Dethroning Moment / That Guy with the Glasses

With as many reviewers it has, it should come as no surprise That Guy with the Glasses has a few missteps in its history.

The Nostalgia Critic and The Blockbuster Buster have their own pages here and here.

Keep in mind:
  • Sign your entries.
  • One moment per reviewer to a troper, if multiple entries are signed to the same troper the more recent one will be cut.
  • Moments only, no "just everything he said" entries.
  • No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
  • No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
  • No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
  • Explain why it's a Dethroning Moment of Suck.
  • Please no He Panned It, Now He Sucks. Someone having a different opinion than you is not nearly a good enough justification for something being seen as stupid or offensive.
  • Creator's works only. No personal experiences or moments on the creators themselves.


    open/close all folders 

     Disneycember / Dreamworksuary 
  • Retloclive: I always find myself enjoying Doug Walker's Disneycember videos hearing about his actual non NostalgiaCritic opinions on certain movies, especially since he started delving into famous anime movies done by Studio Ghibli, but one review that went overboard regarding his backlash towards something was when he did the video for Disney's Tarzan. More specifically, his hate for the music voice-work that was done by Phil Collins for said movie. I can respect Doug's opinion for not liking the route Disney took to try to do something different with the movie's music, but when his rant got to the point of where it seemed like he was bashing on Phil to the point of being a personal attack on the guy was really over-excessive on his part. I almost let it slide, but the "f#%k Phil Collins" comment at the very end of the hate rant was the moment that I felt Doug crossed a line.
  • Ballroom Dwarf: I usually enjoy the Disneycember reviews, but one that I just couldn't stand by is the review for The Phantom Menace. The review itself was fine at first, even though, being a fan of the prequel trilogy, I didn't agree with much of it, but it was reasonable enough. That is, until halfway into the review, where Doug discusses the fan reaction to the film. Here, he tries to make it seem like anyone who liked the movie (and by extension, the other two prequels) was just in denial about how bad they supposedly were, or were just blinded by the hype. To top it off, he ends the review by mocking fans of the movie, by painting them as just being too naive to notice its flaws (like the racial stereotypes, for example). Coming from someone who usually encourages varied opinions, this comes across as a really jerkish move on Doug's part.

     Atop The Fourth Wall 
Hello and welcome to TV Tropes.org, where bad moments burn. Y'know, with over 400 episodes and counting, Linkara's little web show about a guy who reviews comics on his futon would be bound to slip up at some point. So let's dig into Atop the Fourth Wall and see the moments that not even Linkara's biggest fans will defend.

  • Peridonyx: During his review of Chuck Norris Karate Kommandos #1, when he reads about a boy wanting to be just like Chuck Norris, Linkara offhandedly says, "Better start hating gay marriage, kid." note  ...What? note  Linkara, I thought you were above such Lowest Common Denominator "humor," especially when it's out-of-nowhere and uncalled-for like this.
  • Xaris: Normally, Linkara is among my favorite reviewers on the site, but in his double review of The Others #1 and Brute Force #1, he makes a joke decrying media bias... For no discernible reason. Honestly, I don't mind the political jokes, in fact, one of my favorite of his bits is his global politics bit in his and the Nostalgia Critic's Superman IV review even though I actually disagree with his suggestion that nuclear weapons were the main reason why the Cold War never escalated into full scale conflict. However, the media bias joke was an unnecessary bit that felt horribly shoehorned in for the sake of making a political point. It had nothing to do with the comic nor the context that lead up to the joke and left a bitter taste for the rest of the review.
  • Red And White: The Power Rangers Zeo episode. I'll admit, I haven't been a great fan of the Vyce arc anyway (as people keep saying, the pacing has been awful and it's a case of "must be more epic") but the fight just smacked of huge self-indulgence. It's a really big shame, because the last showdown he had with Mechakara was brilliant, scary and just generally a Crowning Moment of Awesome.
  • Archduke Cthulhu: In the collaborative One Moment In Time review, I enjoyed it for his massive Take That! of Quesada like his reviews of Countdown for DC, but the opening bugged me. He and his friend (The Last Angry Geek) beat up a guy who enjoyed One More Day and force-fed him his trade edition. That wasn't Comedic Sociopathy, that was being an obnoxious fanboy douchebag.
  • JFP 1986: His review of the Godyssey wasn't truly bad, but I think he seriously dropped the anecdotal ball there. No mention whatsoever of Rob Liefeld currently being a born again Christian, the much publicized relaunch of Avengelyne that actually looks pretty cool, or that Alan Moore wrote some issues of Glory. And I was just a bit bothered when Linkara said we shouldn't care about Liefeld's departure from Image. As an aspiring comic book and pop culture historian, I happened to be fascinated with Image Comics history. And saying that Liefeld shouldn't work for any company because he only did the cover art for the Godyssey (which isn't entirely true, he also help plot it) is an unbelievably weak argument. I know these are just jokes, but it gives me the impression that for the most part, Linkara doesn't care for the history of any comic books that aren't Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Transformers, Star Trek or Doctor Who.
  • bobdrantz: His review of Atari Force #1. The main reason is that he decided to do it live. Look, Linkara, I'm sure you thought you were doing something special for the fans. But, when I can't hear you over all the people screaming in the audience, there's a problem. It may have been a good idea at the time, but, it was poorly executed. Next time, Linkara, just stick to the multi-part specials instead.
  • So We Ate Them: Silent Hill: Dying Inside #1-2. Three little words: "Special Needs monster." Linkara makes a point out of being one of the site's most tactful members. So why did he think that making a joke The Nostalgia Critic couldn't get away with was a good idea?
  • fluffything: I like AT4W, but his recent review of NBC Comics just didn't feel quite right compared to his other works. Sure, it was funny, but, there was one aspect of it that really bothered me. Mainly that his biggest complaint was that the comics were all "to be continued..." stories in which the reader would have to watch the respective shows the comics were based on to find out what happens next. To me, this is just an example of laziness on Linkara's part. Why? Because "to be continued" storylines are actually pretty common in fiction. Heck, there are even entire FRANCHISES based on various parts of the story being told in multiple media to get a full understanding of what's going on. Plus, um, Linkara reviews comics, right? Did he forget that there are SEVERAL comic arcs that end in "to be continued" and that they don't have any resolution until the next chapter?
