What song plays during the end credits of the final episode (y'know, the one where he reviews this)? I can't catch enough of the lyrics to find the name online, and sound hound doesn't recognize it. Is it a song he made up for this episode?
In his review of The Wiz, he complains that it is unrealistic to have a tornado in New York, and also that Glinda has such a small role, despite the fact that the movie does explain both at the same time: Glinda is the one who creates the tornado in the begining. Not only did he conviently overlook this scene, he actually used the clip of Glinda creating the damn tornado towards the end of the review. What the hell?
Because a tornado's ability to survive as an existing funnel cloud like that, leaving out Do Not Touch the Funnel Cloud, is highly improbable in a dense, urban setting like New York.
That's sort of correct. More like the New England region isn't exactly known for usually having the kind of weather conducive to Supercells and/or Tornadoes. It's a common myth that Tornadoes don't attack areas like New York because they are dense urban areas when in reality they are just as vulnerable. Just ask Miami or Salt Lake City.
On the promo artwork thingy for Garbage Pail Kids, it says Garbage Pail Kids - The Complete Series. Wait, what? If its a series, why are they reviewing the movie? And why does there exist a series? Did they change it to the movie and then forget to change the graphic?
I'm guessing that part of the image was hastily copied from a DVD cover of the animated series. Here's the interesting thing though, it was pulled from airing in the United States. Completely. Sadly other countries weren't so lucky.
Not that I'm defending the movie, by why didn't the Critic infer that the Garbage Pail Kids came from the garbage pan floating in space earlier in the movie?
Because frankly, would you, or anyone else care? Besides, that makes even less sense. Just think about it.
In the Critic's Tom and Jerry: The Movie review, he makes a giant deal out of the two talking (and this was before they started singing). So, why is it he undermines the impact by showing a clip of Tom "Don't you believe it" line at the end of the review? He's pretty much making himself a liar by showing that the two have spoken in animated shorts prior to the movie!
Ah, but that only counts as a one-liner. The movie just said, "Fuck it. Let's have them talk. Who CARES that they're usually known to be silent, with a few one-liners in very few cartoons?"
Plus, he says that Tom & Jerry had "little to no voice actors" originally, so he's probably well aware of what he said.
Incidentally, Tom and Jerry both talk for almost the entire episode in "The Lonesome Mouse", which was made in 1943.
The "Don't You Believe It!" line is sampled from radio broadcasts to American G.I.s during World War II; while they couldn't stop the Japanese from broadcasting propaganda, they could follow their show immediately with a rebuttal. Much like the "Is this trip really necessary?" jokes from Woody Woodpecker cartoons, the joke was dated and meaningless only a few years after the cartoon was originally made, but at the time it was probably frickin' hilarious. Regardless, it wasn't really dialogue.
This has bugged me for a while... Why does the Nostalgia Critic say that The Wizard was Nintendo's biggest flop since the Virtual Boy? That wasn't out until 1995 (The Wizard came out in 1989).
Slip of the tongue. Doug does that from time to time.
When people use the "this is the X-est X since Y" trope they don't generally mean "since" in a literal, chronological sense, but more in the vein of "apart from".
This is really just a trifle, but I was bothered by the fact that the series he's got going is called "Old vs. New," but the new person is on the left while the old person is on the right, making it look like "New vs. Old."
vs. is a commutative operand, so it's all fine.
Santa Christ's first appearance. He cures NC's diabetes, and regularly reads to sick orphans. Couldn't he cure them as well?
"Holiday Clusterfuck" is an awesome, hilarious song. However, it's a song about Thanksgiving, Halloween, and Christmas, yes? So we get the line, "Seeing your in-laws three times is too much!" Er. Do many people visit their in-laws for Halloween?
Thanksgiving and Christmas tip the scale two to three. It's mostly about how there's big popular holidays every month, meaning planning and decorating and meeting people gets crazy.
Many couples with children will take them to their parents' neighborhoods for more candy.
When I was a child, my grandparents came over to help with the trick-or-treating.
I know it's Rule of Funny but seriously, why is Old!Critic always completely blonde when he has brown hair now?
Isn't that supposed to be grey or greying hair? He's impersonating Doc Brown from Back to the Future in the The Room review when it was on the site.
The bigger question is why Old!Critic has so much hair. It's kind of obvious that he's going bald.
Considering Old!Critic is clearly wearing a wig, the answer is obvious.
Could be that Old!Critic, being a genius who invented time travel, also invested in some hairplugs or perfected the art of transplanting hair.
If he listed Sailor Moon's transformation in the Top 11 hottest animated women to be one of his favorites, why does he end up looking REALLY bored during said transformation instead of staring in bliss like he did in the Barb Wire opening?
He was acting out how he thought the Sailor Moon enemies would react to the two minute or more transformation sequence before the fight.
Big Lipped Alligator moments are completely bizarre and have no place in the movie whatsoever (a sudden musical number or a Disney Acid Sequence). Pointless moments make sense in context but just don't add anything to the movie or forward the plot (usually cases of crowbarred-in attempts at Character Development or times when the director decided to Leave the Camera Running).
Luke and Phelous blew up with Canada in "Your An Old Dirty Bastard". Wouldn't their lives be then worse?! Also, doesn't President Vargas seem a little too trigger happy for America to be safe. I know thats the joke, but there literally has to be someone in the world who is worse off. Also theres a name that kept coming to my toungue during this: Rob!
I'm guessing that without the Critic to give him money, Chester was forced to pull his life together and became a millionaire businessman.
For that matter, why would Spoony be a non-gamer who reviews only family films? I know, I know, Rule of Funny—but at least the other Critic-Free lives made some sort of sense, given their respective character traits. Wouldn't it have been more logical for Spoony to become a combination of the Nostalgic Critic and The Happy Video Game Nerd? (At least this version of Spoony still seemed to be rather mentally unhinged....)
That bugged me, but for a different reason—supposedly, we were being shown a world without the Nostalgia Critic, not without Doug. Spoony can't be the Critic because then the world's got the Nostalgia Critic in it. In fact, if Spoony is the Critic, why is there no TGWTG.com? The same "YouTube being bitchy about copyrighted material" issue still would've come up, which would likely have resulted in the contributors we saw joining anyway.
The world is without the Nostalgia Critic as we know and recognize him, not necessarily without a person or entity that at any point for whatever reason chose to name him-or-herself 'the Nostalgia Critic'; after all, if we applied that logic to the original movie, there could never have been anyone ever called "George Bailey". We're also viewing them as in-universe characters; maybe in-universe Spoony secretly desires to be the Nostalgia Critic and happily review family films, and the fact that he can't is what fuels his angry reviews of video games instead? As for why Spoony's not doing video games, he has done movie reviews from time to time, so it's not unheard of.
Their lives wouldn't be worse because they'd be dead. They don't have a life. Not having a literal life is different from having a bad life.
In the Tank Girl review, he said he'd never read the comic, yet later on he holds up a copy of it. Did he just have it on hand but never read it? Borrow it from Linkara just for that gag?
