Will someone explain to me the legal terms of the Distressed Watcher review "Alejandro?" To paraphrase the Critic on his Nostalgia Chick Contest: "Now your videos have to be between 5-8 minutes long. You can't just play an entire movie and talk over it or stuff like that. Anything else is protected under Fair-Use." While the video is only 4.5 minutes long, it is the entire length music video and two guys riffing on it. Wouldn't it be in violation of Fair-Use?
Well his Trailer Failure is pretty much the same and nobody complained.
Trailer Failure comprised of brief clips of the trailer intercut with video of him critiquing it. Alejandro, on the other hand, played an entire music video with a voice over. How is that different from what the Critic warned against in the video linked to above?
I don't think that the Critic was listing legal requirements (his own videos can get upward of 25 minutes) I think he was just giving the requirements of his contest. He didn't want anything too short or too long, and he wanted the series to reflect his own show but with a female host, so they had to appear on camera. I'm not totally sure about what constitutes fair use, but I think review and criticism are included with satire in being protected.
Why would The Distressed Watcher want to have a beer with Skeletor? He seems awfully cranky; I think he would probably spend most of the outing complaining of the quality of the beer. Now Freddy Krueger, on the other hand—there's somebody I'd like to hang out with! I'd've understood if he'd said Freddy. That's a fun guy. What's so fun about Skeletor's personality?
The Distressed Watcher himself is a pretty cranky guy. Maybe he feels like they are kindred spirits who could bond over finding stuff to complain about and generally ripping on everything, including each other?
Also, Freddy Kruger could only hang out in your dreams, and that would get in the way of The Distressed Watcher dreaming about butts and bacon.