  • alpal95: I love Linkara a whole lot; he's my favorite reviewer and I think he completely blows the Nostalgia Critic right out of the water. However, I'd still feel better if I got this off of my chest. A bit too often, I tend to find a few hints of hypocrisy in Linkara's writing, mostly in his jokes, and there are two examples I can think of right off the bat. The first is in "Marville #4", when he acknowledges that there will be people who want an explanation of how he knows what happened in the previous Marville issues if he was just a hologram in the previous review. His answer is, "It's not that big a deal... just relax," then he hastily makes up an answer then tells Pollo to shut up when he says it kind of is a big deal. The other example is in "The Next Top 15 Screw-Ups of Atop the Fourth Wall," where the first entry on the list is from the "Alone in the Dark" review when he and Nostalgia Critic proceed to mock the film for one character's mispronunciation of "Newfoundland". These two feel hypocritical for several reasons. First, the later doesn't feel right because the whole joke is that he's mocking someone for mispronouncing a word when he has been criticized in the past for pronouncing words in certain ways. The former is because of the MST3K Mantra, where "it's just a show so relax" is used as an excuse to brush off criticism or not provide explanations, which is hypocritical for any critic to use because their whole schtick revolves around them pointing out flaws in creative works and expecting explanations for things in stories. Now I'm a forgiving person and I'm not holding any of this against Linkara; he's still my favorite reviewer and unlike others on TGWTG, he hasn't done anything awful enough for me to like him less. Just as long as he keeps his flaws to a minimum or actually tries to fix it, I will still be a regular viewer of his.
    • Space Hunter Drake Redcrest: I think the problem with Linkara using an MST3K Mantra is that there is a simple explanation for it, one that even he points out: He watched the footage. It's understandable and believable, since his footage is put online as the show. The MST3K Mantra might work if he didn't have such an emphasis on continuity and story in his show.
  • Pgj1997: For me, it was his My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (IDW) review. It's not that he was bashing an extremely popular franchise (of which I'm a fan of, but that's besides the point), it's the review in general. My main issue is that he pretty much writes it off as kiddie crap. Gee, it's not like the same thing can be pretty much be said about the entire comic book industry in general. His final thoughts consist of, and I quote: "Sure, these kinds of solutions are not exactly what you want to see in a story for little kids, but there you go". This argument can easily be applied to comics he's reviewed before this; the Tandy Computer comics and The Electric Tale of Pikachu being great examples of this. Oh, and his abundant references to Cupcakes, It's Been Done. A lot. And he certainly didn't bring anything new to the table.
  • Para Chomp: His 15 Things Wrong With Civil War video did it for me. While all the points listed were valid, point number 6 really set me off. His complaint was that Goliath was killed by Ragnarok, stressing the fact that a black man killed by a white "blond" man. Sure, Goliath was Stuffed into the Fridge but he stressed that the action was racist. No, any noteworthy character could have died at Ragnarok's hand and the same result would have happened, a hero killed another hero. The fact that Linkara is pushing racism is racist in itself.
  • Vexer: For me it was his #1 pick in his "15 Things Wrong with Identity Crisis" review, while Linkara has good reasons for him not personally being too fond of IC, his #1 reason felt like a lazy cop-out to me (he sort did that with his Countdown video as well, but there I could at least understand it) putting the question "What does this story accomplish" as #1 makes no real sense and feels too much like Linkara simply couldn't think of a proper choice for #1 and finished writing the script at the very last minute.

     Angry Joe 
  • UltimaThule: Angry Joe's "Transformers 2 Review: Joe & Fans vs. The Critics". It's not just that he misses the point on a lot of criticisms he points out. It's not just that when he says that Michael Bay was "trying to please everybody," he fails to acknowledge what trying to please everyone usually results in. It's not just that he outright insults everyone who didn't enjoy Revenge of the Fallen, making us look like humorless snobs (I for one can, in fact, enjoy mindless thrill movies but I just didn't like RotF; though I don't go so far as to call people idiots for liking it). Joe forgets that Opinion Myopia goes both ways; in insulting people who are blind to others' opinions, he only makes himself look bad, and he automatically assumes that the viewers completely agree with him. Add to that the fact that he plays the flimsy "If you didn't like this movie you're a sissy!" card throughout, displaying an overly macho attitude that detracts from his credibility. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that only "real men" are capable of enjoying anything. Our star producer, ladies and gentlemen: a hypocritical Jerk Ass with a messiah complex.
  • DudeL: Angry Joe's "Top 32 Reasons Why I Hate Fable III". Oh God... I know Fable III deserves its your mileage may vary status and it would have been okay if he just did a rational, fact-based negative review with some humorous anger. But no, he had to go on a twenty-five minute rant where he makes the game sound like the nadir of all that ever was. While he does point out some legitimate flaws like the game's short length and the fact that you need the exact same DLC as someone to play co-op with them, most of the flaws he complains about are small, subjective, or simply things he didn't look into more. He complains about the loading screens between areas (not every studio has the tech to reduce the amount of loading, and the loading screens aren't even long), he calls melee combat pointless because enemies block your attacks (they don't block 100% of the time and he forgets you can charge up your attack for an unblock-able one), he says that the co-op is flawed because, while it's up to par with what Fable 2 deserved, it isn't up to par with what Fable 3 deserves, he doesn't like the expression system because he would prefer to have an actual conversation with the npcs (not every game needs Dialogue Trees, Joe) and because he thinks the fart and dance expressions are silly (it's a humorous game, Joe! Do you not get that those silly expressions are supposed to be silly?), he doesn't like the customization options because he thinks they are limited i.e. he can't get the exact style of facial hair he wants, and Jesus Christ it goes on.