You can still own a 90 minute DVD and not get round to watching it.
I assumed he borrowed it from someone who had read it and never bothered to read it himself. It's not like the movie would've given him any inclination to read it.
Tank Girl is prominent enough that large libraries would have it. Probably be pretty easy to get hold of a copy, even if he only planned on holding it up as a prop.
Because he's Santa Christ — he's too pure to actually swear. He just makes a swear-censor bleep noise. How can he do it so well? Because he's ***ing Santa Christ.
In the Inspector Gadget review, he says that they leave Penny behind for the climax. When I saw the flick on Cartoon Network a few weeks ago I saw her take out a guard by making him think over his life as a goon after sneaking in the factory and joining her uncle in the finale. Why would he skim that detail?
... because he didn't feel like mentioning it?
I figured that was a reference to the fact that her part was reduced so much in that movie. As he mentioned before Penny was basically the real main character in the cartoon and instead the movie was about Gadget, his love interest, an annoying talking car, and a guy who was supposed to be Claw. Since he covered most of the major plot issues and points of the movie you can see how easy it is to overlook Penny's (almost nonexistent) role.
I really liked You're a Dirty Rotten Bastard; what bugs me is the commentary. Doug says he wasn't aware that It's a Wonderful Life had been homaged or parodied before. Considering how often it's been done, I find it rather improbable that he'd never even seen one spoof.
He said he'd never seen people's life made worse before. This happens all the time in modern day kids shows, which Doug doesn't watch. I think.
Correction: He said he'd never seen a spoof where the person's non-existence made everyone else's life better. It might just be a case of not having watched the right shows; not every show does It's A Wonderful Life spoof, and those that do probably did it in a different way.
There are two examples I can think of off the top of my head: the finale of Dallas and a Christmas episode of Married... with Children. Neither really seems like the Nostalgia Critic's cup of tea.
I can think of another: A Bit of Fry and Laurie did a sketch based on that, and a satire based on Rupert Murdoch. He likes British comedy.
Other than just wanting three-dimensional characters, has he ever said why he hates bullies so much? I agree that they're usually one-note, but knowing what kinda person Critic is and hearing how much his school-life blew, you'd think he'd accept that "nerdy creator wants to take vengeance against his former bullies" mentality.
Mainly because most of the time bully characters in movies and stuff are just so poorly written. They usually appear as this roaming pack of vandals who never do anything and for some reason their only hobby seems to be tormenting this one person for giggles, and most of the time they are never punished for it.
The "never punished" part is probably the big sticking point for Doug. Anyone who's done even a little research on bullying knows that it can get really bad, but movie bullies get away with way too much. For instance, in a movie you might see a bully walk up to a smaller kid and just start pounding him into the ground, and NEVER be punished for it. No detention, no trip to the office, nothing. In real life if a bully did that at the very least he would be dragged straight to the office immediately. It's like Hollywood thinks all teachers in America are completely blind.
And because the way you worded it seemed like you wanted an in-character reason, maybe he's good at compartmentalizing? It's really the only reason I can come up with, and I wouldn't put it past him.
Actually, he said in his "IT" commentary that he knows the bullies are going to get punished, which is part of what bores him. It also bothers him that they never smile or look they're having fun when they bully somebody. Why bully somebody if you're not going to at least laugh? That's why he prefers the bullies Jack Black plays.
I was bullied in school, but can't stand when writers seem to be "getting back" at the people who bullied them as a kid. It just comes across as petty and childish. Just because the Critic might have been a nerd doesn't mean he automatically sympathizes with them.
I also was bullied in school, but rarely did it seem like the bullies ever wanted to do more than just beat on me a bit. They weren't angry, they weren't trying to kill me, and if they had taken it too far and seriously hurt me, they would have been scared and remorseful. Bullies in movies tend to be sociopaths who bully because they hate and have zero capacity for remorse.
In the Cop and a Half review, well... I don't know much about Chicago's police department, but would they really beat a small child bloody to get information out of him? Was he just going for dark humor there?
His main point was that no police department would let a child be a police officer because it was too dangerous. And yep, Black Comedy.
Speaking of Cop and a half, how come the Critic didn't make any remark about the Unfortunate Implications about Devon, a black kid, being the only one to get in trouble for being in a conflict with two white bullies?
Because that is a common trope about bullies and victims (sometimes happens IRL unfortunately) and had literally nothing to do with race at all.
For a kid that annoying, they'd definitely consider it.
How come when a character in a movie says a word or name in a weird way, Critic spends the rest of the review saying that same word/name in the same weird way? "Food" in Waterworld, "Dark Heart" in Care Bears, and "Devon" in Cop and a Half. Other than M. Bison, doesn't the Critic usually try to avoid repeating jokes nowadays? I mean, he doesn't say the word outside the review, but it's still the same joke though.
Because it's a joke.
Running gags within a video are different beasts from cross-video running gags.
In his Mortal Kombat review, at one point he goes "Oh Shinnok! I mean, oh Jesus!" Yet in the rest of his reviews of the Mortal Kombat movies, he clearly shows ignorance of the series - he doesn't recognise Cyrax or Baraka, he doesn't catch the glaring contradictions in the plot, and he gets confused about the difference between the original Sub-Zero and his brother. If he knows about an obscure character in the series, why doesn't he know about other, more well-known characters and plot points?
Most likely for a joke similar to his confusion on the Super Mario Bros Movie. He and Rob have stated they do know Mortal Kombat, but the movies make no attempt to let anyone who doesn't know the franchise become familiar with its characters, which didn't sit well for them.
In the Quest for Camelot review he rags on the movie for never explaining how the various supernatural items/events/beings came about, shouting, "Explain, movie! EXPLAIN!" Yet at the end of the review he expresses a liking for Mary Poppins, a movie whose supernatural elements are even more nonsensical.
That could be in part due to the fact that Quest For Camelot takes place in the Camelot mythology, which already has established rules and such. Since Mary Poppins took place in its own universe instead of an already created one, it's less harmful. It's like the Camelot mythology is a series of books and Quest For Camelot is a bad fanfic. Whereas Mary Poppins is just one thing.
Also, for what it's worth, he does end up snapping at Mary Poppins for not explaining anything. Though it was partially due to a last straw kind of situation.
What's that song that plays during The Avengers (1998) review as they're walking in those giant floating hamster wheels like Wayne Coyne or something? It's got to be from some seventies series, but which?
How come he calls the Mexican stereotyped mice from the animated Titanic movie racist but just calls the Italian stereotyped Mario and Luigi stereotypical?
Because Latino is a race. Italian is an ethnicity and therefore would be prejudice but not exactly racism.
Actually, that's a common misconception. You can be part of a "race" and be Latino, but Latino itself is not a race. Even wonder why you see Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic Black on the Census? There are Black and White Hispanics all over Latin America.
