapist who was relentless in his takedown of Other M because the game you like doesn't stack up, you're just going to make yourself look like a complete and utter fool.
Jonn: "Magneto Was Right" is him saying nerds identify with the X-Men because they're oppressed special people. The metaphor is problematic, as noted elsewhere, since the average X-Man has enough power to kill people easily. He then goes on to decry "anti-intellectualism" in the media, such as Jersey Shore and My Name Is Earl. Problem is, the former is arguably tongue in cheek, and the latter definitely is. People don't watch those shows because they look up to the characters, they watch them because they want to see the idiots making idiots of themselves. What are fools for, if not to laugh at? And there are plenty of nerds who are just nerds, not particularly smart. Given the other complaints here, I'm starting to think I was right in my assumption that Moviebob is either a jerk, a troll, or both.
randomfox : A while back he did a two part episode about the Sonic series. It was understandably and predictably somber, and while he spent a good half of it jerking off Nintendo (what a surprise) the real kicker for me was when he started giving recommendations on how to "fix" the series. Out of the two, the one he elaborated on being a reboot of the franchise wherein the suggested plot was a combination of two bad movies, the big moment was his suggestion that they make Robotnik a credible villain by having him kill all the side characters, sounding especially elated when suggesting killing off Cream The Rabbit. First off, when has alienating a series existing fans and going for a sudden grimdark approach ever been successful? And even if you don't like all the peripheral side characters, which even fans are having trouble defending at this point, it's really sickening to hear an earnest suggestion to kill a six year old girl. It was bad enough (and oh, was it ever) when DC decided to do it; there is absolutely no need for Sega to go the same route. Besides, who in their right mind would actually want them to?
gameragodzilla: I also agree. He never actually backs up anything that he says, only that he says the action was bad and the jokes were unfunny, something that quite a lot of people disagree with (considering how both movies topped the box office when they came out and made an absolute killing overseas). What is even stupider is that Moviebob claims that modern action movies are better than 1980's action movies, despite modern movies employing Shaky Cam and quick cuts that obscure the action to the point of incomprehensibility. Yeah, real improvement there. Seriously, I think that the only reason Moviebob hates this series so much is because of how poorly Scott Pilgrim did in comparison, because almost every time he mentions this movie, it's in comparison with Scott Pilgrim. BTW, this is coming from someone who seen and liked both Expendables and Scott Pilgrim.
Kasumiwumi: When he spent seven minutes wangsting about The Amazing Spider-Man 2, 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.
Xander VJ: In his "You're wrong about Spider-Man 3" commentary, the part where he defends the infamous "emo-Peter" scenes. He claims that this is Peter trying to be badass, and the reason why he behaves like that is because he's a hopeless dweeby geek that has no point of reference of what an actual badass is like, so he goes with what he "thinks" it is. Not only is that insulting to geeks in general (specially considering the patronizing tone of the whole video), but also it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, neither in the context of the movie nor of the Spider-Man mythos. What the black suit is supposed to do is to enhance negative emotions, particularly rage. Since when feeling angry compels you to try to behave like a badass in the middle of the street for no goddamn reason? Considering Bob's infamous contempt for the "bro-like" concept of badass, one can't help wondering if he's just projecting.
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."
Main Man J: "Leave Michael 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 Transformers: 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 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.
Co Cage: The review of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014). Bob does the same thing he did in his reviews of The Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2, saying that he never held anybias towards the new movie. This is his bullshit at its finest, because of all his disdain for the movie is in Bobís previous blog posts; long before the film came out. The whole ninja turtles are aliensí rumors being the start. He then goes on to say itís 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 werenít 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 ďhorny for AprilĒ. It is true Mikey is always the jokester, but the only time he usually puts the moves on April is when itís 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 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012). 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 (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen being the exception), but Bob, if you are not going to bother giving a movie you don't like from the start a chance, donít 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 heís 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.