  • Awesomekid42: For the most part, I really enjoyed Joe's review of the Godzilla video game for PS4. But there was a part of the review that rubbed me the wrong way. During one of his criticisms about the online modes, he shown a battle between him and another player, apparently named David, with David having way higher stats, and dominating Joe in the fight to show how unbalanced the online battles could be. Fair enough. But throughout the battle, Joe was frequently saying sarcastic compliments and condescending remarks about his opponent, as if he was humoring a try hard despite not even knowing him. It was needlessly harsh, and made Joe look like a dick.
  • Catmuto: Angry Joe is a hit-and-miss for me, overall. Some of his complaints about things I can agree with, others I find he's overreacting about things. But the point when he went way over the line and lost me, was in his Top 10 Worst Games of 2010 list and he put Final Fantasy XIII at 2nd place. Now, if he doesn't like XIII that is fine with me, everyone has their opinion. But his opinion is beyond what I would call justified Angry-Joe-Behavior. He says he doesn't play RPGs much, he never played a Final Fantasy game before and never will because one game is definitely showing that all the previous games, and any coming ones, from the series will suck major balls.
    He even admits that he didn't finish the game, which is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you don't like a game, fine, I don't like my share of (generally well-liked) games myself. But you do not have the right to say the entire game is shit, when you haven't played the entire game. I can even understand XIII being a very derisive game to begin the Final Fantasy games with, it definitely has flaws. But what Angry Joe did was basically whine over how the game apparently wasn't action-y enough for him and took too long to start - it's called an RPG, Angry Joe, they tend to take their time to build up the world, characters and stories, so you know what you're getting into. That was one of the last nails I needed to stop watching Angry Joe entirely; that was way over the line for me, pal.
  • Raygunguy: In my opinon, Halo: ODST review was Angry Joe's Dethroning Moment. The first half of it is repeating the one compliant (it's too short for the price) over and over again. In fact, he admits that it's his ONLY problem with the game. Then, he tries to demonize Microsoft for not giving him a pre-release copy (despite having no reason to) and portrays them (via a straw man) trying to force him to give the game a positive review.
    What really sinks this though is the several extended sequences bashing reviews for liking the game despite him saying the price was the only problem. He treats his opinion like religious dogma and belittles people for not agreeing with him. This is not helped by the fact he goes straight into Fan Hater territory by more or less accusing the positive reviewers of being sell outs.
  • Dr Zulu 2010: Angry Joe can be hit or miss for me. But his rant about Nintendo getting ad revenue being outrageous is a huge miss for me. As someone else said about it above, Nintendo is in their own right to get a percentage in money for their own games and copyrights. Is it a bad business decision? Surely. But it's legally in their rights to do those things. And Angry Joe's response just makes him as greedy by removing his Mario Party 10 stream. It's not like you lose all your money; they take a bit of money of it. Also, haven't you heard about Nintendo's partner system? Before you open your mouth, learn to do the research.
    • Just Here To Comment: I agree wholeheartedly. Removing the video was an extreme overreaction to the fact that Nintendo will make money from the ad revenue. Regardless of whether Nintendo does make money from the ad revenue, he will still make money with all the people who watch his videos and who watch his past videos. It's very unlikely he will lose a large sum of money from having one video where the money is split. Also, the fact that him saying it's his last Nintendo video is not much of a threat since he has very rarely done any Nintendo videos in the past.
    • Bengson 26: Ditto on this entry. Joe acts as if Nintendo is taking all the money his Nintendo-related videos when in reality, they're taking, at best, a small percentage of the ad revenue. Never mind the fact he rarely uploads Nintendo-related videos (if we were to include his now-deleted streams of Mario Party 10 and Mario Kart 8, he has only made 4 Nintendo-related videos out of the 691 in total), it also makes him look really greedy. Joe, be lucky you didn't lose a loyal subscriber.
  • Vexer: For me it was Joe's review of Resident Evil: the Final Chapter, now I'm fine with him disliking a film that I personally enjoyed, what i'm NOT OK with is Joe saying that anyone who likes the film has "horrible taste", that's a really stupid thing to say that makes him Joe come off as very immature and intolerant of other people's opinion (at least when it comes to movies). I've noticed it's something of a habit with him lately, as he also did something similar in his Ghostbusters review(for both the game and the film), but this time it was especially glaring, hopefully Joe does not pull that crap again.
  • Who Needs A Mango: I used to be a huge fan of Angry Joe, but I've been alienated by his general reviewing attitude lately and this came to a head in his review of Mass Effect: Andromeda; if you can call it a review, it's so casual and skewed (other than Delrith trying to point out facts about the game for them to be quickly dismissed). It starts with an obnoxiously long gag, said gag being a joke that got old before the game even came out. Next comes Joe's overly harsh view on the game, making it clear he's not going to give it a chance due to his Nostalgia Filter - by claiming that Pathfinder Ryder can't hope to be 1/4 of the man or woman Commander Shepard was, despite both of them having staggering accomplishments that render such mean-spirited comparisons baffling. Or his example of "childish delivery" being one of Liam's lines - you know, the most divisive character in the game, just applied to the entire thing for some reason. Then he moved on to make Blatant Lies, like stating that Ryder can never take things seriously (shown to be entirely untrue in the first level of the game and onwards), despite the fact that if a player chooses too many casual options they will be called out on it. And lastly, his accusation of "Fallout 4 Syndrome", essentially stating that different conversation options or plot choices all amount to the same thing - and, big surprise, his chosen example was cherry-picked and heavily skewed in his favor. This travesty of a review made me not want to touch any of his material ever again.

     The Distressed Watcher 
  • Tari Silmarwen: What the hell was up with repeatedly calling Taylor Swift a bitch in the "Mine/Whip My Hair" review? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make about Taylor's music but he only mentioned two pretty common ones ("Mine" sounding like all her other songs, and not having much emotional depth to it) and spent the rest of her segment calling her a phony and making cracks about the video. It was very jarring, it wasn't funny, and it soured the mood for the rest of the review.