Technically speaking, racism is defined as unfair treatment (e.g. prejudice) based on race and/or ethnicity. So it is racism. Granted, as an Italian, I don't particularly feel Mario and Luigi are too racist, but this is just a response to that one statement you made.
Because he's not Super OCD and doesn't need to use the same word every single time he says something.
In the first animated Titanic review he says that he'll need something more potent than the Jagermeister he's currently using. But he's not replacing the Jagermeister with a more potent liquor (working his way up to pure vodka, for example), he's just getting bigger and bigger bottles of Jagermeister. I get the fact that it's a great sight gag, but it's still not escalating "potentness".
If the bottle's bigger, it can hold more Jagermeister. If he has more Jagermeister, he can get more drunk.
Had he said he needs more booze, I would have no problem. But he said "potent", which is a measure of the strength of the liquor, not the quantity. Look up the definition yourself. The Other Wiki defines potency as a measure of strength, concentration, or the like. A larger bottle does not have stronger liquor, it's more of the same liquor.
From his Aristocrats sketch, why would Richard Attenborough have to pull his pants down to get fucked if he had already been assraping the Doberman?
This is the greatest Headscratchers post in history.
Men don't need to take their pants off, or even down to use their penises.
Why is the Critic so dependent on logistics in cartoons? Cartoons don't have to make much sense. There's a difference between not being realistic and insulting the audience, before anyone says that. And if he goes with this line of reasoning because it's funny, then it shows he's short on material since he's used it quite a few times. For example, the review of the Doug movie. I know he hates the show, but it's still unfair to think the movie was going to follow the laws of reality to the letter. Cartoons aren't realistic, that's why they're cartoons.
Critic's always demanded logic in everything. Remember Suburban Knights and how he didn't believe in magical stuff happening until he had his Despair Event Horizon rant? It's just a character trait.
But then he's missing the point. Cartoons don't have to make sense, and to expect all of them to makes Critic's disappointment his own fault. And in case anyone says anything, I do know Doug has different expectations than the Critic. But I mean the Critic.
About half of the Critic's suffering is his own fault, he expects too much and then gets let down. Doug said that himself either in an interview or at a convention.
And then treating the subject as if it were legitimately bad just because he disappointed himself? ... Yeah I guess that does actually fit with the description he's given the character. After all, reviews aren't really the gospel. I guess I just couldn't shake the feeling that a part of Doug actually thought that certain cartoons suffered for not following reality.
It might also be something along the lines of what's often called called "Ebert's Law" (basically, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it); after all, it's possible for even cartoon logic to be pushed too far past breaking point or to be inconsistent with it's own internal logic or rules (if it sets up a more-or-less 'realistic' universe and then has something over-the-top and zany happen, then it's shattering the show's internal logic). It's also probably to do with him being the Nostalgia Critic — one of the things he skewers, at least in part, is nostalgia, looking back at things with rose-tinted glasses rather than as they really were. We might have watched these things as kids and thought everything held together perfectly, which thus colours our later memories of them, and thus how we react to material which is made after we're kids ("These modern cartoons make no sense at all, not like the ones I used to watch when I was a kid..."); what he's doing is peeling this away and showing that no, actually, in many cases they make no frickin' sense whatsoever.
Just because something is a cartoon doesn't give the writers an excuse to be lazy. Half the time, the stuff he's pointing out isn't just cartoony type stuff, it's something central to the plot that is just completely ignored or not mentioned. Saying something is a cartoon, and so doesn't have to make sense, is a cop out, like saying something is "enchanted". Alright, fine. But A) You still have to be consistent. For a Tom and Jerry Movie, violating basic laws of physics and reality is fine, you expect it. But for Doug? I don't think so. It just doesn't fit with the tone of the show at all. And B) Bending the rules has to appear before the big climax, or it's just a Deus Ex Machina with a lazy explanation.
He explained it in the Captain N review. He gets annoyed with women not having the power they should have, and the "princess" moniker is just manipulative to young girls who associate it with prettiness, not responsibility.
Liechtenstein is a principality, and its rulers always have the title of "prince". The "princesses" NC complains about never rule principalities but KINGDOMS, whose rulers should have the title of "king" or "queen". The point is, if the previous monarch of the kingdom is dead and you take on their responsibilities, your title is either King or Queen, not Prince or Princess just because it makes you sound younger/cuter.
Exactly, the title is in the name: Empires are ruled by Emperors, Duchies are ruled by Dukes, Countys are ruled by Counts, Sultanates are ruled by Sultans, Emirates are ruled by Emirs, and as the previous post pointed out, Principalities are ruled by princes, and Kingdoms are ruled by kings, or the female equivalent queens. Plus Liechtenstein is a rather small country, while kingdoms are usually very big.
What was with the gag in the Drop Dead Fred review where the Critic couldn't pronounce the names of the actors? Mayall isn't that odd of a name. And Phoebe?
Critic's a ditz.
It's also probably a play on the fact that Mayall's first name is spelt as 'Rik' rather than the more conventional 'Rick'. Rather than simply make fun of Mayall's first name, he instead played if as if they all had weird names, and the best way to do that through speech is to imply they're difficult to pronounce as well.
After watching the Child's Play review, I'm wondering about Phelous' characterization (which I probably should be asking on his page). In his earlier videos, he was more deadpan. Now, he's over-the-top and constantly talking in a sarcastic tone.
Well, if you watch a more recent video of Phelous', he pretty much acts like that all the time. His style changed since he started.
Why does he keep cutting to Blip commercials in the middle of his shows now? Is that going to be a permanent feature, just a way to raise some quick emergency funds, or what? I'm honestly curious.
Apparently, they're having some trouble with funds, and this is a way for them to make extra cash to make up for the drop in revenue. No clue on if it's going to be permanent.
At least the critic is tying in some funny and clever jokes to ease us in and out of those commercials.
In "Patch Adams" review, when he speaks about "the way media wrote women in the nineties", he says "...in the nineties there was a desperate need to change it. Oh, not by making them ***, fuck, we wouldn't want that!" Making them what? I can't discern that last part. Could somebody give me a hand?
It was "less pretty". Basically another jab at Male Gaze.
So why did he review Ponyo for his 200th episode? The movie's not all nostalgic, it just came out four years ago. Did he just want to address the oddities in it, did he just want to surprise people by reviewing something completely different from what he usually does, or was there some loophole in the "only nostalgic films criteria" that I missed?
Something special for the anniversary, taking advantage of the fact that he was at an anime con, he's said a few times that he wanted to analyze a good-but-adorably-crazy film and he probably needed a breather after the terribleness of Patch Adams.
In his Super Mario Bros.. review, what is the problem with the names Mario Mario and Luigi Mario? It makes perfect sense. Why else would they be called the Mario Brothers? And why did Luigi mentioning Mario raised him call for a Brokeback Mountain montage?
He just found how stupid it was for a character to have both his first and last names be the same. It'd be like meeting someone called Thomas Thomas, it's just a bit odd.