Spectral Time: His long, passionate attack on the "Retake Mass Effect" movement, which went on for more than a month and included even completely-unrelated videos such as his review of The Cabin in the Woods, hit its nadir with Bob's discussion of how he feels art should work. It's not only that he openly, proudly admitted his complete lack of research or knowledge about the series (and while he did watch the ending eventually, surely one must admit that watching an ending without context is very different from actually having an artistic experience capped by an ending), or that he refused to engage with the reasonable majority of the movement, instead responding to absurd, over-the-top self-furnished complaints so disconnected from the realities of their concerns that "debunking" them proved nothing, or his out-of-hand dismissal of "player driven narrative" having the potential for artistic value ("No one ever won a Pulitzer for a f@#$ing Choose Your Own Adventure novel!"), or even that he ludicrously exaggerates the importance of the conflict with apocalyptic promises that it's somehow set back gaming as an artistic medium by decades. Heck, let's not even bring up his open and problematic belief that every "gamer" is an Acceptable Target, an intellectual oyster out to force game designers to water down their vision and make every game more like CoD to avoid creative risks. No, the worst part of the whole debacle is what it reveals about Bob's mindset; a series of ugly, elitist opinions about the way audiences should be subordinate, prostrating themselves before the Great Artist, passively absorbing the opinions and themes of that Artist without ever questioning or thinking about them, gratefully accepting themselves as his inferiors and receiving his Great Thoughts without sullying them with their own. This is, to be blunt, a fucked and archaic view of art theory that's been rightly left on the rubbish heap of intellectual thought for years, and Bob trying to re-light the pyre because in his mind any gamer-led movement must consist entirely of fratboys and harassment-minded stalkers casts him in the worst light of almost anything he's ever done.
Impudent Infidel: 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.
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 Take That, Audience! 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 Take That, Audience! at the end?(I get him getting caught up in the moment, but he did this for Fantastic Four (2015) too; so it didn't seem like some random fluke, it came off planned.)
Hermes 3: 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 Fantastic Four (2015), 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.
Sheliek: 'There are (almost) no bad tactics, just bad targets.' Why? Because it's a more polite way of saying 'the ends justify the means.' As much as I agree with a lot of his views, that statement colours the rest of them in a disgustingly negative light.
Tera Chimera: After the Critical Research Failure that was his "Combat Evolved?" episode on The Big Picture, I largely swore off him, but was willing to give him one more chance for his review of John Wick. The first thing that happens is him talking about, as he puts it, "the trailer". Emphasis NOT added. He spends the first half of the episode not talking about one of the best action movies in years, but instead talking about a then-recently-released trailer for Age of Ultron. And does he lengthen the rest of the video to make up for that and still give the actual review a regular length? Nope. The video as a whole is the same five-minute format as the rest of his reviews, only with his discussion of "the trailer" taking up half of it, leaving barely two minutes for the actual review. That, in itself, would almost put it here, but then Bob says almost nothing of substance about John Wick itself, instead relying on vague, banal truisms that say nothing about the movie itself. No talk of the lack of shaky-cam, nothing about Keanu Reeves' surprisingly powerful performance, no observations on the stylized gun fu, just statements like, "it's good". The final nail in the coffin to make the video terrible is that he starts out with a genuinely interesting idea, that John Wick is a slasher movie where the slasher is the good guy, but makes zero attempts to follow up on it in any way. The whole thing just reeks of something hacked out with no effort.
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 Seinfeld Is Unfunny 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 Bias Steamroller 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: In his X-Men: Apocalypse review, he states that all previous X Men Film movies were bad (except X-Men: 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 J. J. 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, The 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 Rob Liefeld 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.
Super Luigu: 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 Death Battle, when SA content was confined to the site and Game Trailers).
Impudent Infidel: In his Really That Good video about Titanic, he goes on a ten minute rant about how the backlash against the movie was purely motivated by sexism and dismissing every possible criticism of it as so invalid that the people citing them must be lying one by one. Stilted acting is allowed in this genre and cannot be criticized according to him, just to give one example. He then throws in one line at the end that he's not calling you, the hypothetical viewer who doesn't like the film, sexist. It's a blatant "I'm not racist but..." attempt to avoid responsibility for his words. Just to make it worse he's explicitly projecting the reasons school-age Bob didn't like the movie on to everybody else and sees no problem with this. The whole thing comes out of nowhere, runs on circular logic, and is offensive as hell. Even if you agree with the broad strokes of his point (that at least part of the movie's bad reputation was resentment at the success of a female-targeted genre movie) it's a serious Don't Shoot the Message moment.
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 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 Mignores the huge elephant in the room that is 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. 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 Unfortunate Implications. 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 Unfortunate Implications 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.
Brainless Oyster: 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
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.
Brian K: 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?