  • Baronobeefdip: While I'm indifferent towards The Distressed Watcher and I do admit to find his videos to be Guilty Pleasures, I did find one DMOS in one of his earlier "Trailer Failure" videos. Long story short, during his talk about the movie Legion, he pretty much stops talking about the movie itself (IE: The actors, the plot, the effects, etc.) to rant about religion for five straight minutes just because Legion is a movie with a religious theme (IE: God sending angels to wipe out humanity). Look, I'm an Atheist myself, but I don't complain like a crazed loon whenever something contains any sort of religious reference. It's like someone complaining that there's robots in a Terminator movie. Just... really? Really?
  • Ipdf3. Speaking of the Distressed Watcher, I find that his material had been decreasing in quality but it didn't truly get bad until "Lolita Covers". You'd expect DW to handle something as controversial as Lolita with his trademark anger and provocative analytic style, but no it's just a rather tepid "Hey look at these book covers. They're all different, isn't that mildly interesting?" It's just boring commentary about not very interesting things. Plus, his summary of Lolita made it sound like he'd never actually read the book but instead only read the first few lines off the back of the cover and then watched the movies. The book makes no attempt to condemn the actions of its protagonist? Maybe that's because the protagonist is also the narrator, of course he's not going to condemn himself. The opening of the book even makes it clear that Humbert Humbert has addressed his novel to the "ladies and gentleman of the jury." This kind of sloppy research and new commenting rather than reviewing style really doesn't work for DW and I hope he goes back to his old style soon.
  • stacey: His comment on how everyone who enjoyed Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen belongs in a death camp. Because that's really a sensible thing to say when there's Jewish people on a site you belong to and when the guy who got you on in the first place has it as a Guilty Pleasure. What an asshole.
  • emeriin: When he said in his The Phantom Menace review that he wanted Jake Lloyd to grow up to be a drug addict who has to blow people in order to get his next fix, as punishment for acting so badly in the film. I have no idea why anyone would want that, even if they meant it as a joke.
  • Donna: That open letter to Kevin Smith about Cop Out being worse than the death of his father. How on earth did he think that anyone would find that funny?
  • Jenx: While I generally don't watch most of DW's videos, I did watch his two part review of Dungeons & Dragons The Movie and my god was this bad. Not only did the first part consist of "Maaaan, does this seem racist to you? No ooookaaaay" which was kinda funny the first time and then it just became annoying the several other times he did it after that, or the badly delivered "get it rod = dick!" jokes. Let's not even talk about the insistence to sticking to the tired old stereotype that people who play RPGs are socially awkward dorks, or the fact that he obviously has close to no actual understanding of Dungeons & Dragons. I was almost willing to leave all that slide, until the second part. What pissed me off probably more than it should have was his slimy, ripe with cheap sarcasm "apology" for all the jokes I listed from the first part. I can not stand people who talk like that, regardless of what they are talking about. I've stopped watching all of his videos completely from that point onward.
  • Pannic: Also, someone who doesn't watch many of his videos. I did, however, watch his "top ten movie speeches," and it ended with an outlandishly pompous rant about how the movies aren't as intellectual as they used to be. Also in that video there was an annoying lack of research when he talked about the speech from Henry V, saying that aside from that, he wanted to keep it confined to speeches that were specifically from movies. The problem is that A Few Good Men was a play, too.
  • fluffything: His "History Of Vampires" had so much potential to inform viewers on how the vampire mythos has changed over the years throughout different forms of media. However, instead, the DW decides to just talk for several minutes on how "Vampires=Sex". It gets old and boring after a while. We get it, vampires are considered sexy. Now, tell us something else about the mythos, please.

     Marz Gurl 
  • bobdrantz: While I find her reviews for the The Land Before Time films to be poor for several reasons, it pales in comparison to what she says in her review for The Land Before Time X: The Great Longneck Migration. How so? Well, during the review, she points out a scene where an elderly Longneck gets severely injured, and she complains that the main heroes decide to help him instead of just leaving him behind. Mull that over for a moment; she actually suggested that a bunch of innocent children who are shown to be good moral people, erm, dinosaurs should just leave their new friend to die a horrible death. That's just disgusting.
  • fluffything: Speaking of The Land Before Time, her review of Day of the Flyer had a moment where I couldn't help but just sit there in utter shock and disgust. At one point in the film, Cera's baby step-sister Tricia accidentally falls into a river and nearly drowns. How does MarzGurl respond to this? She says, and I quote "Because she's dumb and a toddler like that". That's right, a movie shows a baby in grave danger and her response is to essentially call the infant "stupid." That's not how you react to an infant's drowning, fictional or otherwise.
  • Translation Terrors Power Rangers: This video is not a review, it's a blatant biased sentai purist rant on how every single thing about P.R is stupid and ZyuRanger is perfect because it's sentai. She insults the acting on the show. Because as we all know that sentai is a wealth of amazing acting talent. She implies Zack only dances to impress alpha 5 and can't actually fight. This is disproven in literally every single episode that Zack appears in (over 60) She calls out alpha 5 as being silly, because no sentai ever had silly characters. She speaks as if the plans used in ZyuRanger were all complex and well thought out and full of substance and power rangers just took out any kind of substance for action. ZyuRanger is ever bit as, and sometimes even more, silly as MMPR (falling from the Moon to Earth, anyone?) and MMPR did have serious/creative episodes and many times the monsters would play a part in the theme of the episode or would be used creatively in a different way than the sentai. She makes fun of the rangers having secret identities and having communicators that play the Power Rangers theme song, the sound is not their theme song and even if it was no one would know that is what it was, and wearing the same color as their ranger color and yet praises the ZyuRangers for walking around in modern times in clothes that look several hundred years out of date that, guess what? Match their ranger colors, showing her as a hypocrite. At the end of the video she spends over a minute complaining that PR's has a continuity, aka they aren't doing the same thing the sentai does so it's not as good... because. She calls PR Merchandise-Driven. EXACTLY what sentai is. Never once does she one speak of ZyuRanger with anything other than glowing praise, other than saying it MIGHT be over dramatic and kinda cheesy, and never mentions any of its flaws or the absolute non-logic of some of its characters. Burai saw Geki get taken as a child so he has no reason to want to kill him. Geki's "personality" is being loud. Bandora's son is killed by a T-rex when he tries to smash its eggs and she sells her soul and memories of her son to Satan to kill dinosaurs and avenge her son who she doesn't remember, so she started a war for no reason, and tries to harass children because she can't remember her son. And the fact that there are children of the week who have more personality than the ZyuRangers. I'd need a lot more space to point out everything wrong with the video so I'll wrap up. Everything in this video is either incorrect, biased, a thinly veiled excuse to say "it's not the sentai", a painful double standard in favor of the sentai, Critical Research Failure, desperately grasping for straws, or a flat out lie.