A much bigger problem I have with his review of Super Mario Bros., why did he think Mario was both Luigi's brother and father? The point obviously was that Mario raised Luigi like a father despite being a brother, why couldn't the Critic get that?
Because It sounded like Luigi was saying Mario had adopted him. Meaning that they're father and son but for some reason insist on calling each other brothers.
In the Thomas and the Magic Railroad review he expresses confusion over why they made an entire new world just for talking trains, saying they're the only magical thing there. Then a later scene he showed had one of the characters eat vegetables that seemed to do something to him, and use two flowers like a phone. Has he seriously managed to convince himself that the guy was going crazy in a kid's movie, or does he live somewhere with magic plants?
He was saying there weren't enough things different in the Thomas world to warrant making it a different world entirely. If you're gonna make it be a magical fantasy land, go all out. Having some things be magical in rather mundane ways makes it seem sort of needless.
Wait a minute, he did call it a pan in the Gordy review. What the hell was Douchey talking about?
Because after the Gordy review, about a hundred people on facebook said he got it wrong. It's a bit like the Prime death for me, not a fuck-up but he puts it up there anyway because Critic's pretty low on backbone.
In his Top 11 Nostalgia Critic Fuck Us Part 3 video, he acknowledges that he wasn't familiar with the Thomas the Tank Engine series before he did the movie and that he only did it upon request. Fair enough. He also said that he finds it more humorous to do a review "blind" (IE: Not knowing what you're getting yourself into) and that he does these reviews for fun/comedy. Again, fine. Buuuuut, then he compares it to his Star Trek movie reviews stating that though he didn't watch the series that much, he still was able to understand what was going on in the movies. Uh, Critic? How does that comparison work? You clearly know at least the basics of the Star Trek franchise (IE: Plot, characters, etc.) to understand what's going on in the movies. How does that compare to you not watching an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine or looking up the show on Wikipedia to get a basic understanding of the concept? It baffles me to no end.
The Critic's knowledge of the Star Trek franchise probably comes from other people's reviews of the show (including those on SF Debris) and the occasional parody. As to why he hasn't read the Wikipedia page on Thomas the Tank Engine, the Critic is just lazy.
And his point was more that even if you don't watch Star Trek, you can pretty much follow the movies just fine. Thomas the Tank Engine...not so much.
This is more about Doug than the Critic (although those two are obviously related), but why does he apologize so much? The fuck-ups lists had subjective opinions being treated like mess ups, I've lost count of how many times he's groveled for the LP, you have Spoony's story on how Doug felt like crap because he had the idea of acting like the Snob first and he even felt guilty because the crew in Kickassia got sunburn. There's a difference between being a Nice Guy and having a Guilt Complex.
His screw ups, first of all, aren't just apologies for screw ups, but also a chance to actually explain why he made the calls he did. And to let people know that, yes I do know I screwed up, stop emailing me already! As for the crew thing...wouldn't you feel bad if you dragged your crew into the desert, and they left looking like lobsters? I mean, I would at least feel a bit bad about it.
On the Kickassia DVD, you'll see that Rob and Bhargav told everyone multiple times to wear sunscreen. With that in mind, Doug really shouldn't feel like it was his fault because they chose not to.
And he's announced now that's he's going to retire the F*-Ups series, and just acknowledge the mistakes on his Facebook page.
Why does he complain about comedy at the expense of killing animals (not in real life, just within the movie) in Jungle 2 Jungle when he also complained in Dunston Checks In that the scene where the dog fell off the building would have been funnier if the dog died?
He might have complained about a kids flick having this sort of comedy, but he also killed pets to see if the owners would laugh or not. For whatever reason, Critic's (NOT Doug) a jerkass when it comes to animals.
Dunston was an actual character, and was extremely annoying to boot. Whereas the animals in Jungle 2 Jungle were just sorta...there. Inflicting acts of cruelty on them feels mean-spirited.
Why so many commercial breaks? They were funny for the Trek month but now they're annoying. Is he running low on money?
Yes. Blip's not doing well for any of the TGWTG crew, as you can see from complaints on twitter. And besides, they only take a minute in a free TV-episode-length review.
In the Digimon movie review, the Critic makes a joke about an announcer announcing the Digimon digivolving. Wouldn't he be able to tell that it's the Digimon themselves announcing it? Even if he couldn't figure it out, I would have thought JesuOtaku would correct him.
Simple, really: Doug more than likely wrote the review. He made a point of telling us that he never watched Digimon, and he probably just didn't notice. Even if JO did point it out to him before the review was made, he might not have found a way to fit it into the script in a funny way, or he liked his "Critic kicks the Narrator in the balls" joke enough to ignore it.
The Digimon Commentary shows that this review was really rushed- JO wrote the script outside of some Critic stuff, she was also at an Anime con (Hence why her background looks like JewWario's for the episode), and Doug was too busy with the Year 4 Special to put a lot of time into the review. So most likely in the rush to get it done JO either didn't notice it or thought it'd be too much trouble this late in the game to change it.
Why does the Nostalgia Critic often review movies not often regarded as good (because of nostalgia), but ones almost universally hated such as Batman & Robin? Very few people would be nostalgic for movies like that.
Nothing is universally hated. I know plenty of persons who still remember the Tom and Jerry movie with fondness, and the Batman franchise is obviously part of his childhood. That's why he did it.
Plus he doesn't necessarily review movies people remember fondly, so much as movies that were made between the early 80s and early 2000s. Whether or not it was ever popular to begin with is irrelevant.
One, terrible stuff is easier to review. Two, to deconstruct nostalgia. When people talk about "Man, the 80s and 90s were so cool, so much better than now", he then says "Well, what about all this awful trash? Stuff just as bad as today's!"
Nostlagia isn't inherently "good". There IS such a thing as BAD nostalgia, where you remember something from your childhood because of how much you hated it. Besides, a lot of people probably did like Batman & Robin as kids that didn't know any better.
In the Nostalgia Critic's Scooby Doo review, he says he never gets to do anything with anyone... What about all that stuff he did with other reviewers on the TWTG website over the years from Kickassia to Suburban Knights to just the occasional crossover?
Speaking from experience, when you're as self-loathing as that, you tend to twist the truth to make things worse for yourself. And he's technically their boss in the TGWTG world, so that probably makes him feel detached from everyone else.
That's depression for you. Gives you about an hour of happy and then tells you it didn't mean anything.|
Could somebody please explain the "Timing" joke with Casper?
A badly timed joke. What about it confuses you?
To elaborate, the setup was near the start, with Casper asking "You know what the most important element of comedy is?" After an extended beat and the Critic about to continue, Casper jumps in shouting "TIMING!" From there it just became a Running Gag for the episode.
During the Scooby Doo reviewnote rhyme totally intended, Future Critic suggests that Scrappy is going to be the villain, but then when Scrappy turns out to be the villain, he says it doesn't make any sense. Huh-wha?
It's more a case of just knowing that scene was just there to "foreshadow" the movie's twist. From a character point, young!Critic was right when he said making Scrappy the bad guy was like Hate Fic.
Just because he correctly predicted the end of the movie doesn't mean the end of the movie made any damn sense.
Yeah, I mean, what is so wrong with "even you can learn something from a sloth/slowmo"? It's just another way to say "don't judge a book from its cover", after all...
Out of context the line just seems literal, as in even someone can learn something from an actual sloth.
So, a lot of people threw a fit over Doug reviewing Pokemon: The First Movie because he wasn't a fan of the franchise... and yet he got incessantly nagged to review Digimon, a show which he had stated time and time again that he'd never seen. Am I the only one who sees this as hypocritical?
So, why does the Critic do what he does? I mean, there are easier ways to make money, he clearly hates it, and the fact that he's convinced he's never made anyone happy implies that in-universe he doesn't have many (any?) viewers (so he's probably not making any cash anyway.)
This was looked at in the CR crossover. Screaming at movies (his words, not mine) is all he thinks he's good at, and if anyone else goes into his territory (Chick with guy movies, Lord Kat with Bebe's Kids, Nerd in general) then the possibility of being ousted becomes too much to take for his ego.
In-universe, though, he's everyone's boss. So he's explicitly hired people to scream at movies. If he was that worried why would he do that?
Everyone was designed to scream at stuff in their own little niche, though. Chick was supposed to do girly stuff and branched out. He assumed Linkara was taking the piss because he dressed up like him and talked about the Superman movies instead of comic books. He came in to "Until We Win" when Lord Kat explicitly said that "not even Critic could beat Bebe's Kids". He got pissy at both the Nerd and CR when people made a fuss about similar they were to him. Plus it was only around TMNT-episode time that he started to go a little insane with insecurity.
In his review of My Pet Monster, he says it's pretty much his job and the next episode with commercials goes into detail with him wondering why he does what he does.
Considering he did a video of the top 11 worst Superman film moments of all time, the Critic seemed awfully uninformed about Superman's decision to dispose of all nuclear weapons.
Do you not think that should be the 12th worst Superman film moments?
He could have possibly blanked that bit out of his memory in sheer horror, and Linkara didn't have the heart to remind him directly.
From a real-life perspective, a good portion of the review was likely written by Lewis (Linkara). In fact, he might have got top billing in the credits for writing. Maybe it still wasn't on Doug's mind before the writing began.
There's also a bit of a disconnect in the way the Critic approaches his 'list' reviews and how he does his 'recap' reviews; the recap reviews usually seem to be done in a fashion as if the Critic is approaching this movie for the first time even though he's probably (and presumably) seen them before, presumably to give his comic reactions more punch. The 'list' reviews seem to assume that the Critic has seen them before. A Willing Suspension of Disbelief moment, perhaps?
Not always. Sometimes he refers to a movie in the past tense like he's just seen it and then he's recapping what he saw to the audience. The whole premise of writing around the real Doug's lost voice in the Good Son and Alone in the Dark reviews wouldn't have made sense otherwise. But still, the character of The Nostalgia Critic likely has seen most of them as a kid.
In the Captain N: The Game Master review he mocks the fact that occasionally there aren't backgrounds in the animation. He uses an ironic joke that it's stupid to not have a background, when he doesn't have a background himself. How does this joke make sense? It's apples and oranges. Cartoons are supposed to have backgrounds. Online review shows aren't. Besides, Doug does have a background; the wall behind his desk. Blank wall=/=unfinished animation.
He was just making a joke. If he had really meant it doesn't work regardless of context ever, then he would have changed his background long ago.
What was Lindsay's evil plan that involved stopping Doug from reviving Nostalgia Critic. ?
Yeah, but then the job of stabilizing the Awesomeverse got old and/or disillusioning. He would be aware of all sorts of things mortal Critic would not have been, perhaps how much he hurt people...perhaps the people he reviewed (internet reviewers seem to have more power in the Awesomeverse). Just recall how much Douchie is already hating a job that seems to be one he would love.
I don't think Douchie is a good example; he hates everything. Even things he likes.
Critic was happier and wiser when he was with Harvey, he was fine and helping people. Mortal Critic blamed himself for internet laws that he didn't even have anything to do with.
I have to go with the "plot hole" idea. The Critic fused with the physical embodiment of continuity errors and illogical stories; being in an illogical number of places at once would be right up his alley. He was Donnie, a Muppet, the Ghost of Christmas Past, and a skull Phelous found simultaneously.
Actually Karl explains it. Mental struggle made real. Jekyll and Hyde if you will
Except in all four of Critic's Plot Hole appearances, he was calm, lucid and in control (the good kind, not Review Must Go On-sort). Even Word of God confirmed he was finally okay and moving on.
Why did Doug call out Linkara for speaking like his characters were real people when Doug himself had previously witnessed the Nostalgia Critic manifest himself in the real world just a few months prior? One would have expected him to ask Linkara if his characters were turning real as well.
Nostalgia Critic's ascension was in part due to the existence of the Plot Hole opening things up to reality. With that closed, the likelihood of Lewis' characters coming into existence is unlikely.
That implies that Doug knew how the 4th wall was broken in the first place and that he also assumed there was no way it was likely to happen again. Linkara writes his own characters and could in theory replicate a circumstance that brings them to life much in the same way that Doug did. This would be all the more plausible seeing that Linkara's show was elevated with the departure of Spoony and the NC hiatus.
The Nostalgia Critic was able to come alive because of all the time, effort, and heart Doug poured into him, writing him week after week after week for four and a half years, and Doug knows that. It'd be unlikely, if not impossible, for mostly two-dimensional cameo characters like Harvey and Pollo to make that leap. You don't see Chester A. Bum running around Doug's house, after all.
The better question is why is he calling out Linkara when he himself is hallucinating the Critic speaking to him and wandering all over his house and computer screen.
I might be wrong, but I don't think at the time Doug called Linkara that the hallucinations had reached past the "mind playing tricks" stage. As soon as they did Doug probably took his comment to Linkara to heart and immediately drove himself to the drug store.
I know it was played mostly for laughs, and a tad bit of Nightmare Fuel, but why would Linkara think Pollo and Harvey would be real? Wouldn't 90s kid be more or less plausable? Harvey's a lounge singer way behind on the times, and Pollo is a robot something that while possible isn't likely to have the sarcastic wit he did on the show, so why?
In the Is Twilight the WORST Thing Ever? Video why did he show a poster of harry potter when talking about bad influences? he never seemed to show a dislike for the franchise before sure he made some jokes at its expense but nothing hostile.
It's not about what he dislikes, it's what moral guardians have bitched on.
In his Digimon review, why does he have a folder in his inbox SPECIFICALLY FOR DIGIMON REQUESTS?!
He most likely added that folder after he got thousands of requests for it flooding the inbox. Also, Rule of Funny naturally.
Because he stated he personally doesn't like the movie, (he does know it is a Stealth Parody, he and Rob don't care) and obviously felt it was easier to review it if he took it "seriously".