  • SenorCornholio: I only really watched her Land Before Time videos because I never felt like binge watching the entire franchise, but my god. After this debacle of a review series, I'd much rather watch "The Wisdom of Friends"! The first video had signs of this type of quality, what with her just praising the movie to high hell and her basically admitting she doesn't like any of the sequels afterwards (only citing "The Stone of Cold Fire" and "The Big Freeze" as the "least awful" ones later down the line). But what cemented my disapproval of this series was in her "Journey Through The Mists" review. It's at the part where Ichy and Dil are about to eat a sleeping Ducky, and the heroes are desperately trying to wake her up, culminating in Spike calling out Ducky's name to wake her up and save her. How does Marz Gurl react to this? Basically saying something along the lines of "making Spike talk is a sin, way to ruin the movie for me" or something like that. Just no, Marzy; Spike is an infant and, at the time of the scene in question, desperately trying to wake Ducky up and resulting in him saying his very first word which ended up saving his adoptive older sister's life. I remember as a kid, I was actually cheering for Spike at that point, even though I never watched the original movie before then, and seeing this person act like a spoiled baby about this moment was just plain bad. It's pretty much the same argument you could make for Sonic's green eyes or blue arms, except in this case it's a great character moment being criticized instead of a minor design change.

     The Nostalgia Chick 
  • emeriin: For The Nostalgia Chick, I can understand why anyone would be upset at her now taken-down video "Rapping about Rape". Unlike her other dark humor, there really wasn't much effort put into it so it was ridiculously unfunny and her reaction of apologizing not for the content but for the fact that it was put up too soon, didn't really help. This ended up being an Old Shame of hers later.
  • stacey: I hope this doesn't come off as too sensitive, but I was really bothered by her "autistic temper tantrum" joke in the Enchanted Christmas review. Like the Critic's, why was it needed? Even more bothersome was while people were angry with her, it was just swept under the rug and never mentioned again while Critic and his brother apologized eventually.
  • SHAXlhzer: For me, it was The Nostalgia Chick's Transformers review. Now, before you start throwing accusations of sexism at me, hear me out. She didn't seem to have any knowledge of the movie you couldn't get from the Michael Bay movies. The first half is just her showing some half-assed recap of the G1 cartoon (With a meh-ish cameo by Doug himself) and the rest of it is just her making unfunny jokes and saying "I don't know what's going on" and "Yeaaaaah" (which are justifiable, but if you're going to review something, at least have some prior knowledge of the damn thing). All culminating in an unfunny Take That! at Michael Bay.
  • bobdrantz: Her "Disney vs. Dreamworks" \ videos in which she states that Shrek was created due to Dreamworks' hatred of Disney. It's a blatant fuck-up in terms of research for this reason: while Shrek does contain some jabs at Disney, the movie in and of itself is mainly an Affectionate Parody of classic fairytales (as are the sequels).
  • Eegah: For me, it was the appearance of Douchey McNitpick in her review of The Fifth Element. It's fine if Lindsay wanted to defend her use of the term MacGuffin, but she really didn't need to paint all the complainers as a bunch of trolls for thinking Hitchcock was a better authority on the term than George Lucas (having, you know, invented it and all).
  • nerdrager: I love the Chick, but holy shit was her review of The Last Unicorn bad. It was half-assed, the other girl wasn't as funny as Nella or Elisa, she obviously didn't have much to say (she even said herself that she hadn't watched it in a while) and even though I usually enjoy her demonstrative approach to reviewing, there was no point to just walking around a forest obviously out of breath. Plus the ending: "Oh I found my bowtie." That's it? Poor showing, Lindsay.
  • fluffything: While her Top 10 Songs About F*cking (In Musicals) was pretty bad to begin with, the real DMOS I had with it was when she talked about The Rocky Horror Picture Show. First of all, it starts off with "Sweet Transvestite", so you'd think that would be her #8 choice, right? Nope. Instead it switches halfway through to "Touch-a Touch-a Touch Me". Ok, then why bother having "Sweet Transvestite" playing for over half of the segment if that's not even the song of choice? Second, she barely covers her actual choice at all and pretty much just glances over it without going over the whole point of the song or its importance to the storyline. And, finally, and worst of all, she calls the plot a "tragic tale about a child molester played by Tim Curry". No, just... dear sweet Riff Raff, no. Dr. Frank N. Furter is NOT a "child molester" by any stretch of the imagination. As a Rocky Horror fan, I'm thoroughly disgusted at this.
  • Scotie Rw: In her Loose Cannon of The Wicked Witch of the West she talked briefly about what witchcraft was, and basically said women who did anything other than be submissive to men were accused of being witches. Yeah, no. Witchcraft was gender neutral. Men were accused of witchcraft and killed for it all the time.