Why did Halle Berry attack the Critic, if his review of her role basically amounted to "as good as humanly possible with the script she was given"?
To go with the "catwomen are irrational" theme of the episode?
Why didn't he try another method to distract her, like catnip, which worked in the movie?
...Because he doesn't have a cat?
He was panicking and didn't think straight.
Halle Berry herself hated the movie and even accepted her Razzie. It makes no sense at all she would attack him.
What exactly does the Critic have against Russell Crowe? He seemed to cast him in a negative light with the fake commercial for the "Russell Crowe soundtrack" in his review of The King and I and putting Russel Crowe on the "not caring meter" claiming it refers to "everything he's in" in The Cat in the Hat, but he never said why. Russell Crowe's a fine actor who's done some good films, I don't see what the problem is.
Well, initially it seemed it was solely his performance in Les Miserables, but in the Alien Resurrection review, he hinted that he didn't like Gladiator either. My best guess is that partly that Crowe has developed a reputation as difficult to work with, and Doug's taste in acting. That's not much of an answer, but there's not much to work with either.
What the Critic was getting at was that the characters species are usually linked with their favorite foods. Bears like honey, rabbits like carrots, that sort of thing. The connection between chilli dogs and hedgehogs seems tangential at best.
"Rhyme or Reason" is an idiom meaning a "logical explanation". It doesn't literally mean a rhyme. Bears sterotypically are depicted as liking honey while rabbits are sterotypically depicted as liking carrots because both animals do ear those foods. Hedgehogs and chili dogs aren't exactly something you would immediately think goes together aside from this show.
I was a little puzzled (and annoyed) when I heard the Critic talk about pointless changes to Cat in the Hat. His closing statements seemed to suggest that the Cat in the Hat didn't need to be changed; it didn't need to be updated, nor warped into some modern-day garbage because Dr. Seuss' creation was fine the way it was. Actually, I completely agree with all of that. What bothered me about it was, I felt it was pretty sharply hypocritical considering what he said in his Looney Tunes Show review. Apparently, if you don't want the Looney Tunes to change, if you don't want their original image to be defiled by modern-day twists, you're comparable with a baby rolling around on the ground, whining 'I don't want change! I want everything to stay the same!' I think by Doug's own reasoning, that's a pretty unfair accusation. It isn't that change should never happen, it's that some things (in some opinions) don't need to be changed because they were good enough. That's the way Doug feels about Cat in the Hat, and that's the way I feel about the Looney Tunes. I'm sure someone could point out how the Cat in the Hat changes were more dramatic, more offensive, or different altogether. At the same time, I simply feel that his spiel at the end of the Cat in the Hat review could be perfectly applied to Looney Tunes, so that it seems he pulled the 'Stop being afraid of change' card too quickly and to serve his own need.
While it's not an excuse, bear in mind that if Doug hadn't tried change only for Vocal Minority to brickwall him, that “screaming on the floor” bit wouldn't exist.
The big difference is that the Cat in the Hat movie was an absolute desecration of the source material. In his review of the Looney Tunes Show, however, he does point out that the show stays true to its spirit, even if some circumstances have changed.
I'm more annoyed by the fact that, when he compared it to Duck Dodgers, Duck Dodgers gets one clip taken out of context, and the Looney Tunes Show gets a full montage. I love The Looney Tunes Show, but that was an unfair, bias comparison.
So...what's the story with his reviews of Kickassia, Suburban Knights and To Boldly Flee? Does he actually hate them, or is he just poking fun at them to show he can laugh at his own work?
Of course he doesn't hate them. Michaud made Doug do it for the DVD and he just bashed the superficial stuff, like the Ho Yay and Female Gaze (gee thanks). He thought To Boldly Flee was the perfect send-off for Critic.
Okay, here's one of my biggest gripes about the Nostalgia Critic's show these days. It's the fact he keeps using the Devil as a recurring character in his series. Now it would be fine if he just sticked to one portrayal of the character. But nope, he keeps changing the character every so often he has an oppurtunity to do so. First, he said Teddy Ruxpin was the devil in the non-canon Halloween special, then it was Bennett the Sage in "Care Bears 2", then it was That Guy with the Glasses in Linkara's "One More Day", and now it's Malcolm in "Mask 2" primarily to do take thats at Kim Kardashian and new bad movies these days. Just make up your mind already, Doug, just who exactly IS the Devil?!
Watch some Ask That Guy. The Devil changes his/her form and gets overthrown all the time.
Word of God says that the Devil changes his shape to whatever he feels like. Plus Bennett was only pretending to be the Devil in the Care Bears 2 review, so he doesn't count.
Why do he and his brother repeatedly pronounce Iroh's name wrong despite it being spoken aloud relatively frequently on the show? At least with the Mah-ko/May-ko debacle, his name was never spoken aloud in his movies, so what's their excuse? This is especially annoying since one of the many, many complaints about M. Night Shyamalan's movie (which he's watching this series to review) is that half the characters' names are pronounced incorrectly.
It's especially annoying since Rob keeps going on (on his Facebook) about the "correct" (read: Japanese) way to pronounce their names, like Ozai, Katara, Sokka, Aang, and so on... even though they are all made up, come from a number of different languages, and not "real names".
It's not the first time he mispronounced a name who is clearly pronounced the correct way elsewhere (eg: Dray-go instead of Drah-go, Ceh-cil Turtle instead of Cee-cil Trutle, Ralph Bashki instead of Ralph Bakshi, Josh Hirsch instead of Judd Hirsch)
But this time Rob actually seems proud of the mispronunciations, and Doug called himself out on being a "typical white American" with it early on.
Doug's just not so good with names. I think that's all there is to it. Tons of people are the same way. They can watch entire movies or entire series, love them to death, and still only know the characters as "the uncle" or "the bad guy." They just focus on their roles rather than specifically catching their names. It happens. With Rob, the names look Japanese to him, and he knows a thing or two about Japanese linguistics, so that's how pronounces them. It's an easy, honest mistake to make, especially considering how much anime influence the series does have. Honestly, I think the only reasons the fans get so bent out of shape about this is because the Shyamalan movie did the same thing, and if the Shyamalan movie did it, then by God, in the eyes of the fandom, it must be a dire sin against nature itself. More objectively, though, it's a minor, pedantic quibble.
No, it really isn't just the movie. It's the fact that such a huge deal is being made out of these names (like Doug whining that titles should be easier for him and Rob on facebook), when all they had to do is apologize for acting racist (again, Doug brought that up first) and move on.
It's mentioned in a Legend of Korra Vlog that some of it was done just to annoy people.
And ROB is the one who keeps bringing it up on his Facebook, so I don't know why he's complaining about the people complaining about pronounciations when he basically keeps provoking everyone on purpose and then gets butthurt when people get annoyed at it. I see of it like this: if my name is spelled "La-a", and it's pronounced "LaDash-ah" (and not Lah Ah as the spelling would show, then it's prounounced "LaDash-ah".
Are Nostalgia Critic and Doug Walker two separate people? Sometimes the critic refers to himself as Doug. He even tells the audience how much he hates the name, but both of them act totally different.
Yes. Watch To Boldly Flee (and "The Review Must Go On" though that's much darker), they even have a conversation about Critic evolving.
What's the music tack that plays during the fart joke's scenes in the The Master of Disguise review and the Top 11 Adult Jokes We Never Got as Kids list?
In his Eight Crazy Nights review, at the part where Davey sings "But he never quit on me" during the Bum Biddy song, the Critic complains that Whitey did quit on him and acts like that's never mentioned. But the lines immediately following that part were "Till I told him he was useless, and his sister was freaky". Did he not pay attention to the whole song?
He probably did, but Doug (and many other reviewers) intentionally lie and misrepresent the reviewed work so that they can bash the work more, for the... Comedy.
I loved the Man of Steel review, but one thing really bothered me. How was Zod still alive, after dying in To Boldly Flee? I was hoping they would at least say something about that, Hand Wave or Lampshade it or something, but they just acted like it never happened.
Every other dramatic game-changer moment in that movie turned out to not matter, Doug even said The Review Must Go On was to "subvert" the scenes he was so proud of, so might as well go for broke?
Well, that makes sense. I just find it weird that nobody even seemed to remember. A Deja-Vu moment would have been nice at least.
There are a lot of jokes recently centering around Critic's hatred of Product Placement especially in his Eight Crazy Nights Review. There were quite a few jokes in his classic episodes too. The question I have on my mind though is why he's so mad when a movie includes a real life product/restaurant/etc.? Is really that big of a deal when a movie shows characters eating at something like Burger King or playing a Game Boy?
I don't think it's a problem with minor product placement that he has, but the ham-handed, just bash-you-over-the-head stuff you see in a lot of films. I, personally, lovedMan of Steel, but the Product Placement in that film got really needless at times. And, well, Eight Crazy Nights is another can of worms entirely...
You ARE aware that product placement usually involves money changing hands, right? Like there's a reason characters drink Beer Beer. So a lot of people find shoe-horning in a product just for the purpose of getting paid for it unappealing, and it's not always done well.
When he does the song at the start of his Man of Steel review, the Critic, as Batman, calls out Superman for killing someone. Isn't that kind of hypocritical? He's specifically doing the Chris Nolan Batman here and in the Nolan films, Batman killed Two Face and Talia Al Ghul!
With Two-Face, one could argue it was an accident. With Talia... it's trickier but one could argue that she caused her own death by refusing to turn the truck and Batman was firing on her merely because he knew it wouldn't blow up the truck, only obscure her vision.
Why are there no longer drawn title cards since the reboot? Only one was used for Eight Crazy Nights, but apart from that, it is lazy and cheap Photoshopping with Critic standing angry in front of a background or him holding the bloody severed head of a character he hates. What, does Doug want to cut costs of paying an artist?
He had Marobot until To Boldly Flee, but he's said a fair few times that the Plot Hole got him into debt so what you said is probably the not-so-kind way of looking at it. Plus Nightmare Fuel factor for a lot of them I guess.
Marobot hasn't done anything on his Deviantart since To Boldly Flee. It might not be Doug's fault. Maybe something serious happened to Maro and he needed to take a hiatus.
Ah, fhew, he's alive. I was afraid he had been hit by a car or something.
Considering that James Rolfe is also no longer using title cards for The Angry Video Game Nerd and Board James for a while (and Mike Matei is still drawing things for Cinemassacre's videos), I am guessing that both think they have a large enough audience/brand recognition to still see their show for what it is, and without the need to put extra effort to make an elaborate title card. Oh well, what matters is the video itself.
At the end of the Face/Off review, Doug did a send-off for Rachel Tietz. My question is, why did Doug go through the trouble of plugging Rachel's Facebook page, when Rachel's page has certain security settings and only allows personal friends to friend her?
Sailor Moon has a higher rating on the IMDb than both The Flintstones and Ponyo. Why didn't he get booed or beat up when he spoke badly of it? And why doesn't he get booed or beat up when he mocks My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic when that has an even higher rating and it's ranked on this website as the most Heartwarming thing ever made?
IMDb is not exactly a reputable source for rating films, considering most of it is done by zealous fanboys/girls. Remember all those folks who gave Twilight four star ratings before the movie even came out?
The 'men can't be sexually harassed' joke from 'Dawn Of The Commercial' is pretty cringeworthy and just to justify the Greg Sestero cameo at the end. Yet he snipped at people who got offended by it in his The Room review commentary like they were the problem for even complaining about it, and not his stating that to be sexually harassed you have to be the right gender, effectively laughing and encouraging others to laugh at harassment victims if they're male... basically encouraging people to laugh derisively at the Critic for that very reason. Am I the only one who finds that not only offensive, but pretty hypocritical?
Not to mention that in an earlier Uncle Yo interview Doug said he still has no idea how to cope with getting hit on and has to get his friends to say no for him.
Where did Doug get the idea that Cars is a loved movie? Even before Cars 2 came out, it was regarded as Pixar's weakest movie.
Doug lives in a bubble and thinks he's always wrong, even producers have admitted that.
It was merely regarded as their weakest, but still above most animated films. There are plenty of people who love the first film. The second is a different story.
In "The Shining Miniseries", its revealed that the only way to save the Critic from the miniseries driving him mad was to find something in the miniseries that was actually good. Shouldn't the Critic have had his sanity restored when he admitted that Jack's Sanity Slippage was remarkably well done?
It wasn't really saving him because even he knows he's consistently getting further away from sanity, and the energy it took to admit that Stephen King did something better than Kubrick was what drove him to catatonic.
You know, for someone whose entire aesop is "It's okay to watch whatever you want because it doesn't makes you a bad person or an idiot", why is TMZ the exception to the rule? Don't get me wrong, I don't like TMZ too, but everytime he talks about it he basically say "If you enjoy TMZ, than you are lesser than a human being." Doesn't it sound a tad hypocritical?
It is very hypocritical, and a wife of his friend got hurt by it, but he also doesn't like people who enjoy Devil, Man of Steel or any Adam Sandler movie. Things change, I guess. If it means anything, he says he regrets how cruel the AI and the Fan Hater section of "Top 11 South Park Episodes" were.
I think it's because TMZ is Non Fiction and he views it as something that hurts Real Life people. He didn't say he didn't like people who enjoyed Devil or Man of Steel, he just couldn't really understand why people would enjoy them. His favorite movie is Brazil and Roger Ebert was the ONLY critic on Rotten Tomatoes who didn't like it. If he doesn't hold that against Ebert, we shouldn't hold it against him.
Ebert never went on a rant about how Brazil fans rubbed tampons on their genitals to make it look like they've got laid. As I said, Doug regretted that and he really should.
In the Ghost Dad review, Critic didn't bring up Bill Cosby's love interest. Come to think of it, he didn't show any clips of her. Why did he leave her out? She was a supporting character too.