     Todd In The Shadows 
  • bobdrantz: Normally, I like Todd in the Shadows. I find his reviews to be pretty enjoyable. And, even though I disagree with some of his opinions, I usually can respect them. But, his two-part review of Katy Perry's "Firework" and Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" just left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It sounded more like he was bashing the songs for being "inspirational" rather than the music content themselves. And, even going so far as to say that Katy Perry would be too arrogant to understand what it's like to be an "outcast". Look, I'm not a big fan of Katy Perry, but, I'm sure even SHE would know what it's like to have self-esteem issues. Being famous does not make one any more or less vulnerable to low self-esteem than anyone else. He also makes it sound like inspirational songs are only for teenage girls with image issues. Because, ya know it's not like there are people of all demographics who have felt awful about themselves in one way or another. No, clearly these songs are only for teen girls who think they're too fat.
  • Mosquito Man: I took Todd's perspective on the songs in a different light than the above, but there's a part where Todd shows a picture of a guy with weird hair and says he needs to die. Todd considers that man a mistake on the part of God, and an example of one of the "mistakes God makes all the time". Given how Todd acts in the commentaries, it was probably all meant as a joke, but I found it DMOS-worthy to say what amounts to, "God makes mistakes all the time, like this guy here, this guy needs to die".
  • fluffything: I happen to be a fan of Todd in the Shadows as well, but even I couldn't sit through the entire review for Bruno Mars' "Lazy Song". The main reason being that he spends several minutes complaining about what he calls "White boys playing acoustic guitar" songs and stating that people only write/sing "mellow" songs to "get laid". Listen, Todd, I like your videos, I find them to be entertaining. But, I want to know what you think of whatever specific hit single is out on the pop charts, not hear you whine about some genre you happen to dislike. Second, um, isn't "getting laid" one of the reasons why a lot of people write/sing songs for pretty much any genre?
  • Mimimurlough: His treatment of Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" was bad, but to date nothing can really top the double standard he put on "Born This Way". After years of reviewing artists who rubs their very (and sometimes aggressively) heterosexual desires in our faces, he looks at what is possibly the first mainstream song that is dedicated to LGBT people and calls it pandering? Apparently not even members of the community can acknowledge that it even exists in their works without getting berated for it.
  • theenglishman: Putting "Sorry" on the honorable mentions of his Worst of 2015 list, a song Todd admits he even kind of likes, just so he can laugh at Justin Bieber and call him a Jerkass. So what if he had it coming? This isn't who Todd is - he's always been about insulting the bad music first, and the bad musicians second. Even with Chris Brown, he would always contextualize his anger toward Brown about "the incident" around one of his genuinely terrible songs. You've made plenty of jokes at Bieber's expense without context before, Todd; you don't need to add a Bieber song you don't genuinely hate to a worst-of list just to make fun of him. Admittedly, as of March 2016, Todd has changed his opinion to say he genuinely hates the song now, but that doesn't change his thought process at the time.
  • Indy Revolution: Mine isn't very serious compared to the others, but I still want to list it. Todd has made legitimate complaints about Ariana Grande's forced sexiness in her songs before. However, he liked "Love Me Harder" for being legitimately sexy. Now, he could have been subtle or amusing about his like for it, but instead, he outright says, "Yeah, this... works... for me. What? I get to be creepy sometimes too." Ignoring the fact that he's her senior by quite a few years, it comes off as weird anyways. Come one, Todd, none of us wanted to hear that.
  • Vexer: Ok my initial DMOS for Todd was placing the song "Why" on his worst of 2004 list. While that was bad, I found an even worse DMOS in Todd's Best songs of 2016 list-Putting "Closer" at #1. Now let me be clear: that in itself is not the problem, if Todd legitimately thought it was a great song it would be fine. But the fact is that he has criticized the song before (In his Pop Song Review and on the worst of 2016 list) and while he said he didn't hate it, he didn't sound anywhere near positive enough about the song to give any real indication that it would end up anywhere on his Best list, much less get #1, the song should've been an honorable mention at best. Todd's reason for putting it on the list? Because it's a song about being young and he liked the subject matter, which is an unbelievably half-assed reason, and it's made worse by Todd doing a fake-out by calling "Closer" mediocre and acting like he's going to pick "Roses" instead, which makes him come off as trying way too hard to be clever. Because of all those reasons I had to downvote part 2 of the list.

    Others 
  • distantsun: LordKaT's comment about Terry Pratchett's "brain degenerating into mush" in his 10 Hardest Adventure Games video, in light of Pratchett's diagnosis with Alzheimer's, was at best an astoundingly bad accidental choice of words and at worst an unfunny, offensive attempt at a joke. I know a lot of LK's humor is on the dark, controversial side, and usually I can appreciate it, but this seriously crossed a line for the sake of an offhand comment that wasn't even particularly amusing even if you're not offended by it.
  • troxe: For me it's "Batman & Robin in 5 seconds". Unlike the other 5 seconds movies this one is just gross and pointless.
    • Catmuto: For me, the Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII In 5 Seconds was horrible. It was not funny, it was not even a take on a legitimate problem in the game. No, they made it seem like Lightning Returns is only about the money and picked a completely-out-of-context line, that didn't even have anything to do with money in an sense of association. It felt like they hadn't even played the game, just the introduction for that one line and decided "Eh, good enough for us".
  • Shadoboy: In my opinion, Video Game Confessions: Duke Nukem. Doug already made clear in Bum Reviews why he disliked Avatar, fair enough. Then as the Nostalgia Critic he made a throw-away joke reminding us why he disliked it. Pointless, but not bad. But then comes this. Was it really necessary to have an episode of Video Game confessions that was only a several minutes long joke with the punchline being "By the way, I didn't like Avatar" and worse, explaining everything again?
  • Sick Brit Kid: While I normally like Benzaie and his charming, snarky French attitude, his video "TOP 5: Why Zelda Twilight Princess SUCKS" was just downright stupid (it was nothing but petty nitpicks that were used against the game a full five years ago when it came out), ignorant (really, Benzaie? You're gonna rail against Twilight Princess for having items that aren't used outside of the dungeons you acquire them in... Even though that showed up in Ocarina of Time, which you shill on endlessly? Or you're gonna bitch about the final item being another Clawshot and how much that sucks... despite the longshot from Ocarina of Time basically just being a longer hookshot? Oh, and you're also gonna rail on the game's graphics, completely ignoring the fact that it was made for the Nintendo GameCube and then ported to the Wii?), and just came off like he was trying to bait fans of Twilight Princess into flaming him and get a whole bunch of views by either the TP fans who came to debate and/or flame him and the TP haters who came to defend his points of view. All in all, it was one of the worst game reviews since X-Play's Your Childhood Sucked: Final Fantasy 7.
  • Plasma: The entire Santa-Christ section of the six-part film, Kickassia, was complete rubbish! Aside from having about 3 jokes in the 15 minutes of time dedicated to him, it was also used as an excuse for a very over-extended sequence of cameos just saying "I believe in Santa-Christ" culminating in a very predictable parody of those kind of things. And then he just comes back anyway, for no reason (enforcing Status Quo Is God in the process) and acts as a blatant Deus ex Machina.
  • fluffything: While Suburban Knights has been pretty middle-ground in terms of entertainment (some parts are genuinely funny where as others are, well, not), I find the scene with the mother complaining her kid can't play on the playground while Spoony's team is battling to be one of the most poorly-written scenes in the special so far. The woman playing the mother is a terrible actress, the gag feels forced and unfunny, and there's really no reason for it to happen other than for some poorly-written gag to occur. Also, the girl playing the woman's daughter is a horrible actress. She just keeps smiling and giggling for no reason at all and it's very distracting.
  • Kenya Starflight: Overall I found To Boldly Flee to be the weakest of the crossover specials, but for me the DMOS comes when The Cinema Snob gets abducted by the Executor... and we're suddenly treated to scenes that are pretty much just scenes from Revenge of the Sith with names swapped out. If the scenes had been a parody I wouldn't have minded, but when they don't even bother rewriting the script of those scenes beyond substituting Snob for Anakin, the Executor for the Emperor, and swapping out some details, it smacks of laziness. This is especially grating when more than one of the GWTG team has mocked Seltzer and Friedberg for doing the exact same thing.
  • The JJBL: Chalk another one in for To Boldly Flee, just Film Brain's whole "heartfelt" speech about how his country has contributed nothing to comedy except for men wearing lady's clothing. It was just dumb on so many levels, ignoring so many good comical things to come out of Britain and just ignoring the reputation British humour has of being more biting and complex than American humour. I understand Self-Deprecation and laughing at oneself but whoever wrote that speech really needs to get out of whatever rock they've been hiding under for the last 70 years.
  • fluffything: Normally, I like What the Fuck Is Wrong with You? and I find Nash (and Tara) to be pretty funny. But, good gods of bacon do I have a problem with the ending of the Regret At Leisure episode. Three words: Arlo's Pony Paradise. This isn't a good-natured joke at the series itself. No, it's a mean-spirited Take That! towards the fandom. It basically boils down to "Bronies (and Pegasisters) are stupid for taking a cartoon geared towards little girls seriously!". And, yes, that is Nash's actual opinion on the fandom. Look, if you don't like a show, fine. But being a total dick towards a fandom you don't like. Just because they like to discuss the mythos and everything in a serious and mature discussion doesn't make them stupid.
  • So We Ate Them: Phelous' review of A Serbian Film. It's essentially ten straight minutes of him saying the film sucks and is disgusting. He admitted that he'd done little to no preparation for the review, (justifying it in that the film sucks) and that he was resorting to overused jokes. He obviously did little to no research beyond a Wikipedia page he waved at the camera just to convince us he did research, nor did he take any notes over the course of the one time he watched the movie, as nobody (not even the director) besides Milos is referred to even once as something other than a variant of "sick fuck." Look. I know A Serbian Film is one of the greatest tests of wills this side of Rectified Anonymity, but for Pete's sake, If you're going to do a gag review, do a gag review, and if you're going to do a proper review, carry out the usual procedures, take the notes, and for the love of God, don't half-ass it, regardless of your opinion on the film.
    • vexer: That review was pretty bad, but for me his review of Turtles Forever was worse because of how whiny and obnoxious he was throughout and how much he resorted to using the same jokes over and over(which ironically he was criticizing the special for doing) and overall taking the film far too seriously in how it poked fun at the 1987 Turtles. Granted it's nice to know he doesn't hate the film as much as now since he's actually seen and liked 2003 series, but it's still a pretty bad review nonetheless.
    • Cabbit Girl Emi: For a few years, Phelous has been one of my favorite reviewers, but I am disappointed in him over his review of Noel. Because The Mysterious Mr. Enternote  has showered this special with praise, I decided to take a look at it and I really like it. Eventually, we get Phelous' review, and I just... I can't. What really does it is when he makes a joke about Noel having an orgasm from the girl kissing him. If you know about Mr. Enter, who is openly disgusted at sexual content, can you imagine his reaction to that moment? Phelous might not know, but he should think twice before whizzing all over someone's childhood like that.
  • InTheGallbladder: Brows Held High gave a great review of Vase de Noces, but there's one part I don't like about it: The closing cameo bit. It felt like an attempt to advertise the two cameos (particularly when the host name-drops the urls to both their websites in the dialogue), didn't contribute anything to the review proper, and beyond that, it's just another Take That! to the concept of "reviewer dibs," on which several members of site had already made their views clear.
  • Xeno 42: Brows Held High did a good job in general with the Shakespeare month, but saying Taming of the Shrew was "an MRA fight song" in the 10 Things I Hate About You review was a really pathetic jab that shows he has clearly never looked into the movement beyond reading Tumblr blogs (I'd say it's a joke but it just relies too heavy on a negative stereotype to seem humorous).
  • GGGG: Weekly Manga Recap from the 4th of September 2012, previously titled "Tobi is Obito!" This was just after the non-legal scans hit the web and the massive title was spread across the TGWTG banner in huge lettering, meaning anybody who followed the Naruto manga legally (from Shonen Jump, etc.) or was following the anime had the big reveal spoiled. They were nice enough to change it later to "Tobi is...!" It felt like they were punishing the Naruto fandom who wanted to receive the story in a legitimate way.