Maybe he just couldn't think of anything to say about her or any scenes that she was in.
In the Alice in Wonderland review, he refers to himself as a celebrity. I'm not sure if it's the Critic character just being arrogant or if that's how Doug sees himself. Doug is pretty popular around the net, but he's not world famous like Johnny Depp or Tom Cruise.
It's pretty obviously Critic being a character. Doug's frequently said he's not worth fanning over.
Plus, in The Shining Miniseries review, he subverts this by having Malcolm refer to NC as "a D-list Internet celebrity".
A part of the review I've been wondering about is the part where he states that the whole title is inaccurate. Sure, it's true that Wonderland not really being called Wonderland does make that part of the title wrong in a technical sense, but Alice being older doesn't make her no longer Alice (her name didn't change), and the fact that Alice has been to Wonderland/Underland before doesn't mean she's not "in" it now. The title doesn't tell the whole story, and it is certainly misleading since it's mostly not an adaptation of the original books or the animated movie, but it's not actually wrong.
She's not in Wonderland because it's "Underland", though.
Doesn't the existence of a Future Critic in the Scooby Doo review kind of indicate that the Critic's fate in To Boldly Flee was never going to be a permanent death?
Different times, ceasing to exist or just Plot Hole, Doug's said over and over again that TBF was meant to be Critic's happy ending but money issues.
Why wasn't Dr. Smith on his list of Top 11 Dumbassess In Distress? Apart from the fact that he's a character on the show itself, in Lost in Space, he's a coward whose greed gets the entire ship in serious trouble and has to be rescued from the messes he's made for himself. At least Jar-Jar Binks and Princess Peach aren't greedy and cowardly.
Because it's a top 11 list and there isn't room to include every worthy candidate.
Is Doug Walker/NC the head honcho of Channel Awesome and TGWTG, or is he just another employee? He seems like the boss who runs everything.
He has said multiple times that he might be the face of the site, but has no mind for business. Rob also has said that Doug does whatever he (meaning Rob) and Michaud tells him to do.
I know Bhargav Dronamraju is no longer with Channel Awesome, but how come he never played M. Night Shyamalan? They kinda look alike. Has M. Night (not the real life one) ever appeared on the show to antagonise the NC?
Yes, he appeared in the reviews of Devil, After Earth, and The Last Airbender. Although he was portrayed by Malcolm, not Bhargav.
Why does Doug/Critic exclude the original Ice Age and Rio movies from the "Diet Dreamworks" recipe (he states its made from their sequels)? It can't be because he thinks they're good, since that would go against his line that he's stop picking on Blue Sky Studios if they ever made anything good, wouldn't it?
While those two films are by no means masterpieces, they arguably have some amount of creativity. The squeals, as well as everyone other Blue Sky movie, are completely soulless and bland. Even if you do like those movies, Blue Sky has yet to make anything else that was any good. Also might just be because Blue Sky is easy to make fun of, being a studio that constantly makes bad movies that end up being hits.
I have a feeling the answer will be Rule of Funny, but how could Critic make future references to the Star Wars Holiday Special if Santa Christ wiped it from his memory?
Perhaps he keeps re-reviewing it because he doesn't know he's already covered it, and so Santa Christ has to keep wiping it from his memory.
Am I the only one who strongly disagrees with the Critic's stubborn notion that 100% of comedy is 'misery'? Think of Airplane! where the nun is reading 'Boy's Life' while the boy is reading 'Nun's Life.' No one's miserable, it's just unexpected. Or when the hoof-clopping in Monty Python turns out to be the banging of coconuts. No one's miserable, it's just unexpected. Or in Top Secret! we see what appears to be a normal-sized telephone in the foreground of the frame, though it turns out to be a really huge phone. No one's miserable, it's just unexpected. Misery has a large place in comedy, but it seems to me that Doug's preoccupation with it has developed into a fallacy.
Not at all. At a 2012 Kollisioncon panel Doug said that even Lewis disagreed with him and clarified that this belief was mostly a defense mechanism trying to make things less crappy. I don't know if that still applies, but you're not the only disagreeing at least.
It also ties into an old adage - "Comedy = Tragedy + Time". The further removed from an event people are, no matter how tragic, there will be jokes made to help cope.
So there are a few things with the Daredevil review that kind of bug me and make me furiously scratch my head:
1. For one thing, I was mystified as to why he didn't even mention the director's cut which is famous for fixing nearly ALL of the film's problems (not every problem admittedly but still) since he did mention (and even recommended) a director's cut of the Thief and the Cobbler in his titular review.
2. He sometimes mocks certain images in the movie and doesn't realize that these are images ripped straight from the comics. Hell, most of the ideas in the film he complains about are from the comics. I'd understand it more if he said at the beginning that he never got Daredevil (I'm all for differing opinions) but it's as if he thinks these concepts came from the movie itself.
3. A lot of the superhero films he's mocking are NOT from the early 2000's (Some are as late as 2007, while others are as early as 1997) and hell, some of the movies from the early 2000's were actually campy and more action oriented than dark (like Spiderman for example).
4. He calls Daredevil bland, nonsensical, and a generic mess. A. He's judging it by the theatrical cut which was tampered by executives so he's not being fair to the movie. and B. The film laid the groundwork for concepts and ideas that would be used by other films such Batman Begins, the Dark Knight, Iron Man, etc. While the question of whether they worked or not can be debated, I'm fairly sure you can't call a film generic and bland when it blatantly has ideas and concepts that weren't used during that time!
In the Critic's Eight Crazy Nights review, isn't his characterization of people who enjoy poop jokes a bit odd, considering the fact that he's good friends with The Angry Video Game Nerd?
James is Doug's friend, people who enjoy Sandler movies aren't.
Even the Critic does poop jokes once in a while, just not excessively or exclusively.
If the cat wanted to hide the Hocus Pocus Blu-Ray, why did he put it in the case of Evil Dead 2 instead of something unpopular?
This might be more of a headscratcher for people who don't watch Let's Plays, but why did the Bart's Nightmare episode bomb so badly? It doesn't seem as bad as it's made out to be. In fact, it's kind of funny to watch someone get so frustrated at a game that they eventually just give up on it.
Obviously there's Critical Backlash, but Doug himself said he didn't move with the times and didn't want to miss a deadline so rushed it before his holiday. I just like that we got the James And The Giant Peach review from it.
Why does the Nostalgia Critic hate the bat credit card so much? I don't get the joke.
Because, to him, it was the death knell for 'serious' Batman. If it helps, Doug thinks the joke is massively overrated.
This troper is curious about the executive characters (played by Rob and Malcolm). The one played by Malcolm, why does he still show up even after it's been revealed that he is "Willy Wonka" in disguise? He shows up again as the executive without any explanation. It's like the Willy Wonka thing never happened. The continuity is weird.
not that weird, Black Willy Wonka seems like the type to have two personas, and Doug in Lorax commentary word of gayed them.