  • dsneybuf: Paw Dugan's review of South Pacific feels like the most disappointing episode of Music Movies I ever saw. As soon as I saw the runtime total only about 13 minutes, I feared that he wouldn't do one of my favorite Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals justice. Indeed, he skipped nine songs. Some of these not only sounded nice, but they also represented major plot points, such as love blooming between the Beta Couple. He didn't even discuss the changes made to the script, or say whether he prefers the longer or shorter cut of the movie. As for the songs he did discuss, he didn't put each of them into proper context. This could make the review seem confusing. I feel sorry for people who used this seemingly rushed video as their primer to South Pacific.
  • Keshkable: I know Channel Awesome has fallen in quality this past year, but my moment comes from Brad (of all people) Jones' Midnight Screening of Jurassic World. It starts out of all right with Brad and Sarah talking about how they didn't like the film, and Julian saying it wasn't a great film but still enjoyable; the moment comes when Brad and Sarah claims that Chris Pratt's character and the screenwriters are misogynist/sexist and hate women because of how Pratt said one line. Now it's a stretch, but I could understand if they left it as the character being sexist or even the director for not having Pratt say the line again, but their claim that the screenwriters hate women because of how poorly Chris said his lines is flat out inexcusable and sounds like something that you'd find on Buzzfeed (which actually did write an article on how the same movie was sexist right before this midnight screenings came out), it didn't feel like anything they would have usually say and if they didn't like the movie just say so, don't make up stuff about the creators being an "ism" or "they hate ______ people". Seriously Brad, usually the reason why people hate Channel Awesome producers and click bait sites (like you and your shows) is because you don't go into pointless rants about unrelated issues (especially not identity politics) in the middle of your videos.
  • Dr Zulu 2010: I like Brad Jones's material but his video response/parody of James Rolfe's "No Review, I Refuse" seems like a mean jab to someone's opinion. Basically, James refused to see the Ghostbusters reboot after the negative reception of the trailers. Seems like a honest and relatable opinion. So what Brad is doing with that? Making fun of him by taking a fictional movie title as the reboot's subjugate. What makes it bad is that Brad's angriest videos as the Cinema Snob and as himself were about the dumbest decisions Hollywood did and here he is mocking someone for not watching what can be seen as a dumb decision by Hollywood. This video makes me lose a lot of respect towards Brad.
  • Invader Weezle: Oh, Chris Stuckmann, it's a shame that I want to leave an entry for this guy. I've always considered him to be my favorite movie reviewer on YouTube, being in that perfect middle ground where he's just a regular guy enjoying movies but then also trying to gain a greater understanding for the medium. But at some point it feels like he's changed to where he has acts more superior to others than he did before, and that's especially apparent in his Analyzed review of Rogue One. First off, he had already done two reviews of Rogue One, plus he co-starred in Nostalgia Critic's review where, despite following a script meant for comedy, he still presents his same unironic opinions that he presented in his reviews. Since these three videos all came out in December 2016 right around when the movie came out and the Analyzed review came out three months later, it would be fine if he had significantly changed his opinions or had some new perspective on the film, but he doesn't. His opinions are exactly the same as the three other videos he shared them in, and his perspectives are the same as any other think piece criticizing Rogue One. But this isn't about his opinions on the movie, this is about his attitude in his Analyzed video. This video served no purpose but to call out the fans on liking the movie. The way he presented his criticisms in his other reviews was in a reasonably respectable "I felt like these things were weak, I thought these things didn't work, etc." attitude. But in the Analyzed review, his tone is incredibly condescending and passive aggressive to fans of the film, in a more "Stop defending this thing, I'm going to tell you why you're wrong" attitude. He paraphrases common defenses for the film in an indisputably mocking tone, and he blatantly says that you would only really like Rogue One if you're simple-minded when it comes to Star Wars and you don't appreciate the "deep" aspects like he does. Which leads into the absolute worst part of this video: everything to do with his "Phantom Menacing" term, which he says is when people are in denial that a movie disappointed them. He's mentioned Phantom Menacing before, but I brushed it off at the time because I won't pretend it doesn't sometimes happen where your own hype can get you to enjoy something a lot more on the first experience than you will in subsequent times. In this video however, it really pissed me off because he's using this to belittle fans of things he doesn't like. He boldly asks "Are people Phantom Menacing Rogue One?" It's like he can't accept that he's in the minority opinion on something, so he just assumes that everyone else is in denial and he's the correct one in all of this, and eventually everyone will come to their senses and agree with him. And combined with his aforementioned comment about how you would only like Rogue One if all Star Wars is to you is "Lol Excitement Action Visuals Fighting Explosions!", it's pretty clear that he doesn't think highly of the intelligence of Rogue One fans. For that matter, this whole Phantom Menacing thing is insulting to Phantom Menace fans. Chris acts like everyone came to their senses and decided Phantom Menace is bad, and there certainly were fans that changed their mind on the movie, but the movie still to this day has plenty of fans who unironically like and defend it. Are they just still in denial after 18 years? Attitudes like Chris's do nothing but try to discredit perspectives. Another Troper included Doug Walker's Disneycember video on The Phantom Menace on this page for how Doug acts like fans are in denial and are too dumb to realize the movie is bad, and it's the same thing with Chris's video. Just an all-around insulting video that served no purpose but to tell people how dumb they are and how them praising something upsets him, and Chris should probably check his ego.
  • Pgj1997: I find Top 5 a rather enjoyable and welcome addition to the Channel Awesome team. It's basically WatchMojo if they had actual charm. However, I find "Top 5 Worst Super Smash Bros. Stages" incredibly lazy. All it is is Walter and his cousin playing a few rounds of Smash on different stages while giving no constructive criticism on any of the entries. And even that isn't entertaining. Doing live commentary over gameplay footage isn't entertaining if you talk under your breath for most of it. It barely even qualifies as an actual list, and I seriously question why he thought a poor Let's Play disguised as a countdown was a good idea.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DethroningMoment/ThatGuyWithTheGlasses